1 / 24

Renal Medicine

Renal Medicine. A Comparison of APD vs CAPD on Patient Outcomes. Badve S, Hawley CM, Mudge DW, Rosman JB, Brown FG, Johnson DW. David Johnson Princess Alexandra Hospital Brisbane, Australia. ?. CAPD. APD. APD vs CAPD Use in Australia. Number. 43%. 41%. 39%. 33%. 27%. 22%. 14%.

iona
Download Presentation

Renal Medicine

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Renal Medicine A Comparison of APD vs CAPD on Patient Outcomes Badve S, Hawley CM, Mudge DW, Rosman JB, Brown FG, Johnson DW David Johnson Princess Alexandra Hospital Brisbane, Australia

  2. ? CAPD APD

  3. APD vs CAPD Use in Australia Number 43% 41% 39% 33% 27% 22% 14% 11% 7% 5%

  4. APD Use: USA vs Aust vs UK

  5. Traditional APD Indications • Enhance small solute clearances • Enhance ultrafiltration (esp high transport) • Social reasons • Employment • School • Care of elderly/debilitated patients • Mechanical problems • Hernias, leaks, back pain, body image • Reduce peritonitis rates

  6. N=139 Rabindranath NDT (In press)

  7. Ultrafiltration: APD vs CAPD N=25 P=NS CAPD APD Bro et al Perit Dial Int 19:526-33,1999

  8. QOL: APD vs CAPD Bro et al Perit Dial Int 19:526-33,1999

  9. RRF Loss: APD vs CAPD * p<0.05 n=36 * * Hufnagel et al Nephrol Dial Transplant 14:1224-8, 1999

  10. US Study Mujais and Story Kidney Int 70:S21-6, 2006

  11. USA

  12. Aim • To compare patient survival and death-censored technique survival in patients treated with APD vs CAPD using ANZDATA

  13. Methods • All ANZ patients starting PD between April 1, 1999 and March 31, 2004 • Complete follow-up • 1° outcomes death and death-censored technique failure • Survival time calculated from date of commencement of each PD episode to the date of death, transfer to hemodialysis, transplantation, loss of follow up, or March 31, 2004.

  14. Statistics • Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox proportional hazards model analyses • PD modality included as a time-dependent covariate • Analyses stratified according to initial or subsequent episodes of PD • Used a conditional risk set model for multiple failure data • Standard errors calculated using robust variance estimation for the correlated data, clustered according to the centre of initial treatment

  15. Baseline Characteristics

  16. Patient Survival N=4128 AHR 1.03 (95% CI 0.86-1.24) p=0.72 Badve et al Kidney Int (In press)

  17. Death-Censored Technique Survival N=4128 AHR 1.08 (95% CI 0.91-1.27) p=0.38 Badve et al Kidney Int (In press)

  18. Death-Censored Technique Survival after 1st Failure Occurrence Badve et al Kidney Int (In press)

  19. Propensity Score: Survival Model HR 95%CI P Unadjusted 0.92 0.77 – 1.09 0.336 Adjusted 1.03 0.86 – 1.24 0.723 Adjusted+PS 0.84 0.68 – 1.03 0.09 Badve et al Kidney Int (In press)

  20. PS: Death-Censored Technique Survival Model HR 95%CI P Unadjusted 1.09 0.92 – 1.30 0.319 Adjusted 1.08 0.91 – 1.27 0.381 Adjusted+PS 1.07 0.91 – 1.27 0.381 Badve et al Kidney Int (In press)

  21. Conclusions • APD results in similar patient survival and technique success rates compared to CAPD in 4,128 ANZ PD patients followed over 6,982 person-years • There is currently no strong clinical evidence, except for lifestyle considerations, for favouring APD over CAPD

More Related