First, cause-specific death was not available in this study. Second, RKF measurement is not accurate given the use of CL_urea and not the average of renal urea and creatinine clearances and the difficulties in complete collection of urine samples and its punctuality in patient daily life. The use of factor 0.9 for predialysis serum urea nitrogen for renal CL_urea calculation might have also induced errors to some extent. Nevertheless, the population-level associations with clinical outcomes can be estimated from an adequate number of subjects if such errors are not associated with the outcome. Third, available RKF measures may not be representative of those in the entire hemodialysis population, because patients on dialysis with limited or no RKF are less likely to have undergone urine collections, especially at 1 year after hemodialysis initiation. This potential selection bias might have resulted in missing patients who lost RKF during the first 1 year of dialysis, and thus, the mortality risk of RKF decline might be underestimated. Additionally, although we adjusted for only baseline patient characteristics and not those at year 1 to avoid overadjustment, RKF decline could also be an intermediary between adverse events (e.g., cardiovascular events and infection) during the first year of dialysis and subsequent mortality. Indeed, the mortality risk of RKF decline was attenuated to some extent after adjusting for body mass index and laboratory variables at both baseline and 1 year, but it still remained significant (data not shown). Although it is hard to estimate the net effect of the former and the latter limitations, our results met seven of nine of the criteria by Hill 38 (i.e., temporal relationship, strength, dose-response relationship, consistency, biologic plausibility, coherence, and reasoning by analogy), suggesting a possible causal relationship between RKF decline and all-cause death in patients on hemodialysis.

In conclusion, decline in RKF, both renal CL_urea and urine volume separately, shows a graded association with higher mortality among incident hemodialysis patients. Future trials are warranted to test the clinical benefits of RKF preservation strategies, including maintaining diuretic use and the incremental hemodialysis regimen.

Customers

We retrospectively extracted, slight, babylon escort Lakewood CO and you can checked out research regarding all of the event hemodialysis clients have been age ?18 years old and you will received hemodialysis treatment for ?sixty consecutive months inside institution work because of the a massive dialysis providers (DaVita, Inc.) in the us away from . 39 Customers were adopted up until , and go after-right up time was split into diligent-quarters (91-big date periods of time regarding first dialysis). For every single patient-quarter, people was basically assigned the standard hemodialysis modality when they did not discovered service aside from thrice a week hemodialysis (i.e., peritoneal dialysis, less frequent when you look at the–heart hemodialysis, family hemodialysis, regular when you look at the–center hemodialysis, or letter;cardio hemodialysis) for at least forty five weeks in patient-one-fourth.

Concise Tips

To examine RKF and the changes during the first 1 year of hemodialysis, we used all incident in–center hemodialysis patients between 2007 and 2010 who were alive at year 1 and had measured renal CL_urea at the start of dialysis and year 1. First, we excluded patients who were censored or ever treated with peritoneal dialysis, nocturnal hemodialysis, or home hemodialysis during the first 1 year of dialysis. Second, we identified 22,895 incident hemodialysis patients with baseline CL_urea data from 67,311 patients who were assigned only conventional hemodialysis for the first four patient-quarters. Among them, 6538 patients also had RKF measurements at the fifth patient-quarter (i.e., the first 91-day period of the second year of dialysis) and were included in this study (details in Supplemental Figure 5). This study was approved by the Institutional Review Committees of the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor–University of California, Los Angeles; the University of California, Irvine Medical Center; and the University of Washington.