Long‐Term Outcome Analysis of Peritoneal Dialysis and Hemodialysis in Patients With End‐Stage Kidney Disease: A Real‐World Data Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite extensive research on peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD), understanding long-term outcomes between these modalities remains limited. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess the clinical outcomes of PD and HD in a real-world context. METHODS: Utilizing the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan, we studied patients who underwent dialysis from January 2006 to December 2017. Patients with a history of cancer, renal transplantation, age < 20 or > 84 years, or patients on PD who switched to HD within 3 months of starting the modality were excluded. They were categorized into three groups: HD-only (n = 59,751), PD-only (n = 3969), and PD-to-HD transition (n = 3196). Propensity score matching based on sex, age, and the Charlson comorbidity index was used to create comparable groups. Hazard ratios (HR) for clinical outcomes were calculated using the Cox regression model, comparing HD-only versus PD-only and the transition group outcomes. Follow-up continued until December 31, 2020. Finally, external validation was performed using the global TriNetX dataset. RESULTS: After 1:1 propensity score matching and multivariable adjustment, the HD-only group (n = 3969) exhibited significantly lower all-cause mortality and infection-related admissions compared to the PD-only group (n = 3969) (HRs 0.77 and 0.75, 95% CI: 0.72-0.83 and 0.70-0.80, respectively), with a survival advantage across most subgroups. Conversely, the PD-to-HD transition group (n = 2014) had worse hospitalization and major adverse cardiovascular event outcomes than those on PD-only (n = 2014) (HRs 1.83 and 1.22, 95% CIs: 1.71-1.97 and 1.10-1.36, respectively) but showed neutral mortality rates. A survival benefit emerged 2 years post-transition from PD to HD, with an HR of 0.62 (95% CI: 0.54-0.74). These findings were corroborated by the TriNetX data. CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that HD patients tend to have better clinical outcomes, including greater longevity, compared to PD patients. Thus, the choice of dialysis modality should be tailored to individual patient needs for optimal outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".