Survival by Dialysis Modality—Who Cares?

Abstract

In light of the recent emphasis on patient-centered outcomes and quality of life for patients with kidney disease, we contend that the nephrology community should no longer fund, perform, or publish studies that compare survival by dialysis modality. These studies have become redundant; they are methodologically limited, unhelpful in practice, and therefore a waste of resources. More than two decades of these publications show similar survival between patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis and those receiving thrice-weekly conventional hemodialysis, with differences only for specific subgroups. In clinical practice, modality choice should be individualized with the aim of maximizing quality of life, patient-reported outcomes, and achieving patient-centered goals. Expected survival is often irrelevant to modality choice. Even for the younger and fitter home hemodialysis population, quality of life, not just duration of survival, is a major priority. On the other hand, increasing evidence suggests that patients with ESRD continue to experience poor quality of life because of high symptom burden, unsolved clinical problems, and unmet needs. Patients care more about how they will live instead of how long. It is our responsibility to align our research with their needs. Only by doing so can we meet the challenges of ESRD patient care in the coming decades.