Renal replacement therapy in Europe:: the results of a collaborative effort by the ERA-EDTA registry and six national or regional registries
Renal replacement therapy in Europe:: the results of a collaborative effort by the ERA-EDTA registry and six national or regional registries
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/ndt/16.6.1120
复制
发表时间：
2001-06-01
影响因子：
6.1
通讯作者：
Briggs, JD
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
van Dijk, PCW;Jager, KJ;Briggs, JD
背景。 2000 年 6 月，新的 ERA-EDTA 登记处在阿姆斯特丹成立。该登记处将仅通过国家和地区登记处收集有关肾脏替代治疗（RRT）的核心数据。本文报告了一项试点研究的技术和流行病学结果，该研究结合了六个登记处的数据。方法。合并了奥地利、芬兰、法国-比利时、荷兰、挪威和苏格兰国家肾脏登记处的数据。 1980 年至 1999 年间开始 RRT 的患者 (n=57 371) 纳入分析。使用 Cox 比例风险回归来预测生存率。结果。注册处使用不同的编码系统进行 ESRD 处理，导致数据合并变得困难。 RRT 的发病率和患病率持续上升，但各国之间的比率存在显着差异。透析患者的 2 年、5 年和 10 年生存率分别为 57%、35% 和 11%，第一次同种异体肾移植后的生存率分别为 90%、81% 和 64%。多变量分析显示，与 1980-1984 年队列相比，1990-1994 年队列（RR 0.94，95% CI 0.90-0.98）和 1995-1999 年队列（RR 0.88，95% CI 0.84-0.92）的透析生存率略好。相比之下，与 1980-1984 年队列相比，移植患者的生存率有了更大的改善，导致 1995-1999 年队列的死亡风险降低了 56%（RR 0.44，95% CI 0.39-0.50）。结论。这项研究为“新型”ERA-EDTA 登记的可行性提供了支持，并且数据收集现已扩展到其他国家。过去二十年来，移植受者的患者生存率的改善比透析患者要大得多。
Background. In June 2000 a new ERA-EDTA Registry Office was opened in Amsterdam. This Registry will only collect core data on renal replacement therapy (RRT) through national and regional registries. This paper reports the technical and epidemiological results of a pilot study combining the data from six registries.Methods. Data from the national renal registries of Austria, Finland, French-Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway, and Scotland were combined. Patients starting RRT between 1980 and 1999 (n=57 371) were included in the analyses. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to predict survival.Results. The use of different coding systems for ESRD treatment by the registries made it difficult to merge the data. Incidence and prevalence of RRT showed a continuous increase with a marked variation in rates between countries. The 2-, 5- and 10-year patient survival was 57, 35 and 11%, in dialysis patients and 90, 81 and 64% after a first renal allograft. Multivariate analysis showed a slightly better survival on dialysis in the 1990-1994 (RR 0.94. 95% CI 0.90-0.98) and the 1995-1999 cohort (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.84-0.92) compared to the 1980-1984 cohort. In contrast, there was a much greater improvement in transplant-patient survival, resulting in a 56% reduction in the risk of death within the 1995-1999 cohort (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.39-0.50) compared to the 1980-1984 cohort.Conclusions. This study provides support for the feasibility of a 'new style' ERA-EDTA registry and the collection of data is now being extended to other countries. The improvement in patient survival over the last two decades has been much greater in transplant recipients than in dialysis patients.