Association of Dialysis Attendance with Kidney Transplant Outcomes in Northern Territory (Nt) Based Kidney Transplant Recipients

N. Khanal; P. D. Lawton; A. Cass; S. P. McDonald

doi:10.1111/nep.13104

Abstract

Aim: To determine the relationship of dialysisattendance with subsequent kidney transplant outcomes among NT transplantrecipients

Background: In assessment for potential kidneytransplantation, surveys suggest nephrologists are concerned that missingdialysis may portend poor post‐transplant outcomes. In fact, little is knownabout the association of dialysis attendance and outcomes of kidney transplantation.We examined the relationship of prior dialysis modality and facilityhaemodialysis (FHD) attendance with subsequent outcomes in NT kidney transplantrecipients.

Methods: Data: NT hospital separations data, linkedwith demographic, comorbidity and transplant information from ANZDATA.Inclusion criteria: All NT based ESKD patients who started dialysis between 1st January1995 and 31st December 2011 and received a kidney transplant by 30th June2012 (n=113). Predictors: dialysis modality or attendance at FHD up to twoyears before transplantation. Outcome measure: all‐cause graft survival posttransplantation (including patient death).

Results: There were 67 patients receiving FHDsubsequently transplanted, of whom 48 (71.6%) were Indigenous. Based on weeklyFHD attendance, patients were divided in three groups: <2.5/week (n=10),2.50 to 2.75/week (n=14) and >2.75/week (n=43). There were 48 outcomeevents. Compared to participants receiving self‐care dialysis, n=46, hazardratio (HR) for graft loss or patient death was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.61‐1.69) inparticipants receiving FHD. Among FHD, compared to those attending >2.75sessions/week, there was no significant trend observed for patients attending2.50‐2.75/week (HR 1.82 [95% CI 0.85‐3.85]) or <2.5/week (HR 1.49 [95% CI0.58‐3.81]). With dialysis attendance (sessions per week) examined as acontinuous variable, there was no significant trend of association, HR 0.62(95% CI 0.15‐2.60).

Conclusions: In the NT, facility haemodialysisattendance variation was not associated with post‐transplant graft and patientsurvival.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	20-20
Number of pages	1
Journal	Nephrology
Volume	22
Issue number	S3
Early online date	30 Aug 2017
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/nep.13104
Publication status	Published - Sept 2017

Access to Document

10.1111/nep.13104

Cite this

@article{180967e594f04b65b64d4e14eb5f2a36,

title = "Association of Dialysis Attendance with Kidney Transplant Outcomes in Northern Territory (Nt) Based Kidney Transplant Recipients",

abstract = "Aim: To determine the relationship of dialysisattendance with subsequent kidney transplant outcomes among NT transplantrecipientsBackground: In assessment for potential kidneytransplantation, surveys suggest nephrologists are concerned that missingdialysis may portend poor post‐transplant outcomes. In fact, little is knownabout the association of dialysis attendance and outcomes of kidney transplantation.We examined the relationship of prior dialysis modality and facilityhaemodialysis (FHD) attendance with subsequent outcomes in NT kidney transplantrecipients.Methods: Data: NT hospital separations data, linkedwith demographic, comorbidity and transplant information from ANZDATA.Inclusion criteria: All NT based ESKD patients who started dialysis between 1st January1995 and 31st December 2011 and received a kidney transplant by 30th June2012 (n=113). Predictors: dialysis modality or attendance at FHD up to twoyears before transplantation. Outcome measure: all‐cause graft survival posttransplantation (including patient death).Results: There were 67 patients receiving FHDsubsequently transplanted, of whom 48 (71.6%) were Indigenous. Based on weeklyFHD attendance, patients were divided in three groups: <2.5/week (n=10),2.50 to 2.75/week (n=14) and >2.75/week (n=43). There were 48 outcomeevents. Compared to participants receiving self‐care dialysis, n=46, hazardratio (HR) for graft loss or patient death was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.61‐1.69) inparticipants receiving FHD. Among FHD, compared to those attending >2.75sessions/week, there was no significant trend observed for patients attending2.50‐2.75/week (HR 1.82 [95% CI 0.85‐3.85]) or <2.5/week (HR 1.49 [95% CI0.58‐3.81]). With dialysis attendance (sessions per week) examined as acontinuous variable, there was no significant trend of association, HR 0.62(95% CI 0.15‐2.60).Conclusions: In the NT, facility haemodialysisattendance variation was not associated with post‐transplant graft and patientsurvival.",

keywords = "Urology & Nephrology",

author = "N. Khanal and Lawton, {P. D.} and A. Cass and McDonald, {S. P.}",

year = "2017",

month = sep,

doi = "10.1111/nep.13104",

language = "English",

volume = "22",

pages = "20--20",

journal = "Nephrology",

issn = "1320-5358",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

number = "S3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Association of Dialysis Attendance with Kidney Transplant Outcomes in Northern Territory (Nt) Based Kidney Transplant Recipients

AU - Khanal, N.

AU - Lawton, P. D.

AU - Cass, A.

AU - McDonald, S. P.

PY - 2017/9

Y1 - 2017/9

N2 - Aim: To determine the relationship of dialysisattendance with subsequent kidney transplant outcomes among NT transplantrecipientsBackground: In assessment for potential kidneytransplantation, surveys suggest nephrologists are concerned that missingdialysis may portend poor post‐transplant outcomes. In fact, little is knownabout the association of dialysis attendance and outcomes of kidney transplantation.We examined the relationship of prior dialysis modality and facilityhaemodialysis (FHD) attendance with subsequent outcomes in NT kidney transplantrecipients.Methods: Data: NT hospital separations data, linkedwith demographic, comorbidity and transplant information from ANZDATA.Inclusion criteria: All NT based ESKD patients who started dialysis between 1st January1995 and 31st December 2011 and received a kidney transplant by 30th June2012 (n=113). Predictors: dialysis modality or attendance at FHD up to twoyears before transplantation. Outcome measure: all‐cause graft survival posttransplantation (including patient death).Results: There were 67 patients receiving FHDsubsequently transplanted, of whom 48 (71.6%) were Indigenous. Based on weeklyFHD attendance, patients were divided in three groups: <2.5/week (n=10),2.50 to 2.75/week (n=14) and >2.75/week (n=43). There were 48 outcomeevents. Compared to participants receiving self‐care dialysis, n=46, hazardratio (HR) for graft loss or patient death was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.61‐1.69) inparticipants receiving FHD. Among FHD, compared to those attending >2.75sessions/week, there was no significant trend observed for patients attending2.50‐2.75/week (HR 1.82 [95% CI 0.85‐3.85]) or <2.5/week (HR 1.49 [95% CI0.58‐3.81]). With dialysis attendance (sessions per week) examined as acontinuous variable, there was no significant trend of association, HR 0.62(95% CI 0.15‐2.60).Conclusions: In the NT, facility haemodialysisattendance variation was not associated with post‐transplant graft and patientsurvival.

AB - Aim: To determine the relationship of dialysisattendance with subsequent kidney transplant outcomes among NT transplantrecipientsBackground: In assessment for potential kidneytransplantation, surveys suggest nephrologists are concerned that missingdialysis may portend poor post‐transplant outcomes. In fact, little is knownabout the association of dialysis attendance and outcomes of kidney transplantation.We examined the relationship of prior dialysis modality and facilityhaemodialysis (FHD) attendance with subsequent outcomes in NT kidney transplantrecipients.Methods: Data: NT hospital separations data, linkedwith demographic, comorbidity and transplant information from ANZDATA.Inclusion criteria: All NT based ESKD patients who started dialysis between 1st January1995 and 31st December 2011 and received a kidney transplant by 30th June2012 (n=113). Predictors: dialysis modality or attendance at FHD up to twoyears before transplantation. Outcome measure: all‐cause graft survival posttransplantation (including patient death).Results: There were 67 patients receiving FHDsubsequently transplanted, of whom 48 (71.6%) were Indigenous. Based on weeklyFHD attendance, patients were divided in three groups: <2.5/week (n=10),2.50 to 2.75/week (n=14) and >2.75/week (n=43). There were 48 outcomeevents. Compared to participants receiving self‐care dialysis, n=46, hazardratio (HR) for graft loss or patient death was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.61‐1.69) inparticipants receiving FHD. Among FHD, compared to those attending >2.75sessions/week, there was no significant trend observed for patients attending2.50‐2.75/week (HR 1.82 [95% CI 0.85‐3.85]) or <2.5/week (HR 1.49 [95% CI0.58‐3.81]). With dialysis attendance (sessions per week) examined as acontinuous variable, there was no significant trend of association, HR 0.62(95% CI 0.15‐2.60).Conclusions: In the NT, facility haemodialysisattendance variation was not associated with post‐transplant graft and patientsurvival.

KW - Urology & Nephrology

U2 - 10.1111/nep.13104

DO - 10.1111/nep.13104

M3 - Meeting Abstract

SN - 1320-5358

VL - 22

SP - 20

EP - 20

JO - Nephrology

JF - Nephrology

IS - S3

ER -

Association of Dialysis Attendance with Kidney Transplant Outcomes in Northern Territory (Nt) Based Kidney Transplant Recipients

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this