Optimal start in dialysis shows increased survival in patients with chronic kidney disease

PLoS One. 2019 Jul 30;14(7):e0219037. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219037. eCollection 2019.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the survival among patients with chronic kidney disease who had optimal starts of renal replacement therapy, dialysis or hemodialysis, with patients who had suboptimal starts.

Methods: A retrospective cohort consisting of >18 year-old patients who started renal replacement therapy, using peritoneal dialysis or hemodialysis, in any public hospital or associated center of the Andalusian Public Health System, between the 1st of January of 2006 and the 15th of March of 2017. The optimal start was defined when all the following criteria were met: a planned dialysis start, a minimum of six-month follow-up by a nephrologist, and a first dialysis method coinciding with the one registered at 90 days. The information was obtained from the registry of the Information System of the Transplant Autonomic Coordination of Andalusia.

Results: A total of 10,692 patients were studied. 4,377 (40.9%) of these patients died. A total of 4,937 patients (46.17%) achieved optimal starts of renal replacement therapy and showed higher survival rates (HR 0.669; 95% CI 0.628-0.712) in the multivariate analysis of Cox regression model.

Conclusions: Patients with an optimal start of renal replacement therapy have a greater survival than those who had a non-optimal start. Therefore, the necessary measures should be encouraged to increase the optimal start of the patient in dialysis.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Cohort Studies
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Kaplan-Meier Estimate
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Proportional Hazards Models
  • Registries
  • Renal Dialysis / methods*
  • Renal Insufficiency, Chronic / mortality
  • Renal Insufficiency, Chronic / therapy*
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Spain / epidemiology
  • Time Factors

Grants and funding

The authors received no specific funding for this work. The Andalusian School of Public Health (Escuela Andaluza de Salud Pública), the institution responsible for the management and development of the project, received funding from Baxter. Baxter had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.