Table 3.

Studies on the association between dialysis modality and mortality in elderly patients, published after 2000

Study (Reference)CohortEnrollment Period (Year)Elderly Patients (HD: PD) (n)Definition of Elderly (yr)Follow-up Duration HR (95% CI)SubgroupAnalysis
Heaf et al. (12)aDanish Terminal Uremia Register1990–1999No data≥56Maximum, 10 yr 0.85 (0.76 to 0.94)DMAdjustment of covariates
Winkelmayer et al. (10)Medicare and Medicaid participants in NJ 1991–19962503 (1966: 537)≥66Maximum, 1 yr 1.24 (1.09 to 1.41)Dialysis durationAdjustment of propensity score
Termorshuizen et al. (13)Netherlands Cooperative Study on the Adequacy of Dialysis1997–no data626 (466: 160)≥60Until September 20022.01 (1.09 to 2.92)bDM, dialysis durationAdjustment of covariates
Vonesh et al. (14)Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services1995–2000203,578 (186,934: 166,44)≥65Maximum, 3 yr 1.08 (0.92 to 1.24)bDM, comorbidityAdjustment of covariates
Jaar et al. (15)81 facilities in United States (CHOICE)1995–1998377 (no data)≥65Mean, 2.4 yrMultivariate: 1.66 (0.93 to 2.97); propensity: 1.67 (0.96 to 2.90)Adjustment of covariates; propensity-matched
Mircescu et al. (16)14 Romanian facilities1995–2001No data≥65Until April 20020.74 (0.41 to 1.08)bDM, comorbidityAdjustment of covariates
Liem et al. (17)Dutch ESRD registry (RENINE)1987–2002No data≥70Mean, 2.38 yr1.27 (1.02 to 1.52)bDM, dialysis durationAdjustment of covariates
Couchoud et al. (11)French REIN registry2002–20053512 (2880: 632)≥75Mean, 8.6 mo1.1 (0.9 to 1.3)DM, CHFAdjustment of covariates
Huang et al. (18)Taiwan Renal Registry1995–200232,255 (30,662: 13,60)≥56Maximum, 10 yr 1.65 (0.98 to 2.31)bDM, comorbidityAdjustment of covariates
Sanabria et al. (19)cDialysis Outcomes in Colombia2001–2003No data≥66Until December 2005Similar mortality (only figure)DMAdjustment of covariates
McDonald et al. (20)cANZDATA registry1991–2005No data≥60Until December 2005Difference (<1 yr and others) (only figure)DMAdjustment of covariates
Weinhandl et al. (21)cCenters for Medicare & Medicaid Services20034255 (no data)≥65Mean, 2.3 yr Difference (<1 yr and others) (only figure)Dialysis durationPropensity-matched
Mehrotra et al. (22)dUSRDS1996–2004332,552 (310,010: 22,542)≥65Until September 20071.16 (1.09 to 1.24)bDM, comorbidity, dialysis-starting timeMarginal structural model
Sens et al. (23)aPatients with CHF from French REIN Registry2002–20082306 (no data)≥75Until December 20081.46 (1.26 to 1.66)bDMAdjustment of covariates
van de Luijtgaarden et al. (24)ERA-EDTA Registry1998–20065993 (5189: 804)≥ 70Mean, 1.6 years0.87 (0.76 to 0.99)DM, comorbidity, sexAdjustment of covariates
Chang et al. (25)Taiwan National Health Insurance1997–20061309 (680: 629)≥65Until December 20061.20 (1.05 to 1.41)Comorbidity, dialysis-starting timePropensity-matched
Yeates et al. (26)Canadian Organ Replacement Register1991–200423,411 (17,400: 6011)≥ 65Until Dec 20071.12 (0.98 to 1.25)bDM, sexAdjustment of covariates
Lukowsky et al. (27)a,eDaVita dialysis clinics2001–200411,445≥662 yr 0.27 (0.12 to 0.61)Dialysis durationMarginal structural model
Heaf et al. (28)Danish Nephrology Registry1990–20105679 (4335: 1344)≥65Until January 20110.89 (0.83 to 0.95)DM, dialysis-starting timeAdjustment of covariates
Mircescu et al. (29)Romanian renal registry2008–2011No data≥61Until December 20121.01 (0.87 to 1.20)bDMAdjustment of covariates
  • Of the above 20 studies, six were excluded from the meta-analysis. HD, hemodialysis; PD, peritoneal dialysis; HR, hazard ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; DM, diabetes mellitus; CHOICE, Choices for Healthy Outcomes in Caring for ESRD Patients; RENINE, Dutch End-Stage Renal Disease Registry; CHF, congestive heart failure; REIN, Renal Epidemiology and Information Network; ANZDATA, Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry; USRDS, US Renal Data System; ERA-EDTA, European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

  • a Study excluded because of duplicate cohort.

  • b The pooled HR is obtained from subgroup results.

  • c Study excluded for not reporting HRs.

  • d In a subgroup analysis, this duplicate study was not used because it did not have a subgroup result.

  • e This study, the duplicate of the study noted in footnote d, was used in a subgroup analysis.