Twice against thrice-weekly hemodialysis (TATH): a multicenter nonrandomized trial.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Mabel Aoun, Serge Finianos, Chadia Beaini, Ghassan Sleilaty, Rita Ghaleb, Nicole Nourie, Sami Kais, Joseph El Hajal, Rachad Alameddine, Celine Boueri, Balsam El Ghoul, Sandy Zeidan, Hiba Azar, Antoine Dfouni, Jenny Hawi, Zeina Mechref, Valerie Hage, Dania Chelala
{"title":"Twice against thrice-weekly hemodialysis (TATH): a multicenter nonrandomized trial.","authors":"Mabel Aoun, Serge Finianos, Chadia Beaini, Ghassan Sleilaty, Rita Ghaleb, Nicole Nourie, Sami Kais, Joseph El Hajal, Rachad Alameddine, Celine Boueri, Balsam El Ghoul, Sandy Zeidan, Hiba Azar, Antoine Dfouni, Jenny Hawi, Zeina Mechref, Valerie Hage, Dania Chelala","doi":"10.1186/s12882-025-04105-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal frequency of maintenance hemodialysis remains a subject of debate. In many countries, twice-weekly hemodialysis is still commonly practiced. This trial aimed to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing twice-weekly versus thrice-weekly hemodialysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized trial included incident adult patients, with chronic kidney disease stage 5, initiating hemodialysis between January 2018 and August 2021. Patients were allocated to either a twice-weekly or thrice-weekly regimen, and monitored at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. This trial was terminated before reaching the required sample size due to the COVID-19 pandemic and economic factors. Recruitment achieved 25% of the projected number. Missing baseline factors were imputed using multiple imputation algorithms, then entered in a logistic regression model to estimate propensity scores. The primary outcome was two-year survival analyzed using a Cox regression survival model adjusted for propensity scores and baseline residual urine output. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization rates, uncontrolled hypertension and cumulative erythropoietin dose at two years, analyzed using regression models adjusted for propensity scores and baseline residual urine output. All analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 132 patients on thrice-weekly hemodialysis and 71 on twice-weekly hemodialysis were included. The mean age was 67 ± 15 years and the median eGFR at dialysis initiation was 6 (4,8) mL/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup>. At one year, patients in the twice-weekly group had greater residual urine output. At two years, there was no significant difference in survival (HR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.37, 1.90), hospitalization rates (P = 0.515) or uncontrolled hypertension (P = 0.442). The twice-weekly group showed a trend toward higher erythropoietin requirements (P = 0.08). Serum potassium levels and the number of antihypertensive medications were greater in the twice-weekly group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients on twice-weekly hemodialysis showed comparable overall survival at two years to those on thrice-weekly hemodialysis. While a twice-weekly regimen may be a viable option during the first year of dialysis, especially in low-resource settings, it carries potential risks that necessitate careful monitoring after the first year.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on January 16, 2018 (Identifier NCT03415776).</p>","PeriodicalId":9089,"journal":{"name":"BMC Nephrology","volume":"26 1","pages":"176"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11972488/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Nephrology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-025-04105-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The optimal frequency of maintenance hemodialysis remains a subject of debate. In many countries, twice-weekly hemodialysis is still commonly practiced. This trial aimed to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing twice-weekly versus thrice-weekly hemodialysis.

Methods: This prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized trial included incident adult patients, with chronic kidney disease stage 5, initiating hemodialysis between January 2018 and August 2021. Patients were allocated to either a twice-weekly or thrice-weekly regimen, and monitored at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. This trial was terminated before reaching the required sample size due to the COVID-19 pandemic and economic factors. Recruitment achieved 25% of the projected number. Missing baseline factors were imputed using multiple imputation algorithms, then entered in a logistic regression model to estimate propensity scores. The primary outcome was two-year survival analyzed using a Cox regression survival model adjusted for propensity scores and baseline residual urine output. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization rates, uncontrolled hypertension and cumulative erythropoietin dose at two years, analyzed using regression models adjusted for propensity scores and baseline residual urine output. All analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis.

Results: A total of 132 patients on thrice-weekly hemodialysis and 71 on twice-weekly hemodialysis were included. The mean age was 67 ± 15 years and the median eGFR at dialysis initiation was 6 (4,8) mL/min/1.73 m2. At one year, patients in the twice-weekly group had greater residual urine output. At two years, there was no significant difference in survival (HR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.37, 1.90), hospitalization rates (P = 0.515) or uncontrolled hypertension (P = 0.442). The twice-weekly group showed a trend toward higher erythropoietin requirements (P = 0.08). Serum potassium levels and the number of antihypertensive medications were greater in the twice-weekly group.

Conclusions: Patients on twice-weekly hemodialysis showed comparable overall survival at two years to those on thrice-weekly hemodialysis. While a twice-weekly regimen may be a viable option during the first year of dialysis, especially in low-resource settings, it carries potential risks that necessitate careful monitoring after the first year.

Trial registration: The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on January 16, 2018 (Identifier NCT03415776).

每周两次与每周三次血液透析(TATH):一项多中心非随机试验。
背景:维持性血液透析的最佳频率仍然是一个有争议的话题。在许多国家,每周两次的血液透析仍然是普遍做法。该试验旨在比较每周进行两次血液透析和每周进行三次血液透析的患者的结果。方法:这项前瞻性、多中心、非随机试验纳入了2018年1月至2021年8月期间开始进行血液透析的慢性肾脏疾病5期成年患者。患者被分配到每周两次或每周三次的方案中,并在1、3、6、12和24个月时进行监测。由于COVID-19大流行和经济因素,该试验在达到所需样本量之前终止。招聘人数达到了预计人数的25%。使用多种输入算法输入缺失的基线因素,然后输入逻辑回归模型来估计倾向得分。主要终点是两年生存率,使用Cox回归生存模型对倾向评分和基线剩余尿量进行调整。次要结局包括住院率、未控制的高血压和两年内的累积促红细胞生成素剂量,使用校正倾向评分和基线剩余尿量的回归模型进行分析。所有分析均以意向治疗为基础进行。结果:共纳入每周3次血液透析患者132例,每周2次血液透析患者71例。平均年龄为67±15岁,透析开始时的中位eGFR为6 (4,8)mL/min/1.73 m2。一年后,每周两次的患者剩余尿量更大。两年时,两组患者的生存率无显著差异(HR = 0.84;95% CI: 0.37, 1.90)、住院率(P = 0.515)或未控制的高血压(P = 0.442)。每周两次的组有红细胞生成素需用量增高的趋势(P = 0.08)。血清钾水平和抗高血压药物的数量在每周两次的组中更高。结论:每周进行两次血液透析的患者在两年的总生存率与每周进行三次血液透析的患者相当。虽然在透析治疗的第一年,每周两次的治疗方案可能是一个可行的选择,特别是在资源匮乏的环境中,但它具有潜在的风险,需要在第一年之后进行仔细的监测。试验注册:该试验于2018年1月16日在ClinicalTrials.gov上注册(标识符NCT03415776)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Nephrology
BMC Nephrology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
375
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Nephrology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of kidney and associated disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信