血管通路类型对腹膜透析患者过渡到血液透析临床结果的影响:一项ANZDATA研究。

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Clinical Kidney Journal Pub Date : 2025-01-25 eCollection Date: 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1093/ckj/sfaf025
Hicham I Cheikh Hassan, Karumathil Murali, Jenny H C Chen, Judy Mullan
{"title":"血管通路类型对腹膜透析患者过渡到血液透析临床结果的影响:一项ANZDATA研究。","authors":"Hicham I Cheikh Hassan, Karumathil Murali, Jenny H C Chen, Judy Mullan","doi":"10.1093/ckj/sfaf025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Type of vascular access used for haemodialysis is associated with long-term outcomes. However, the effect of access on haemodialysis transfer for peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has not been fully explored.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study was performed in incident adult PD patients from the Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry who transferred to haemodialysis between 2004 and 2022. Associations between vascular access on transfer [central venous catheter (CVC) or arterio-venous access (AVA)] and clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, kidney transplantation and return to PD) were compared using Cox proportional hazards analysis and competing risk models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 6824 patients, 65% used a CVC on transfer and 35% an AVA. Variability of access type at transfer between centres was high (range 13%-98% for CVC). AVA transfer was associated with a longer PD vintage (1.6 versus 1.2 years, <i>P </i>< .001) and inadequate PD as a cause of transfer (29% versus 15%, <i>P </i>< .001). All-cause mortality was lower for AVA transfer compared with a CVC [hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.77]. The risk was lowest for infection-related mortality (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45-0.77) Kidney transplantation was more likely in AVA transfer compared with a CVC (HR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05-1.33), but return to PD was less likely (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59-0.71). Results remained consistent in the competing risk analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients who transferred with an AVA, compared with a CVC, showed better survival and kidney transplantation rates, but were less likely to return to PD.</p>","PeriodicalId":10435,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Kidney Journal","volume":"18 3","pages":"sfaf025"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11883222/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of type of vascular access on clinical outcomes in peritoneal dialysis patients transitioning to haemodialysis: an ANZDATA study.\",\"authors\":\"Hicham I Cheikh Hassan, Karumathil Murali, Jenny H C Chen, Judy Mullan\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ckj/sfaf025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Type of vascular access used for haemodialysis is associated with long-term outcomes. However, the effect of access on haemodialysis transfer for peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has not been fully explored.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study was performed in incident adult PD patients from the Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry who transferred to haemodialysis between 2004 and 2022. Associations between vascular access on transfer [central venous catheter (CVC) or arterio-venous access (AVA)] and clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, kidney transplantation and return to PD) were compared using Cox proportional hazards analysis and competing risk models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 6824 patients, 65% used a CVC on transfer and 35% an AVA. Variability of access type at transfer between centres was high (range 13%-98% for CVC). AVA transfer was associated with a longer PD vintage (1.6 versus 1.2 years, <i>P </i>< .001) and inadequate PD as a cause of transfer (29% versus 15%, <i>P </i>< .001). All-cause mortality was lower for AVA transfer compared with a CVC [hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.77]. The risk was lowest for infection-related mortality (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45-0.77) Kidney transplantation was more likely in AVA transfer compared with a CVC (HR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05-1.33), but return to PD was less likely (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59-0.71). Results remained consistent in the competing risk analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients who transferred with an AVA, compared with a CVC, showed better survival and kidney transplantation rates, but were less likely to return to PD.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10435,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Kidney Journal\",\"volume\":\"18 3\",\"pages\":\"sfaf025\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11883222/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Kidney Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfaf025\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Kidney Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfaf025","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:用于血液透析的血管通路类型与长期预后相关。然而,通路对腹膜透析(PD)患者血液透析转移的影响尚未得到充分探讨。方法:一项回顾性队列研究对来自澳大利亚和新西兰透析和移植(ANZDATA)登记处的2004年至2022年间转入血液透析的成年PD患者进行了回顾性队列研究。使用Cox比例风险分析和竞争风险模型比较了移植血管通路[中心静脉导管(CVC)或动静脉通路(AVA)]与临床结果(全因死亡率、病因特异性死亡率、肾移植和复发)之间的关系。结果:在6824例患者中,65%的患者在移植时使用CVC, 35%的患者使用AVA。中心间转移通道类型的可变性很高(CVC的范围为13%-98%)。结论:与CVC相比,AVA转移患者的生存期和肾移植率更高,但复发PD的可能性更小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of type of vascular access on clinical outcomes in peritoneal dialysis patients transitioning to haemodialysis: an ANZDATA study.

Background: Type of vascular access used for haemodialysis is associated with long-term outcomes. However, the effect of access on haemodialysis transfer for peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has not been fully explored.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed in incident adult PD patients from the Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry who transferred to haemodialysis between 2004 and 2022. Associations between vascular access on transfer [central venous catheter (CVC) or arterio-venous access (AVA)] and clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, kidney transplantation and return to PD) were compared using Cox proportional hazards analysis and competing risk models.

Results: Of 6824 patients, 65% used a CVC on transfer and 35% an AVA. Variability of access type at transfer between centres was high (range 13%-98% for CVC). AVA transfer was associated with a longer PD vintage (1.6 versus 1.2 years, < .001) and inadequate PD as a cause of transfer (29% versus 15%, < .001). All-cause mortality was lower for AVA transfer compared with a CVC [hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.77]. The risk was lowest for infection-related mortality (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45-0.77) Kidney transplantation was more likely in AVA transfer compared with a CVC (HR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05-1.33), but return to PD was less likely (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59-0.71). Results remained consistent in the competing risk analysis.

Conclusions: Patients who transferred with an AVA, compared with a CVC, showed better survival and kidney transplantation rates, but were less likely to return to PD.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Kidney Journal
Clinical Kidney Journal Medicine-Transplantation
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
10.90%
发文量
242
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: About the Journal Clinical Kidney Journal: Clinical and Translational Nephrology (ckj), an official journal of the ERA-EDTA (European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association), is a fully open access, online only journal publishing bimonthly. The journal is an essential educational and training resource integrating clinical, translational and educational research into clinical practice. ckj aims to contribute to a translational research culture among nephrologists and kidney pathologists that helps close the gap between basic researchers and practicing clinicians and promote sorely needed innovation in the Nephrology field. All research articles in this journal have undergone peer review.
×
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