{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026036644165863067, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008678881388621022, 'mean_word_length': 5.4875, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of Cardiovascular Outcomes by Dialysis Modality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Debates exist regarding the merit of starting one dialysis modality over the other for improved cardiovascular outcomes. Five previously published prospective and retrospective cohort studies have reported inconsistent conclusions on this topic. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the influence initiation of hemodialysis (HD) vs peritoneal dialysis (PD) may have on the relative risk (RR) of subsequent development of adverse cardiovascular events (ACVE) in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Of the 518 records identified, 5 cohort studies, assessing a total of 47,062 patients were included in the meta-analysis. With regard to the subsequent development of ACVE following initiation on the different dialysis modalities, the pooled RR was found to be non-significant. Peritoneal dialysis is a suitable and cost-effective alternative to HD for ESRD patients at risk of cardiovascular disease.