The outcomes of continuous ambulatory and automated peritoneal dialysis are similar

Kidney International

Volumn 76, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 97-107

  Mehrotra, Rajnish ^a,b,e   Chiu, Yi Wen ^a,c   Kalantar Zadeh, Kamyar ^a,b   Vonesh, Edward ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c KAOHSIUNG MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^d NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e LOS ANGELES BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Automated peritoneal dialysis; Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis; End stage renal disease; Mortality; Technique survival

Indexed keywords

ALBUMIN; HEMOGLOBIN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUTOMATED PERITONEAL DIALYSIS; AUTOMATION; CONTINUOUS AMBULATORY PERITONEAL DIALYSIS; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GLOMERULUS FILTRATION RATE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MORTALITY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PERITONEAL DIALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK REDUCTION; UNITED STATES; UREA NITROGEN BLOOD LEVEL;

ADULT; AGED; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; KIDNEY FAILURE, CHRONIC; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERITONEAL DIALYSIS; PERITONEAL DIALYSIS, CONTINUOUS AMBULATORY; PREVALENCE; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES;

EID: 67449164354     PISSN: 00852538     EISSN: 15231755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2009.94     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Mehrotra R, Kermah D, Fried L et al. Chronic peritoneal dialysis In the United States: declining despite utilization improving outcomes. J Am Soc Nephrol 2007; 18: 2781-2788.
2. Bender FH, Bernardini J, Piralno B. Prevention of infectious complications in peritoneal dialysis: best demonstrated practices. Kidney Int Suppl 2006; Suppl 103; S44-S54.
3. Mehrotra R. Changing patterns of peritoneal dialysis utilization in the United States. Perit Dial Int 2007; 27(Suppl 2): S51-S52.
4. National Kidney Foundation. NKF-DOQI clinical practice guidelines for peritoneal dialysis adequacy. Am J Kidney Dis 1997; 30: S69-S133.
5. Rabindranath KS, Adams J, Ali TZ et al. Automated vs continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2007; 22: 2991-2998.
6. Mehrotra R. Long term outcomes in automated peritoneal dialysis: similar or better than continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis? Perit Dial Int 2009; 29(Suppl 2): S111-S114.
7. Westra WM, Kopple JD, Krediet RT et al. Dietary protein requirements and dialysate protein losses in chronic peritoneal dialysis patients. Perit Dial Int 2007; 27: 192-195.
8. Mujais S, Story K. Peritoneal dialysis in the US: evaluation of outcomes in contemporary cohorts. Kidney Int Suppl 2006; Suppl 103: S21-S26.
9. Badve SV, Hawley CM, McDonald SP et al. Automated and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis have similar outcomes. Kidney Int 2008; 73: 480-488.
10. Sanchez AR, Madonla C, Rascon-Pacheco RA. Improved patient/technique survival and peritonitis rates in patients treated with automated peritoneal dialysis when compared to continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in a Mexican PD center. Kidney Int Suppl 2008; Suppl 108: S76-S80.
11. de Fijter CW, Oe LP, Nauta JJ et al. Clinical etficacy and morbidity associated with continuous cyclic compared with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Ann Intern Med 1994; 120: 264-271.
12. Bro S, Bjorner JB, Tofte-Jensen P et al. A prospective, randomized multlcenter study comparing APD and CAPD treatment. Perit Dial Int 1999; 19: 526-533.
13. Schaubel DE, Blake PG, Fenton SS. Effect of renal center characteristics on mortality and technique failure on peritoneal dialysis. Kidney Int 2001,'60: 1517-1524.
14. Huisman RM, Nieuwenhuizen MG, Th de Charro F. Patient-related and centre-related factors influencing technique survival of peritoneal dialysis In The Netherlands. Nephrol Dial Transpiant 2002; 17: 1655-1660.
15. Brimble KS, Walker M, Margetts PJ et al. Meta-analysis: peritoneal membrane transport, mortality, and technique failure in peritoneal dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2006; 17: 2591-2598.
16. Longenecker JC, Coresh J, Klag MJ et al. Validation of comorbid conditions on the end-stage renal disease medical evidence report: the CHOICE study. Choices for Healthy Outcomes in Caring for ESRD. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000; 11: 520-529.
17. van Manen JG, van Dijk PC, Stel VS et al. Confounding etfect of comorbidity in survival studies in patients on renal replacement therapy. Nephrol Dial Transpiant 2007; 22: 187-195.
18. United States Renal Data System. US Department of Public Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, NIH Publication: Bethesda, 2007.
19. Vonesh E, Schaubel DE, Hao W et al. Statistical methods for comparing mortality among ESRD patients: examples of regional/international variations. Kidney Int Suppl 2000; 54: S19-S27.
20. Holford TR. The analysis of rates and of survivorship using log-linear models. Biometrics 1980; 36: 299-305.
21. Allison PD. Survival Analysis Using the SAS System: A Practical Guide. SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, 1995.
22. Snyder JJ, Foley RN, Gilbertson DT et al. Body size and outcomes on peritoneal dialysis in the United States. Kidney Int 2003; 64: 1838-1844.
23. Vonesh EF, Snyder JJ, Foley RN et al. The differential Impact of risk factors on mortality in hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. Kidney Int 2004; 66: 2389-2401.
24. Zhang X, Loberiza FR, Klein JP et al. A SAS macro for estimation of direct adjusted survival curves based on a stratified Cox regression model. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2007; 88: 95-101.
25. Lee ET. Statistical Methods for Survival Data Analysis. Lifetime Learning Publications: Belmont, CA, 1980.