Propensity Score Matched Mortality Comparisons of Peritoneal and In-centre Haemodialysis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal Nephrol Dial Transplant

Publisher Oxford University Press

Specialties General Surgery
Nephrology

Date 2020 Jan 26

PMID 31981353

Citations 16

Authors

Mohamed E Elsayed

Adam D Morris

Xia Li

Leonard D Browne

Austin G Stack

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Accurate comparisons of haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) survival based on observational studies are difficult due to substantial residual confounding that arises from imbalances between treatments. Propensity score matching (PSM) comparisons confer additional advantages over conventional methods of adjustment by further reducing selection bias between treatments. We conducted a systematic review of studies that compared mortality between in-centre HD with PD using a PSM-based approach.

Methods: A sensitive search strategy identified all citations in the PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE databases from inception through November 2018. Pooled PD versus HD mortality hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated through random-effects meta-analysis. A subsequent meta-regression explored factors to account for between-study variation.

Results: The systematic review yielded 214 citations with 17 cohort studies and 113 578 PSM incident dialysis patients. Cohort periods spanned the period 1993-2014. The pooled HR for PD versus HD was 1.06 (95% CI 0.99-1.14). There was considerable variation by country, however, mortality risks for PD versus HD remained virtually unchanged when stratified by geographical region with HRs of 1.04 (95% CI 0.94-1.15), 1.14 (95% CI 0.99-1.32) and 0.98 (0.87-1.10) for European, Asian and American cohorts, respectively. Subgroup meta-analyses revealed similar risks for patients with diabetes [HR 1.09 (95% CI 0.98-1.21)] and without diabetes [HR 0.99 (95% CI 0.90-1.09)]. Heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 87%) and was largely accounted for by differences in cohort period, study type and country of origin. Together these factors explained a substantial degree of between-studies variance (R2 = 90.6%).

Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that PD and in-centre HD carry equivalent survival benefits. Reported differences in survival between treatments largely reflect a combination of factors that are unrelated to clinical efficacy.

Citing Articles

Assisted peritoneal dialysis compared to in-centre hemodialysis - an observational study of outcomes from the Swedish Renal Registry.

Rydell H, Segelmark M, Clyne N BMC Nephrol. 2024; 25(1):349.

PMID: 39402451 PMC: 11475596. DOI: 10.1186/s12882-024-03799-1.

Selection of dialysis methods for end-stage kidney disease patients with diabetes.

Hu Y, Liu Y, Meng L, Zhang Y, Cui W World J Diabetes. 2024; 15(9):1862-1873.

PMID: 39280188 PMC: 11372645. DOI: 10.4239/wjd.v15.i9.1862.

Silent Hemoperitoneum Unveils Advanced Cancer.

Yen C, Chang W, Chang C Cureus. 2024; 16(7):e64494.

PMID: 39139321 PMC: 11319834. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.64494.

Peritoneal dialysis discontinuation: to the root of the problem.

Piarulli P, Vizzardi V, Alberici F, Riva H, Aramini M, Regusci L J Nephrol. 2023; 36(7):1763-1776.

PMID: 37747660 PMC: 10543152. DOI: 10.1007/s40620-023-01759-w.

Narrative Review of Glycemic Management in People With Diabetes on Peritoneal Dialysis.

Wijewickrama P, Williams J, Bain S, Dasgupta I, Chowdhury T, Wahba M Kidney Int Rep. 2023; 8(4):700-714.

PMID: 37069983 PMC: 10105084. DOI: 10.1016/j.ekir.2023.01.040.

References

Waldum-Grevbo B, Leivestad T, Reisaeter A, Os I . Impact of initial dialysis modality on mortality: a propensity-matched study. BMC Nephrol. 2015; 16:179. PMC: 4628291. DOI: 10.1186/s12882-015-0175-5. View

Austin P . The use of propensity score methods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments. Stat Med. 2013; 33(7):1242-58. PMC: 4285179. DOI: 10.1002/sim.5984. View

Hill J, Reiter J . Interval estimation for treatment effects using propensity score matching. Stat Med. 2005; 25(13):2230-56. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2277. View

Weinhandl E, Foley R, Gilbertson D, Arneson T, Snyder J, Collins A . Propensity-matched mortality comparison of incident hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010; 21(3):499-506. PMC: 2831857. DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2009060635. View

Austin P . A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Stat Med. 2007; 27(12):2037-49. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3150. View

Wang I, Liang W, Lin C, Liu Y, Chang C, Yen T . Impact of dialysis modality on the survival of patients with end-stage renal disease and prior stroke. Int Urol Nephrol. 2015; 48(1):139-47. DOI: 10.1007/s11255-015-1157-z. View

Schaefer F, Borzych-Duzalka D, Azocar M, Munarriz R, Sever L, Aksu N . Impact of global economic disparities on practices and outcomes of chronic peritoneal dialysis in children: insights from the International Pediatric Peritoneal Dialysis Network Registry. Perit Dial Int. 2012; 32(4):399-409. PMC: 3524840. DOI: 10.3747/pdi.2012.00126. View

Wang J, Donnan P . Propensity score methods in drug safety studies: practice, strengths and limitations. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2002; 10(4):341-4. DOI: 10.1002/pds.656. View

Wakasugi M, Kazama J, Narita I . Mortality trends among Japanese dialysis patients, 1988-2013: a joinpoint regression analysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2016; 31(9):1501-7. DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfw249. View

10.

Robinson B, Port F . International hemodialysis patient outcomes comparisons revisited: the role of practice patterns and other factors. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009; 4 Suppl 1:S12-7. DOI: 10.2215/CJN.04720709. View

11.

Thiery A, Severac F, Hannedouche T, Couchoud C, Do V, Tiple A . Survival advantage of planned haemodialysis over peritoneal dialysis: a cohort study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2018; 33(8):1411-1419. DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfy007. View

12.

Schaubel D, Blake P, Fenton S . Effect of renal center characteristics on mortality and technique failure on peritoneal dialysis. Kidney Int. 2001; 60(4):1517-24. DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2001.00969.x. View

13.

Martens E, Pestman W, de Boer A, Belitser S, Klungel O . Systematic differences in treatment effect estimates between propensity score methods and logistic regression. Int J Epidemiol. 2008; 37(5):1142-7. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyn079. View

14.

Rubin D . Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med. 1998; 127(8 Pt 2):757-63. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-127-8_part_2-199710151-00064. View

15.

Rubin D . The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials. Stat Med. 2006; 26(1):20-36. DOI: 10.1002/sim.2739. View

16.

Kim H, Park J, Han S, Yoo T, Park H, Kang S . The pattern of choosing dialysis modality and related mortality outcomes in Korea: a national population-based study. Korean J Intern Med. 2017; 32(4):699-710. PMC: 5511949. DOI: 10.3904/kjim.2017.141. View

17.

Mehrotra R, Khawar O, Duong U, Fried L, Norris K, Nissenson A . Ownership patterns of dialysis units and peritoneal dialysis in the United States: utilization and outcomes. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009; 54(2):289-98. DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2009.01.262. View

18.

Austin P . Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009; 28(25):3083-107. PMC: 3472075. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3697. View

19.

McMurry T, Hu Y, Blackstone E, Kozower B . Propensity scores: Methods, considerations, and applications in the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015; 150(1):14-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.03.057. View

20.

Quinn R, Hux J, Oliver M, Austin P, Tonelli M, Laupacis A . Selection bias explains apparent differential mortality between dialysis modalities. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011; 22(8):1534-42. PMC: 3148708. DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2010121232. View