4.7 Article

Higher mortality among remote compared to rural or urban dwelling hemodialysis patients in the United States

Journal

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
Volume 82, Issue 3, Pages 352-359

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2012.167

Keywords

epidemiology and outcomes; hemodialysis; mortality risk; Renal Data System; United States

Funding

  1. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research
  2. Alberta Health and Wellness
  3. University of Alberta
  4. Government of Canada

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Living far away from specialized care centers is a potential barrier to the delivery of quality health care and has been associated with adverse outcomes. To assess mortality as a function of distance from the closest hemodialysis unit, and as a function of rural rather than urban residence, we analyzed prospectively collected data on 726,347 adults initiating chronic hemodialysis in the United States over a 13-year period. Participants were classified into categories of 0-10 (referent), 11-25, 26-45, 46-100, and remote living over 100 miles from the closest hemodialysis unit. After a median follow-up of 2.7 years (range 0 to 12.7 years), 368,569 patients died. Compared to the referent group, the adjusted hazard ratio of death was 1.01, 0.99, 0.96, and 1.21, respectively. When residence location was classified using rural-urban commuter areas, 16.5, 66.8, and 16.7% of patients lived in urban, micropolitan, and metropolitan areas, respectively. Compared with those living in metropolitan areas, the adjusted hazard ratio of mortality among patients residing in micropolitan and rural communities was 1.02 and 1.01, respectively. Thus, remote but not rural residence was associated with increased mortality among patients initiating chronic hemodialysis treatment in the United States. Kidney International (2012) 82, 352-359; doi:10.1038/ki.2012.167; published online 16 May 2012

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available