Would increasing centre volumes improve patient outcomes in peritoneal dialysis? A registry-based cohort and Monte Carlo simulation study. Issue 6 (14th June 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Evans, David; Lobbedez, Thierry; Verger, Christian; Flahault, Antoine
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 3:Issue 6(2013)
• Publication Date: 2013-06-14
• Subjects: Peritoneal dialysis -- Sensitivity analysis -- Intervention simulation -- Confounding -- Volume-outcome association; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003092
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To estimate the association between centre volume and patient outcomes in peritoneal dialysis, explore robustness to residual confounding and predict the impact of policies to increase centre volumes. Design: Registry-based cohort study with probabilistic sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulation of (hypothetical) intervention effects. Setting: 112 secondary-care centres in France. Participants: 9602 adult patients initiating peritoneal dialysis. Main outcome measures: Technique failure (ie, permanent transfer to haemodialysis), renal transplantation and death while on peritoneal dialysis within 5 years of initiating treatment. Associations with underlying risk measured by cause-specific HRs (cs-HRs) and with cumulative incidence by subdistribution HRs (sd-HRs). Intervention effects measured by predicted mean change in cumulative incidences. Results: Higher volume centres had more patients with diabetes and were more frequently academic centres or associative groupings of private physicians. Patients in higher volume centres had a reduced risk of technique failure (>60 patients vs 0–10 patients: adjusted cs-HR 0.46; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.69), with no changed risk of death or transplantation. Sensitivity analyses mitigated the cs-HRs without changing the findings. In higher volume centres, the cumulative incidence was reduced for technique failure (>60 patients vs 0–10 patients: adjusted sd-HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.85) but was increased for transplantation and death (>60 patients vs 0–10 patients: transplantation—adjusted sd-HR 1.53; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.24; death—adjusted sd-HR 1.28; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.63). The predicted reduction in cumulative incidence of technique failure was largest under a scenario of shifting all patients to the two highest volume centre groups (0.091 reduction) but lower for three more realistic interventions (around 0.06 reduction). Conclusions: Patients initiating peritoneal dialysis in high-volume centres had a considerably reduced risk of technique failure but simulations of interventions to increase exposure to high-volume centres yielded only modest improvements.