Table 4.
Subgroup analysis of the association between RKF decline rate (×10) and technique failure
| Subgroup | N | Adjusted HR (95% CI) | Pvalue | Pfor interaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | 0.602 | |||
| Female | 280 | 1.13 (0.90–1.43) | 0.295 | |
| Male | 259 | 1.21 (1.05–1.39) | 0.008 | |
| BMI_ group | 0.195 | |||
| ˂ 20 | 169 | 1.09 (0.77–1.56) | 0.618 | |
| 20–25 | 283 | 1.15 (0.96–1.37) | 0.121 | |
| ≥25 | 87 | 1.47 (1.05–2.06) | 0.026 | |
| Diabetes | 0.902 | |||
| No | 499 | 1.19 (1.05–1.35) | 0.006 | |
| Yes | 40 | 1.07 (0.58–1.96) | 0.823 | |
| Cause of ESKD | 0.275 | |||
| Primary glomerular disease | 452 | 1.16 (1.02–1.33) | 0.028 | |
| Others# | 87 | 1.32 (0.93–1.89) | 0.122 |
Note: #Others include hypertensive nephropathy, diabetic nephropathy, obstructive nephropathy, lupus nephritis, vasculitis, congenital anomalies, and other rare causes.All subgroup models were adjusted for the same covariates as Model 3 (age, sex, diabetes, cause of ESKD, baseline eGFR, SBP, hemoglobin, albumin), except that the stratifying variable was not included as a covariate in its own subgroup analysis. The HRs correspond to a 0.1 ml/min/1.73 m²/month increase in RKF decline rate (calculated as the absolute RKF slope multiplied by 10)