A multinational cohort study of in-center daily hemodialysis and patient survival

Kidney International

Volumn 83, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 300-307

  Suri, Rita S ^a   Lindsay, Robert M ^a   Bieber, Brian A ^b   Pisoni, Ronald L ^b   Garg, Amit X ^a,c   Austin, Peter C ^d,e   Moist, Louise M ^a   Robinson, Bruce M ^b   Gillespie, Brenda W ^f   Couchoud, Cecile G ^g   Galland, Roula ^h   Lacson Jr , Eduardo K ⁱ   Zimmerman, Deborah L ^j   Li, Yun ^b   Nesrallah, Gihad E ^a,c,k  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b ARBOR RESEARCH COLLABORATIVE FOR HEALTH   (United States)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EVALUATIVE SCIENCES   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^g Agence de la Biomedecine   (France)

^h Centre Associatif Lyonnais de Dialyse   (France)

ⁱ FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE NORTH AMERICA   (United States)

^j UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^k HUMBER RIVER REGIONAL HOSPITAL   (Canada)

more..

Author keywords

clinical nephrology; daily hemodialysis; dialysis; end stage renal disease; mortality

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMORBIDITY; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE DURATION; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEMODIALYSIS; HUMAN; KIDNEY FAILURE; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MORTALITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RACE DIFFERENCE; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SURVIVAL RATE; TREATMENT DURATION; VASCULAR ACCESS;

EID: 84873414237     PISSN: 00852538     EISSN: 15231755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2012.329     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Foley RN, Collins AJ. End-stage renal disease in the United States: an update from the United States Renal Data System. J Am Soc Nephrol 2007; 18: 2644-2648.
2. Rayner HC, Pisoni RL, Bommer J et al. Mortality and hospitalization in haemodialysis patients in five European countries: results from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004; 19: 108-120.
3. Eknoyan G, Beck GJ, Cheung AK et al. Effect of dialysis dose and membrane flux in maintenance hemodialysis. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 2010-2019.
4. Suri RS, Nesrallah GE, Mainra R et al. Daily hemodialysis: A systematic review. Clin J Am Society Nephrol 2006; 1: 33-42.
5. Suri RS, Garg AX, Chertow GM et al. Frequent Hemodialysis Network (FHN) randomized trials: study design. Kidney Int 2007; 71: 349-359.
6. The FHN Trial Group. In-center hemodialysis six times per week versus three times per week. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 2287-2300.
7. Hogan M. Facing recruitment challenges, frequent hemodialysis network lowers enrollment target. Nephrol Times 2009; 2: 8-9.
8. Kliger AS. High-frequency hemodialysis: rationale for randomized clinical trials. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2007; 2: 390-392.
9. Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL et al. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1725-1730.
10. Jaar BG, Coresh J, Plantiga LC et al. Comparing the risk for death with peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis in a national cohort of patients with chronic kidney disease. Ann Intern Med 2005; 143: 174-183.
11. Weinhandl ED, Foley RN, Gilbertson DT et al. Propensity-matched mortality comparison of incident hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2010; 21: 499-506.
12. Nesrallah GE, Suri RS, Moist LM et al. International Quotidian Dialysis Registry: annual report 2009. Hemodial Int 2009; 13: 240-249.
13. Agar JW. Should the Medicare ESRD program fund daily and nocturnal hemodialysis? Nephrol News Issues 2007; 21: 48, 51, 54.
14. Lindsay RM. Daily hemodialysis: the time has come?-Pro. Am J Kidney Dis 2005; 45: 793-797.
15. Kjellstrand CM, Buoncristiani U, Ting G et al. Short daily haemodialysis: survival in 415 patients treated for 1006 patient-years. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008; 23: 3283-3289.
16. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41-55.
17. Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Anderson GM. A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med 2007; 26: 734-753.
18. D'Agostino RB Jr. Tutorial in biostatistics. Propensity socre methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 1998; 17: 2265-2281.
19. Goodkin DA, Bragg-Gresham JL, Koenig KG et al. Association of comorbid conditions and mortality in hemodialysis patients in Europe, Japan, and the United States: the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). J Am Soc Nephrol 2003; 14: 3270-3277.
20. Shariff SZ, Cuerden MS, Jain AK et al. The secret of immortal time bias in epidemiologic studies. J Am Soc Nephrol 2008; 19: 841-843.
21. Blagg CR, Kjellstrand CM, Ting GO et al. Comparison of survival between short-daily hemodialysis and conventional hemodialysis using the standardized mortality ratio. Hemodial Int 2006; 10: 371-374.
22. Johansen KL, Zhang R, Huang Y et al. Survival and hospitalization among patients using nocturnal and short daily compared to conventional hemodialysis: a USRDS study. Kidney Int 2009; 76: 984-990.
23. Hoenich NA, Levin R. Water treatment for dialysis: technology and clinical implications. Contrib Nephrol 2008; 161: 1-6.
24. Huang Z, Gao D, Letteri JJ et al. Blood-membrane interactions during dialysis. Semin Dial 2009; 22: 623-628.
25. McIntyre CW. Haemodialysis-induced myocardial stunning in chronic kidney disease: a new aspect of cardiovascular disease. Blood Purif 2010; 29: 105-110.
26. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Avorn J et al. Comparative mortality risk of anemia management practices in incident hemodialysis patients. JAMA 2010; 303: 857-864.
27. Nesrallah GE, Suri RS, Garg AX et al. The International Quotidian Hemodialysis Registry: rationale and methods. Hemodialysis Int 2004; 8: 349-353.
28. Nesrallah GE, Moist LM, Awaraji C et al. An international registry to compare quotidian dialysis regimens with conventional thrice-weekly hemodialysis: why, how, and potential pitfalls. Semin Dial 2004; 17: 131-135.
29. Pisoni RL, Gillespie BW, Dickinson DM et al. The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS): design, data elements, and methodology. Am J Kidney Dis 2004; 44(Suppl 2): 7-15.
30. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007; 370: 1453-1457.
31. Couchoud C, Stengel B, Landais P et al. The renal epidemiology and information network (REIN): a new registry for end-stage renal disease in France. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006; 21: 411-418.
32. Lacson E Jr, Wang W, Lazarus JM et al. Hemodialysis facility-based quality-of-care indicators and facility-specific patient outcomes. Am J Kidney Dis 2009; 54: 490-497.
33. General SAS Macros. http://mayoresearch.mayo.edu/biostats/sasmacros/cfm. Last accessed 28 July 2011.
34. Austin PC. Statistical criteria for selecting the optimal number of untreated subjects matched to each treated subject when using many-to-one matching on the propensity score. Am J Epidemiol 2010; 172: 1092-1097.
35. Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med 2009; 28: 3083-3107.
36. Mamdani M, Sykora K, Li P et al. Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 2. Assessing potential for confounding. BMJ 2005; 330: 960-962.
37. Austin PC. Assessing balance in measured baseline covariates when using many-to-one matching on the propensity-score. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2008; 17: 1218-1225.
38. Austin PC, Type I Error Rates, Coverage of Confidence Intervals, and Variance Estimation in Propensity-Score Matched Analyses. Int J Biostat 2009; 5: Article 13.
39. Therneau TM, Grambsch PM. Modeling Survival Data. Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, 2000.
40. Lin DY, Wei LJ, Ying Z. Checking the Cox model with cumulative sums of Martingale-based residuals. Biometrika 1993; 80: 557-572.
41. Altman DG, Bland JM. Interaction revisted: the difference between 2 estimates. BMJ 2003; 326: 219.