Volume 59, Issue 2, Pages (February 2001)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Home care assistance and the utilization of peritoneal dialysis
Advertisements

A skeptical view of assisted home peritoneal dialysis
Volume 59, Issue 2, Pages (February 2001)
Improved patient/technique survival and peritonitis rates in patients treated with automated peritoneal dialysis when compared to continuous ambulatory.
Volume 55, Issue 4, Pages (April 1999)
Volume 62, Issue 3, Pages (September 2002)
Long-term evolution of cardiomyopathy in dialysis patients
Epoetin use and Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative hemoglobin targets in patients returning to dialysis with failed renal transplants  C.A. Solid,
Volume 69, Issue 5, Pages (March 2006)
Intensive hemodialysis—keeping the faith
Use of hemodialysis and hemoperfusion in poisoned patients
Iron status and iron supplementation in peritoneal dialysis patients
End-stage renal disease in developing countries
Role of diuretics in the preservation of residual renal function in patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis  James F. Medcalf, Kevin P.G.
Volume 64, Issue 6, Pages (December 2003)
Long-term follow-up of patients randomized to biocompatible or conventional peritoneal dialysis solutions show no difference in peritonitis or technique.
Confounding: What it is and how to deal with it
Volume 64, Pages S3-S12 (December 2003)
Incremental peritoneal dialysis: Effects on the choice of dialysis modality, residual renal function and adequacy  G. Viglino, L. Neri, S. Barbieri  Kidney.
Volume 62, Issue 3, Pages (September 2002)
Intensive hemodialysis—keeping the faith
The risk of hospitalization and modality failure with home dialysis
C-reactive protein and dialysis access
Fluid overload and residual renal function in peritoneal dialysis: the proof of the pudding is in the eating  Wim Van Biesen, Achim Jörres  Kidney International 
Long term outcome of patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney diseases receiving peritoneal dialysis  Sanjeev Kumar, Stanley L.-S. Fan, Martin.
Volume 73, Issue 4, Pages (February 2008)
Volume 63, Issue 2, Pages (February 2003)
Volume 80, Issue 9, Pages (November 2011)
Early mortality in dialysis and adequacy of predialysis renal care: the picture is more complex than we thought  Nicolas Rognant, Maurice Laville  Kidney.
Joseph W. Eschbach, John W. Adamson  Kidney International 
What really happens to people on long-term peritoneal dialysis?
Volume 65, Issue 2, Pages (February 2004)
Health-related quality of life predicts outcomes but is not affected by peritoneal clearance: The ADEMEX trial  Ramon Paniagua, Dante Amato, Edward Vonesh,
Late referral and modality choice in end-stage renal disease
Acute myocardial infarction in patients with end-stage renal disease
Body size and outcomes on peritoneal dialysis in the United States
Improved patient/technique survival and peritonitis rates in patients treated with automated peritoneal dialysis when compared to continuous ambulatory.
Blood pressure targets in hemodialysis patients
Manish M. Tanna, MD, Edward F. Vonesh, PhD, Stephen M. Korbet, MD 
Volume 69, Issue 3, Pages (February 2006)
Alternate-day dialysis may be needed for hemodialysis patients
Nephrology Crossword: Peritoneal Dialysis
Randomized controlled study of biocompatible peritoneal dialysis solutions: Effect on residual renal function  S.L.S. Fan, T. Pile, S. Punzalan, M.J.
Long-term evolution of cardiomyopathy in dialysis patients
Hepatitis C treatment in patients with kidney disease
Volume 85, Issue 1, Pages 3-4 (January 2014)
Volume 55, Issue 4, Pages (April 1999)
Volume 80, Issue 3, Pages (August 2011)
Volume 59, Issue 6, Pages (June 2001)
A skeptical view of assisted home peritoneal dialysis
Quality of life in peritoneal dialysis patients: Decline over time and association with clinical outcomes  Sr. Anne B. Bakewell, Rob M. Higgins, Mair.
Racial differences in survival of patients on dialysis
Epoetin use and Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative hemoglobin targets in patients returning to dialysis with failed renal transplants  C.A. Solid,
Organ transplantation goes to the movies
Does equal care give equal outcomes?
The Iranian model of living renal transplantation
Bradley A. Warady, Mwaffek Bashir, Lynn A. Donaldson 
Renal replacement therapy in Latin America
American Journal of Kidney Diseases
Volume 70, Issue 5, Pages (September 2006)
Douglas E. Schaubel, Howard I. Morrison, Stanley S.A. Fenton 
Volume 61, Issue 2, Pages (February 2002)
The International Pediatric Peritonitis Registry: Starting to walk
Antioxidant therapy in hemodialysis patients: a systematic review
Survival of propensity matched incident peritoneal and hemodialysis patients in a United States health care system  Victoria A. Kumar, Margo A. Sidell,
Mary B. Leonard, Lynn A. Donaldson, Martin Ho, Denis F. Geary 
E.F. Vonesh, J.J. Snyder, R.N. Foley, A.J. Collins 
Stephen Pastan, J. Michael Soucie, William M. McClellan 
Maristela Böhlke, PhD  American Journal of Kidney Diseases 
Volume 60, Issue 5, Pages (November 2001)
Presentation transcript:

Volume 59, Issue 2, Pages 754-763 (February 2001) Effect of cause and time of dropout on the residual GFR: A comparative analysis of the decline of GFR on dialysis  Madhukar Misra, Ed Vonesh, John C. Van Stone, Harold L. Moore, Barbara Prowant, Karl D. Nolph  Kidney International  Volume 59, Issue 2, Pages 754-763 (February 2001) DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2001.059002754.x Copyright © 2001 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Comparison of estimated starting GFR by therapy, cause of dropout, and time to dropout. Symbols are: (▵) peritoneal dialysis (PD); (•) hemodialysis (HD); dashed lines, PD transplant vs. HD transplant, P = 0.3567; solid lines, PD death vs. HD death, P = 0.7161. Kidney International 2001 59, 754-763DOI: (10.1046/j.1523-1755.2001.059002754.x) Copyright © 2001 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Comparison of percent decline in GFR per month by therapy, cause of dropout, and time to dropout. Symbols are: (▵) peritoneal dialysis (PD); (•) hemodialysis (HD); dashed lines, PD transplant vs. HD transplant, P = 0.7540; solid lines, PD death vs. HD death, P = 0.001. Kidney International 2001 59, 754-763DOI: (10.1046/j.1523-1755.2001.059002754.x) Copyright © 2001 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Comparison of estimated starting GFR by therapy, cause of dropout, and time to dropout. Symbols are: (▵) peritoneal dialysis (PD); (•) hemodialysis (HD); solid lines, PD censored vs. HD censored, P = 0.01. Kidney International 2001 59, 754-763DOI: (10.1046/j.1523-1755.2001.059002754.x) Copyright © 2001 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Comparison of percent decline in GFR per month by therapy, cause of dropout, and time to dropout. Symbols are: (▵) peritoneal dialysis (PD); (•) hemodialysis (HD); dashed lines, HD death vs. PD transfer, P = 0.01; solid lines, HD censored vs. PD censored, P = 0.094. Kidney International 2001 59, 754-763DOI: (10.1046/j.1523-1755.2001.059002754.x) Copyright © 2001 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 Observed and predicted GFR for those patients who died or changed modality within the first two years after the start of dialysis. The predicted GFR response profiles correspond to a patient having an average time to dropout of 12.2 months, which is the average dropout time among those patients who died or changed modality within 0 to 2 years following the start of dialysis. Symbols are: (□) observed HD; (solid line) predicted HD; (•) observed PD; (dashed line) predicted PD. Kidney International 2001 59, 754-763DOI: (10.1046/j.1523-1755.2001.059002754.x) Copyright © 2001 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

Figure 6 Observed and predicted GFR for those patients who died or changed modality two to four years after the start of dialysis. The predicted GFR response profiles correspond to a patient having an average time to dropout of 33.4 months, which is the average dropout time among those patients who died or changed modality within 2 to 4 years following the start of dialysis. Symbols are: (□) observed HD; (solid line) predicted HD; (•) observed PD; (dashed line) predicted PD. Kidney International 2001 59, 754-763DOI: (10.1046/j.1523-1755.2001.059002754.x) Copyright © 2001 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

Figure 7 Observed and predicted GFR for those patients who died or changed modality four or more years after the start of dialysis. The predicted GFR response profiles correspond to a patient having an average time to dropout of 66.3 months, which is the average dropout time among those patients who died or changed modality within four or more years following the start of dialysis. Symbols are: (□) observed HD; (solid line) predicted HD; (•) observed PD; (dashed line) predicted PD. Kidney International 2001 59, 754-763DOI: (10.1046/j.1523-1755.2001.059002754.x) Copyright © 2001 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

Figure 8 Observed and predicted GFR for those patients who received a transplant within the first two years after the start of dialysis. The predicted GFR response profiles correspond to a patient having an average time to dropout of 10.8 months, which is the average dropout time among those patients who received a transplant within 0 to 2 years following the start of dialysis. Symbols are: (□) observed HD; (solid line) predicted HD; (•) observed PD; (dashed line) predicted PD. Kidney International 2001 59, 754-763DOI: (10.1046/j.1523-1755.2001.059002754.x) Copyright © 2001 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions