RESUMEN
Considerable geographic variation exists in the relative use of hemodialysis (HD) vs peritoneal dialysis (PD). Studies comparing survival between these modalities have yielded conflicting results. Our aim was to compare the survival of Dutch HD and PD patients. We developed Cox regression models using 16 643 patients from the Dutch End-Stage Renal Disease Registry (RENINE) adjusting for age, gender, primary renal disease, center of dialysis, year of start of renal replacement therapy, and included several interaction terms. We assumed definite treatment assignment at day 91 and performed an intention-to-treat analysis, censoring for transplantation. To account for time dependency, we stratified the analysis into three time periods, >3-6, >6-15, and >15 months. For the first period, the mortality hazard ratio (HR) of PD compared with HD patients was 0.26 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-0.41) for 40-year-old non-diabetics, which increased with age and presence of diabetes to 0.95 (95% CI 0.64-1.39) for 70-year-old patients with diabetes as primary renal disease. The HRs of the second period were generally higher. After 15 months, the HR was 0.86 (95% CI 0.74-1.00) for 40-year-old non-diabetics and 1.42 (95% CI 1.23-1.65) for 70-year-old patients with diabetes as primary renal disease. We conclude that the survival advantage for Dutch PD compared with HD patients decreases over time, with age and in the presence of diabetes as primary disease.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiología , Diálisis Peritoneal/mortalidad , Diálisis Renal/mortalidad , Adulto , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Países Bajos/epidemiología , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Análisis de SupervivenciaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Several studies report an earlier return to work after minimal invasive kidney donation compared to open donor nephrectomy. However, this variation in outcome might be influenced by other factors than the surgical technique used, such as the advice given by the physician regarding return to work. In this study, we compare the absence from work after open (ODN), laparoscopic (LDN), and hand-assisted donor nephrectomy (HA) performed in the Netherlands, in relation to the advice given. METHODS: Questionnaires containing questions about return to work or return to daily activities were sent to 78 donors from three hospitals. In the HA and ODN hospitals, advice on full return to work was 3 months. In contrast, advice given in the LDN hospital was 6 weeks. RESULTS: After LDN, donors resumed their work after 6 weeks, 5 weeks faster compared to ODN (p = 0.002) and HA (p <0.001). Complete return to work occurred 9 weeks sooner in the LDN group compared to the ODN and HA groups (both p <0.001). In the unemployed group, there was no significant difference in length until full return to daily activities. CONCLUSION: Return to work is influenced by the advice on return to work given by the physician as well as the morbidity associated with the surgical approach.