Impact of XXXX on mortality: a propensity-matched study.

@entity1 @entity6 @entity1726 @entity1613 @entity65 @entity454
BACKGROUND: Whether the choice of dialysis modality in @entity1 with @entity454 may impact mortality is undecided. No randomized controlled trial has properly addressed this issue. Propensity-matched observational studies could give important insight into the independent effect of peritoneal ( @entity1726 ) opposed to haemodialysis (HD) on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. METHODS: To correct for case-mix differences between @entity1 treated with @entity1726 and HD, propensity-matched analyses were utilized in all @entity1 who initiated dialysis as first renal replacement therapy in Norway in the period 2005-2012. @entity1726 @entity1 were matched in a 1:1 fashion with HD @entity1 , creating 692 pairs of @entity1 with comparable baseline variables. As-treated and intention-to treat analyses were undertaken to assess cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Interaction analyses were used to assess differences in the relationship between @entity1613 and mortality, between strata of age, gender and prevalent @entity6 . RESULTS: In the as-treated analyses, @entity1613 did not impact 2-year ( @entity1726 vs. HD: HR 0.87, 95  % CI 0.67-1.12) or 5-year all-cause mortality (HR 0.95, 95  % CI 0.77-1.17). In @entity1 younger than 65  years, @entity1726 was superior compared to HD with regard to both 2-year (HR 0.39, 95  % CI 0.19-0.81), and 5-year all-cause mortality (HR 0.49, 95  % CI 0.27-0.89). @entity65 was also lower in the younger @entity1 treated with @entity1726 (5-year HR 0.38, 95  % CI 0.15-0.96). @entity1726 was not associated with impaired prognosis in any of the prespecified subgroups compared to HD. The results were similar in the as-treated and intention-to-treat analyses. CONCLUSION: Survival in @entity1726 was not inferior to HD in any subgroup of @entity1 even after five years of follow-up. In @entity1 below 65  years, @entity1726 yielded superior survival rates compared to HD. Increased use of @entity1726 as @entity1613 in @entity454 @entity1 could be encouraged.
