The probability of receiving a kidney transplantation in end-stage kidney disease patients who are treated with haemodiafiltration or haemodialysis: a pooled individual participant data from four randomised controlled trials.
Journal
BMC nephrology
ISSN: 1471-2369
Titre abrégé: BMC Nephrol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967793
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 02 2021
25 02 2021
Historique:
received:
24
11
2020
accepted:
29
01
2021
entrez:
26
2
2021
pubmed:
27
2
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Due to a critical shortage of available kidney grafts, most patients with Stage 5 Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD5) require bridging dialysis support. It remains unclear whether treatment by different dialysis modalities changes the selection and/or preparation of a potential transplant candidate. Therefore, we assessed whether the likelihood of receiving kidney transplant (both living or deceased kidney donors) differs between haemodialysis (HD) and online haemodiafiltration (HDF) in patients with CKD5D. Individual participant data from four randomised controlled trials comparing online HDF with HD were used. Information on kidney transplant was obtained during follow-up. The likelihood of receiving a kidney transplant was compared between HD and HDF, and evaluated across different subgroups: age, sex, diabetes, history of cardiovascular disease, albumin, dialysis vintage, fistula, and level of convection volume standardized to body surface area. Hazard ratios (HRs), with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), comparing the effect of online HDF versus HD on the likelihood of receiving a kidney transplant, were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models with a random effect for study. After a median follow-up of 2.5 years (Q1 to Q3: 1.9-3.0), 331 of the 1620 (20.4%) patients with CKD5D received a kidney transplant. This concerned 22% (n = 179) of patients who were treated with online HDF compared with 19% (n = 152) of patients who were treated with HD. No differences in the likelihood of undergoing a kidney transplant were found between the two dialysis modalities in both the crude analyse (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.86-1.33) and adjusted analysis for age, sex, diabetes, cardiovascular history, albumin, and creatinine (HR: 1.15, 95%-CI: 0.92-1.44). There was no evidence for a differential effect across subgroups based on patient- and disease-characteristics nor in different categories of convection volumes. Treatment with HD and HDF does not affect the selection and/or preparation of CKD5D patients for kidney transplant given that the likelihood of receiving a kidney transplant does not differ between the dialysis modalities. These finding persisted across a variety of subgroups differing in patient and disease characteristics and is not affected by the level of convection volume delivered during HDF treatment sessions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Due to a critical shortage of available kidney grafts, most patients with Stage 5 Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD5) require bridging dialysis support. It remains unclear whether treatment by different dialysis modalities changes the selection and/or preparation of a potential transplant candidate. Therefore, we assessed whether the likelihood of receiving kidney transplant (both living or deceased kidney donors) differs between haemodialysis (HD) and online haemodiafiltration (HDF) in patients with CKD5D.
METHODS
Individual participant data from four randomised controlled trials comparing online HDF with HD were used. Information on kidney transplant was obtained during follow-up. The likelihood of receiving a kidney transplant was compared between HD and HDF, and evaluated across different subgroups: age, sex, diabetes, history of cardiovascular disease, albumin, dialysis vintage, fistula, and level of convection volume standardized to body surface area. Hazard ratios (HRs), with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), comparing the effect of online HDF versus HD on the likelihood of receiving a kidney transplant, were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models with a random effect for study.
RESULTS
After a median follow-up of 2.5 years (Q1 to Q3: 1.9-3.0), 331 of the 1620 (20.4%) patients with CKD5D received a kidney transplant. This concerned 22% (n = 179) of patients who were treated with online HDF compared with 19% (n = 152) of patients who were treated with HD. No differences in the likelihood of undergoing a kidney transplant were found between the two dialysis modalities in both the crude analyse (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.86-1.33) and adjusted analysis for age, sex, diabetes, cardiovascular history, albumin, and creatinine (HR: 1.15, 95%-CI: 0.92-1.44). There was no evidence for a differential effect across subgroups based on patient- and disease-characteristics nor in different categories of convection volumes.
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment with HD and HDF does not affect the selection and/or preparation of CKD5D patients for kidney transplant given that the likelihood of receiving a kidney transplant does not differ between the dialysis modalities. These finding persisted across a variety of subgroups differing in patient and disease characteristics and is not affected by the level of convection volume delivered during HDF treatment sessions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33632160
doi: 10.1186/s12882-021-02265-6
pii: 10.1186/s12882-021-02265-6
pmc: PMC7905891
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
70Références
J Clin Nurs. 2016 Jan;25(1-2):92-8
pubmed: 26443674
Kidney Int. 1999 May;55(5):1952-60
pubmed: 10231459
J Nephrol. 2005 May-Jun;18(3):282-8
pubmed: 16013016
Am J Transplant. 2007;7(5 Pt 2):1404-11
pubmed: 17428288
Am J Kidney Dis. 2014 Jun;63(6):954-67
pubmed: 24434188
Kidney Int. 2005 Jun;67(6):2448-53
pubmed: 15882291
Transplant Proc. 2016 Oct;48(8):2601-2607
pubmed: 27788789
Am J Kidney Dis. 2016 Aug;68(2):247-255
pubmed: 26724836
Kidney Int. 2017 Jun;91(6):1495-1509
pubmed: 28318624
Transplant Proc. 2009 Apr;41(3):837-9
pubmed: 19376365
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013 Mar;28(3):542-50
pubmed: 23345621
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010 Oct;21(10):1798-807
pubmed: 20813866
Kidney Int. 2002 Oct;62(4):1423-30
pubmed: 12234315
Arch Intern Med. 2011 Jan 24;171(2):110-8
pubmed: 20876398
Lancet. 2012 Dec 15;380(9859):2095-128
pubmed: 23245604
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013 Jan;28(1):192-202
pubmed: 23229932
Transplant Proc. 1997 Aug;29(5):2428
pubmed: 9270795
Kidney Int. 2006 Jun;69(11):2087-93
pubmed: 16641921
Kidney Int. 1999 Apr;55(4):1553-9
pubmed: 10201022
Semin Dial. 2014 Mar;27(2):119-27
pubmed: 24738146
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012 Feb;7(2):332-41
pubmed: 22156753
BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008
pubmed: 28935701
Transpl Int. 2018 May;31(5):540-553
pubmed: 29383764
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013 Feb;24(3):487-97
pubmed: 23411788
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012 Jun;23(6):1087-96
pubmed: 22539829
Am J Kidney Dis. 2014 Jun;63(6):968-78
pubmed: 24685515
Clin Nephrol. 2009 Jul;72(1):62-8
pubmed: 19640389
J Am Soc Nephrol. 1999 Jan;10(1):154-9
pubmed: 9890321
JAMA. 2015 Apr 28;313(16):1657-65
pubmed: 25919529
Am J Kidney Dis. 1999 May;33(5):934-40
pubmed: 10213652
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012 Sep;27(9):3621-31
pubmed: 22555254
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2014 Feb;29(2):414-22
pubmed: 24235073
Transplantation. 2000 Apr 15;69(7):1414-9
pubmed: 10798764
Am J Kidney Dis. 1997 Apr;29(4):565-8
pubmed: 9100046
Transplantation. 1999 Aug 27;68(4):535-40
pubmed: 10480413
Nephrol Nurs J. 2018 Jul-Aug;45(4):349-355
pubmed: 30303645
Am J Kidney Dis. 2005 Sep;46(3):537-49
pubmed: 16129217
Transplantation. 2000 Feb 27;69(4):508-14
pubmed: 10708103
Transplant Proc. 2009 Mar;41(2):648-50
pubmed: 19328945
Eur J Med Res. 2007 Jan 31;12(1):26-33
pubmed: 17363355
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2016 Jun;31(6):978-84
pubmed: 26492924