4.6 Article

Age and anemia management: relationship of hemoglobin levels with mortality might differ between elderly and nonelderly hemodialysis patients

期刊

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
卷 29, 期 12, 页码 2316-2326

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfu272

关键词

aged population; anemia management; individualized therapy; mortality

资金

  1. Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Co., Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The elderly hemodialyzed population is growing. However, little is known about the relationship between hemoglobin level and survival according to age. We investigated the effect of age on the relationship between hemoglobin and survival within the Japan Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) cohort. We enrolled the entire Japan DOPPS phases 3 and 4 population. Patients were divided by the age of 75 years into two groups. Cox's proportional hazard model was used with hemoglobin at every 4 months treated as a time-dependent variable. The interaction of age and hemoglobin was analyzed. We included 3341 patients in the analyses. The primary outcome occurred in 567 patients during the median follow-up of 2.64 years. Hemoglobin of entire population was 10.3 +/- 1.3 g/dL. The median of epoetin dose was 3000 IU/week. Interaction was found between ages stratified by the age of 75 years and hemoglobin values (P = 0.045) with use of Cox's proportional hazard model. The nonelderly population had poorer prognosis with hemoglobin < 10 g/dL, while elderly population only with hemoglobin < 9 g/dL. For both hemoglobin strata < 9, a parts per thousand yen9 and < 10 g/dL, interactions between age and hemoglobin were significant. Subgroup analysis indicated that interaction between age and Hb levels was observed only in the nondiabetic nephropathy group. Several sensitivity analyses demonstrated a similar trend with the original analyses and reinforced the robustness. The elderly population might tolerate low hemoglobin levels. Our findings open the way for further investigation of individualized anemia management.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据