Patient Survival Comparisons Between Peritoneal Dialysis and Hemodialysis

The choice between hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) has been discussed for decades and outcomes have been compared inevitably between dialysis modalities. Many studies have been performed comparing costs of treatment, quality of life, and hospitalization and results have been variable. Most important and most controversial have been the studies that have attempted to compare patient survival on PD to that on HD. There is, however, still no final consensus on whether HD or PD treatment modality gives the best results. Consequently, both options have to be weighed in individual patients according to their specific needs, preferences, and clinical characteristics, with the aim of providing a patient-tailored kidney replacement therapy.</p

Patient Survival Comparisons Between Peritoneal Dialysis and Hemodialysis

The choice between hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) has been discussed for decades and outcomes have been compared inevitably between dialysis modalities. Many studies have been performed comparing costs of treatment, quality of life, and hospitalization and results have been variable. Most important and most controversial have been the studies that have attempted to compare patient survival on PD to that on HD. There is, however, still no final consensus on whether HD or PD treatment modality gives the best results. Consequently, both options have to be weighed in individual patients according to their specific needs, preferences, and clinical characteristics, with the aim of providing a patient-tailored kidney replacement therapy.</p

Pregnancy after living kidney donation, a systematic review of the available evidence, and a review of the current guidance

Understanding and communicating the risk of pregnancy complications post-living kidney donation is imperative as the majority of living kidney donors (LKD) are women of childbearing age. We aimed to identify all original research articles examining complications in post-donation pregnancies and compared the quality and consistency of related guidelines. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, society webpages, and guideline registries for English-language publications published up until December 18, 2020. Ninety-three articles were screened from which 16 studies were identified, with a total of 1399 post-donation pregnancies. The outcome of interest, post-donation pregnancy complications, was not calculable, and only a narrative synthesis of the evidence was possible. The absolute risk of pre-eclampsia increased from ~1%–3% pre-donation (lower than the general population) to ~4%–10% post-donation (comparable to the general population). The risks of adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes were no different between post-donation and pre-donation pregnancies. Guidelines and consensus statements were consistent in stating the need to inform LKDs of their post-donation pregnancy risk, however, the depth and scope of this guidance were variable. While the absolute risk of pregnancy complications remains low post-donation, a concerted effort is required to better identify and individualize risk in these women, such that consent to donation is truly informed

Pitfalls when comparing COVID-19-related outcomes across studies-lessons learnt from the ERACODA collaboration

Reported outcomes, such as incidence rates of mortality and intensive care unit admission, vary widely across epidemiological coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) studies, including in the nephrology field. This variation can in part be explained by differences in patient characteristics, but also methodological aspects must be considered. In this review, we reflect on the methodological factors that contribute to the observed variation in COVID-19-related outcomes and their risk factors that are identified in the various studies. We focus on issues that arose during the design and analysis phase of the European Renal Association COVID-19 Database (ERACODA), and use examples from recently published reports on COVID-19 to illustrate these issues

Changes in clinical indicators related to the transition from dialysis to kidney transplantation-data from the ERA-EDTA Registry

Background. Kidney transplantation should improve abnormalities that are common during dialysis treatment, like anaemia and mineral and bone disorder. However, its impact is incompletely understood. We therefore aimed to assess changes in clinical indicators after the transition from chronic dialysis to kidney transplantation. Methods. We used European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association Registry data and included adult dialysis patients for whom data on clinical indicators before and after transplantation (2005-15) were available. Linear mixed models were used to quantify the effect of transplantation and of time after transplantation for each indicator. Results. In total, 16 312 patients were included. The mean age at transplantation was 50.1 (standard deviation 14.2) years, 62.9% were male and 70.2% were on haemodialysis before transplantation. Total, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and triglycerides increased right after transplantation but decreased thereafter. All other indicators normalized or approached the target range soon after transplantation and these improvements were sustained for the first 4 years of follow-up. In patients with higher estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) levels (30-60 and >60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)), the improvement of haemoglobin, ferritin, ionized calcium, phosphate, parathyroid hormone, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, albumin and C-reactive protein levels was more pronounced than in patients with a lower eGFR ( Conclusions. Except for total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, all clinical indicators improved after transplantation. These improvements were related to eGFR. Nevertheless, values remained out of range in a considerable proportion of patients and anaemia and hyperparathyroidism were still common problems. Further research is needed to understand the complex relationship between eGFR and the different clinical indicators.Peer reviewe

Sex differences in COVID-19 mortality risk in patients on kidney function replacement therapy

Peer reviewe

Survival of patients treated with extended-hours haemodialysis in Europe : an analysis of the ERA-EDTA Registry

Background. Previous US studies have indicated that haemodialysis with >= 6-h sessions [extended-hours haemodialysis (EHD)] may improve patient survival. However, patient characteristics and treatment practices vary between the USA and Europe. We therefore investigated the effect of EHD three times weekly on survival compared with conventional haemodialysis (CHD) among European patients. Methods. We included patients who were treated with haemodialysis between 2010 and 2017 from eight countries providing data to the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association Registry. Haemodialysis session duration and frequency were recorded once every year or at every change of haemodialysis prescription and were categorized into three groups: CHD (three times weekly, 3.5-4h/treatment), EHD (three times weekly, >= 6h/treatment) or other. In the primary analyses we attributed death to the treatment at the time of death and in secondary analyses to EHD if ever initiated. We compared mortality risk for EHD to CHD with causal inference from marginal structural models, using Cox proportional hazards models weighted for the inverse probability of treatment and censoring and adjusted for potential confounders. Results. From a total of 142 460 patients, 1338 patients were ever treated with EHD (three times, 7.10.8h/week) and 89 819 patients were treated exclusively with CHD (three times, 3.9 +/- 0.2h/week). Crude mortality rates were 6.0 and 13.5/100 person-years. In the primary analyses, patients treated with EHD had an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.73 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-0.85] compared with patients treated with CHD. When we attributed all deaths to EHD after initiation, the HR for EHD was comparable to the primary analyses [HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.71-0.90)]. Conclusions. EHD is associated with better survival in European patients treated with haemodialysis three times weekly.Peer reviewe

The association of living donor source with patient and graft survival among kidney transplant recipients in the ERA-EDTA Registry - a retrospective study

In this study we aimed to compare patient and graft survival of kidney transplant recipients who received a kidney from a living-related donor (LRD) or living-unrelated donor (LUD). Adult patients in the ERA-EDTA Registry who received their first kidney transplant in 1998-2017 were included. Ten-year patient and graft survival were compared between LRD and LUD transplants using Cox regression analysis. In total, 14 370 patients received a kidney from a living donor. Of those, 9212 (64.1%) grafts were from a LRD, 5063 (35.2%) from a LUD and for 95 (0.7%), the donor type was unknown. Unadjusted five-year risks of death and graft failure (including death as event) were lower for LRD transplants than for LUD grafts: 4.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.7-4.6) and 10.8% (95% CI: 10.1-11.5) versus 6.5% (95% CI: 5.7-7.4) and 12.2% (95% CI: 11.2-13.3), respectively. However, after adjusting for potential confounders, associations disappeared with hazard ratios of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.87-1.13) for patient survival and 1.03 (95% CI: 0.94-1.14) for graft survival. Unadjusted risk of death-censored graft failure was similar, but after adjustment, it was higher for LUD transplants (1.19; 95% CI: 1.04-1.35). In conclusion, patient and graft survival of LRD and LUD kidney transplant recipients was similar, whereas death-censored graft failure was higher in LUD. These findings confirm the importance of both living kidney donor types.Peer reviewe

Factors influencing the decision to start renal replacement therapy: results of a survey among European nephrologists

Background: Little is known about the criteria nephrologists use in the decision of when to start renal replacement therapy (RRT) in early referred adult patients. We evaluated opinions of European nephrologists on the decision for when to start RRT. Study Design: European web-based survey. Predictors: Patient presentations described as uncomplicated patients, patients with unfavorable clinical and unfavorable social conditions, or patients with specific clinical, social, and logistical factors. Setting & Participants: Nephrologists from 11 European countries. Outcomes & Measurements: We studied opinions of European nephrologists about the influence of clinical, social, and logistical factors on decision making regarding when to start RRT, reflecting practices in place in 2009. Questions included target levels of kidney function at the start of RRT and factors accelerating or postponing RRT initiation. Using linear regression, we studied determinants of target estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at the start of RRT. Results: We received 433 completed surveys. The median target eGFR selected to start RRT in uncomplicated patients was 10.0 (25th-75th percentile, 8.0-10.0) mL/min/1.73 m(2). Level of excretory kidney function was considered the most important factor in decision making regarding uncomplicated patients (selected by 54% of respondents); in patients with unfavorable clinical versus social conditions, this factor was selected by 24% versus 32%, respectively. Acute clinical factors such as life-threatening hyperkalemia refractory to medical therapy (100%) and uremic pericarditis (98%) elicited a preference for an immediate start, whereas patient preference (69%) and vascular dementia (66%) postponed the start. Higher target eGFRs were reported by respondents from high-versus low-RRT-incidence countries (10.4 [95% CI, 9.9-10.9] vs 9.1 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) and from for-profit versus not-for-profit centers (10.1 [95% CI, 9.5-10.7] vs 9.5 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). Limitations: We were unable to calculate the exact response rate and examined opinions rather than practice for 433 nephrologists. Conclusions: Only for uncomplicated patients did half the nephrologists consider excretory kidney function as the most important factor. Future studies should assess the weight of each factor affecting decision making. Am J Kidney Dis. 60(6): 940-948. (C) 2012 by the National Kidney Foundation, In