Castellano, Giuseppe

Abstract Background and Aims Although the choice of dialysis technique is based on several factors, patient survival is undoubtedly one of the most relevant. In a context where randomization to either peritoneal dialysis (PD) or hemodialysis (HD) proved to be extremely challenging, previous meta-analyses were greatly limited due to the inclusion of historical studies. Method We performed a systematic review by searching multiple databases up to April 22nd, 2022. We included studies meeting the following criteria: adult patients (>18 years) with end-stage kidney disease on dialysis; comparison of PD versus HD; reporting mortality data via intention-to-treat analysis; initiation of dialysis after 2000; patient classification by dialysis modality at 90 days post-initiation; and ≥50 patients per group (Figs 1 and 2). The primary outcome was the association between dialysis modality (PD vs HD) and mortality assessed via hazard ratios (HR) [Fig. 3]. Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore potential sources of heterogeneity, including sex, age, diabetes, dialysis vintage, geographical location, HD access, and study cohort inclusion period [Figs 4 and 5]. Results Database search yielded 5317 citations, from which, 27 observational studies met the eligibility criteria, including 1 033 362 incident dialysis patients [Figs 1 and 2]. The pooled mortality HR for PD versus HD was 1.01 (95% CI 0.93–1.10 [Fig. 3]). Heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 94%) and was largely explained by different baseline features of the included populations. A statistically significant subgroup effect was demonstrated for age (>65 vs.<65 years; P = 0.01), geographical location of the studies (Oceania vs. Europe vs. Asia vs. North America; P < 0.01), and HD vascular access (central venous catheter vs. arteriovenous fistula; P < 0.01, only one study included) [Figs 4 and 5]. Conclusion This meta-analysis suggests that overall PD and incentre HD likely carry equivalent survival benefits. However, differences were detected among subgroups based on age, geographic location, HD access type, but not on sex, diabetes status, dialysis vintage and study cohort inclusion period.

Abstract Background Although the choice of dialysis technique is based on several factors, patient survival is undoubtedly one of the most relevant. In a context where randomization to either peritoneal dialysis (PD) or hemodialysis (HD) proved to be extremely challenging, previous meta-analyses were greatly limited due to the inclusion of historical studies. Methods We performed a systematic review by searching multiple databases up to April 22nd, 2022. The primary outcome was the association between dialysis modality (PD vs HD) and mortality assessed via hazard ratios (HR). Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore potential sources of heterogeneity, including sex, age, diabetes, dialysis vintage, geographical location, HD access, and study cohort inclusion period. Results Database search yielded 5317 citations, from which, 27 observational studies met the eligibility criteria, including 1 033 362 incident dialysis patients. The pooled mortality HR for PD versus HD was 1.01 (95% CI 0.93–1.10). Heterogeneity was substantial ( I 2 = 94%) and was largely explained by different baseline features of the included populations. A statistically significant subgroup effect was demonstrated for age (> 65 vs.<65 years; p = 0.01), geographical location of the studies (Oceania vs. Europe vs. Asia vs. North America; p < 0.01), and HD vascular access (central venous catheter vs. arteriovenous fistula; p < 0.01, only one study included). Conclusions This meta-analysis suggests that overall PD and incentre HD likely carry equivalent survival benefits. However, differences were detected among subgroups based on age, geographic location, HD access type, but not on sex, diabetes status, dialysis vintage and study cohort inclusion period.