首页> 外文期刊>Peritoneal dialysis international: Journal of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis >Comparison of outcomes on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis versus automated peritoneal dialysis: results from a USA database.
【24h】

Comparison of outcomes on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis versus automated peritoneal dialysis: results from a USA database.

机译:连续非卧床腹膜透析与自动腹膜透析的结果比较:来自美国数据库的结果。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) is being increasingly used as an alternative to continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). However, there has been concern regarding reduced sodium removal leading to hypertension and resulting in a faster decline in residual renal function (RRF). The objective of the present study was to compare patient and technique survival and other relevant parameters between patients treated with APD and patients treated with CAPD. METHODS: Data for incident patients were retrieved from the database of the Renal Research Institute, New York. Treatment modality was defined 90 days after the start of dialysis treatment. In addition to technique and patient survival, RRF, blood pressure, and laboratory parameters were also compared. RESULTS: 179 CAPD and 441 APD patients were studied. Mean as-treated survival was 1407 days [95% confidence interval (CI) 1211 - 1601] in CAPD patients and 1616 days (95% CI 1478 - 1764) in APD patients. Adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for mortality was 1.31 in CAPD compared to APD (95% CI 0.76 - 2.25, p = NS). Unadjusted as-treated technique survival was lower in CAPD compared to APD, with HR 2.84 (95% CI 1.65 - 4.88, p = 0.002); adjusted HR was 1.81 (95% CI 0.94 - 3.57, p = 0.08). Peritonitis rate was 0.3 episodes/patient-year for CAPD and APD; exit-site/tunnel infection rate was 0.1 and 0.3 episodes/patient-year for CAPD and APD respectively (p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Patient survival was not significantly different between APD and CAPD patients, whereas technique survival appeared to be higher in APD patients and could not be explained by differences in infectious complications. No difference in blood pressure control or decline in RRF was observed between the 2 modalities. Based on these results, APD appears to be an acceptable alternative to CAPD, although technique prescription should always follow individual judgment.
机译:背景与目的:自动化腹膜透析(APD)越来越多地被用作连续非卧床腹膜透析(CAPD)的替代方法。但是,人们担心钠的去除减少会导致高血压,并导致残余肾功能(RRF)更快下降。本研究的目的是比较接受APD治疗的患者和接受CAPD治疗的患者的患者和技术存活率以及其他相关参数。方法:从纽约州肾脏研究所的数据库中检索事件患者的数据。透析治疗开始后90天定义治疗方式。除了技术和患者生存率外,还对RRF,血压和实验室参数进行了比较。结果:对179名CAPD和441名APD患者进行了研究。 CAPD患者的平均治疗生存期为1407天[95%置信区间(CI)1211-1601],APD患者为1616天(95%CI 1478-1764)。与APD相比,CAPD的死亡率调整后危险比(HR)为1.31(95%CI 0.76-2.25,p = NS)。与APD相比,CAPD未经调整的治疗技术生存率较低,HR为2.84(95%CI 1.65-4.88,p = 0.002);调整后的HR为1.81(95%CI 0.94-3.57,p = 0.08)。 CAPD和APD的腹膜炎发生率为0.3例/患者年。 CAPD和APD的出院/隧道感染率分别为0.1发作/患者年0.3次/患者年(p = NS)。结论:APD和CAPD患者的存活率无显着差异,而APD患者的技术存活率似乎更高,并且不能通过感染并发症的差异来解释。两种方式之间未观察到血压控制差异或RRF下降。基于这些结果,尽管技术处方应始终遵循个人判断,但APD似乎可以替代CAPD。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号