Why the study?
Can a risk prediction model using routine clinical variables accurately predict 2-year cardiovascular mortality in Chinese patients initiating peritoneal dialysis?
Can a risk prediction model using routine clinical variables accurately predict 2-year cardiovascular mortality in Chinese patients initiating peritoneal dialysis?
A newly developed risk prediction model using routine clinical variables can accurately predict 2-year cardiovascular mortality in Chinese patients initiating peritoneal dialysis, enabling targeted cardio-protective interventions.
May support risk stratification at peritoneal dialysis initiation; leaves open external validation before clinical use.
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among patients receiving peritoneal dialysis. We aimed to develop and validate a risk prediction model for cardiovascular death within 2 years after the initiation of peritoneal dialysis (PD). A cohort including all patients registered with the Henan Peritoneal Dialysis Registry (HPDR) between 2007 and 2014. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to develop the risk prediction model. The HPDR data was randomly divided into two cohorts with 60% (1,835 patients) for model derivation, and 40% (1,219 patients) for model validation. The absolute rate of cardiovascular mortality was 14.2% and 14.4 in the derivation and validation cohort, respectively. Age, body mass index, blood pressure, serum lipids, fasting glucose, sodium, albumin, total protein, and phosphorus were the strongest predictors of cardiovascular mortality in the final model. Discrimination of the model was similar in both cohorts, with a C statistic above 0.70, with good calibration of observed and predicted risks. The new prediction model that has been developed and validated with clinical measurements that are available at the point of initiation of PD and could serve as a tool to screen for patients at high risk of cardiovascular death and tailor more intensive cardio-protective care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yu et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: