Incremental dialysis in ESRD: systematic review and meta-analysis
Incremental dialysis may preserve residual renal function and improve survival in comparison with full-dose dialysis; however, available evidence is limited. We therefore compared all-cause mortality and residual kidney function (RKF) loss in incremental and full-dose dialysis and time to full-dose dialysis in incremental hemodialysis (IHD) and incremental peritoneal dialysis (IPD).
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies of adults with ESRD starting IHD and IPD. We identified in PubMed and Web of Science database all cohort studies evaluating incremental dialysis evaluating three outcomes: all-cause mortality, RKF loss, time to full dialysis. IPD was defined as < 3 daily dwells in Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis and < 5 sessions per week in Automated Peritoneal Dialysis, while IHD was defined as < 3 HD sessions per week.
22 studies (75,292 participants), 15 in HD and 7 in PD, were analyzed. Mean age at dialysis start was 62 and 57 years in IHD and IPD subjects, respectively. When compared to full dose, incremental dialysis (IHD or IPD) had an overall mortality risk of 1.14 [95% CI 0.85–1.52] with high heterogeneity among studies (I2 86%, P < 0.001), and lower mean RKF loss (− 0.58 ml/min/months, 95% CI 0.16–1.01, P = 0.007). Overall, time to full-dose dialysis was 12.1 months (95% CI 9.8–14.3) with no difference between IHD and IPD (P = 0.217).
Incremental dialysis allows longer preservation of RKF thus deferring full-dose dialysis, by about 1 year in HD and PD, with no increase in mortality risk. Large and adequate studies are needed to confirm these findings.
KeywordsIncremental hemodialysis Incremental peritoneal dialysis Meta-analysis Systematic review ESRD
Research idea and study design: CG, RM, LDN, GC, TDS, MP, SB, MA, GC, VLM, VV, MS, GC, VB, RR, AC. Data acquisition: CG, SB, AC, MS, TDS. Data analysis/interpretation: CG, RM, LDN, GC, MP, SB, MA, GC, VLM, VV, MS, GC, VB, RR, AC. Statistical analysis: CG, PC, SB, MP, TDS. Each author contributed important intellectual content during manuscript drafting or revision and accepts accountability for the overall work by ensuring that questions pertaining to the accuracy or integrity of any portion of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. CG takes responsibility that this study has been reported honestly, accurately, and transparently; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained.
This work was endorsed by the Italian Society of Nephrology (Gruppi di Progetto sul “Trattamento Conservativo della Insufficienza Renale Cronica” e “Dialisi Peritoneale”) without any financial support.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 2.United States Renal Data System (2015) USRDS annual data report: Epidemiology of kidney disease in the United States. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
- 3.ERA-EDTA Registry: ERA-EDTA Registry Annual Report (2013) Academic Medical Center. Department of Medical Informatics, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- 21.Green JPHS (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. http://www.cochrane.org/training/cochrane-handbook. Accessed 9 Apr 2016
- 23.Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell D et al (2017) The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of non randomized studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Health Research Institute. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 13 May 2017
- 26.Tobias A (1999) Assessing the influence of a single study in the meta-analysis estimate. Stata Tech Bull 8(47):15–17Google Scholar
- 29.Fernández-Lucas M, Teruel-Briones JL, Gomis-Couto A, Villacorta-Pérez J, Quereda-Rodríguez-Navarro C (2012) Maintaining residual renal function in patients on haemodialysis: 5-year experience using a progressively increasing dialysis regimen. Nefrologia 32(6):767–776Google Scholar
- 36.Elamin S, Abu-Aisha H (2012) Reaching target hemoglobin level and having a functioning arteriovenous fistula significantly improve one year survival in twice weekly hemodialysis. Arab J Nephrol Transpl 5(2):81–86Google Scholar
- 39.Park JI, Park JT, Kim YL et al (2017) Comparison of outcomes between the incremental and thrice-weekly initiation of hemodialysis: a propensity-matched study of a prospective cohort in Korea. Nephrol Dial Transpl 32(2):355–363Google Scholar
- 45.De Vecchi AF, Scalamogna A, Finazzi S, Colucci P, Ponticelli C (2000) Preliminary evaluation of incremental peritoneal dialysis in 25 patients. Perit Dial Int 20(4):412–417Google Scholar
- 46.Neri L, Viglino G, Cappelletti A, Gandolfo C, Barbieri S (2003) Incremental dialysis with automated peritoneal dialysis. Adv Perit Dial 19:93–96Google Scholar
- 62.Roggeri A, Roggeri DP, Zocchetti C, Bersani M, Conte F (2017) ReNe (Renal Lombardy Network); additional contributors from ReNe Network. Healthcare costs of the progression of chronic kidney disease and different dialysis techniques estimated through administrative database analysis. J Nephrol 30(2):263–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar