Table 4 Cox proportional hazard analysis and competing risks analysis of pure APD and pure CAPD patients.

From: Do Automated Peritoneal Dialysis and Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis Have the Same Clinical Outcomes? A Ten-year Cohort Study in Taiwan

Pure APD vs. Pure CAPD outcomes

Cox proportional hazard analysis

Competing risks analysis

Univariate

Multivariate *

Univariate

Multivariate*,†

HR

95% CI

p-value

HR

95% CI

p-value

HR

95% CI

p-value

HR

95% CI

p-value

2001–2010, APD (n = 2,184) vs. CAPD (n = 2,244)

 All-cause mortality

1.20

1.06–1.36

<0.01

1.21

1.06–1.37

<0.01

1.16

1.02–1.32

0.02

1.15

1.01–1.31

0.04

 Technique failure

1.16

0.99–1.35

0.05

1.21

1.04–1.41

0.02

1.13

0.97–1.31

0.13

1.15

0.98–1.33

0.08

2001–2004, APD (n = 369) vs. CAPD (n = 390)

 All-cause mortality

1.17

0.90–1.52

0.23

1.16

0.89–1.51

0.29

1.18

0.91–1.53

0.22

1.13

0.85–1.48

0.40

 Technique failure

0.77

0.57–1.05

0.10

0.74

0.54–1.01

0.06

0.75

0.55–1.02

0.07

0.74

0.54–1.01

0.05

2005–2007, APD (n = 581) vs. CAPD (n = 595)

 All-cause mortality

1.43

1.15–1.78

0.001

1.54

1.24–1.93

0.001

1.31

1.06–1.63

0.01

1.39

1.11–1.75

<0.01

 Technique failure

1.59

1.22–2.08

0.001

1.63

1.25–2.13

<0.001

1.47

1.12–1.91

<0.01

1.47

1.12–1.92

<0.01

2008–2010, APD (n = 1,234) vs. CAPD (n = 1,259)

 All-cause mortality

1.06

0.87–1.29

0.58

1.00

0.82–1.22

0.98

1.04

0.86–1.27

0.66

0.99

0.81–1.22

0.97

 Technique failure

1.17

0.92–1.48

0.20

1.25

0.98–1.59

0.07

1.16

0.92–1.47

0.21

1.20

0.95–1.51

0.13

  1. Abbreviation: APD, automatic peritoneal dialysis; CAPD, continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis; CI, confidence interval; HR, risk ratio.
  2. *The control variables included in the multivariate model were age, gender, diabetes mellitus, cirrhosis of liver, cerebrovascular disease, ischemic heart disease, chronic heart failure, events of peritonitis, icodextrin usage, and premium wage classes.
  3. Fine and Gray regression model.