gpepe er ve international comparisons - USRDS

international comparisons

Two drifters, off to see the worldThere’s such a lot of world to seeWe’re after that same rainbow’s end, waitin’ ‘round the bendMy huckleberry friend, Moon River, and me

Johnny Mercer & Henry Mancini, “Moon River”

chapter twelve

2011 USRDS ANNUAL DATA REPORT

volumetwoesrd

page292

international comparisonsINTRODUCTION

12This year, we report data from the more than 40 regions

and countries which have graciously sent data to the

USRDS. Such information not only allows for international

comparisons, but provides a context for data on the mul-

tiple ethnic and racial groups which constitute the diverse

population of the U.S. The USRDS is well aware of the con-

siderable challenges each country faces in gathering its

data, and sincerely thanks the registries and providers for

their efforts.

Reported rates of incident ESRD across the globe show

important trends; rates have slowed in some countries,

while rising or remaining stable in others. The U.S., Tai-

wan, and Japan continue to have some of the highest

rates, at 371, 347, and 287 per million population in 2009.

In Mexico, rates in Morelos and Jalisco reached 597 and

419, respectively.

In Taiwan, the prevalence of ESRD reached 2,447 per mil-

lion in 2009, while rates of 2,205 and 1,811 were reported in

Japan and the U.S.

More than one in two ESRD patients in Malaysia, More-

los (Mexico), and Jalisco (Mexico) are reported to have dia-

betes. In Morelos, rates of diabetes in patients age 45–64,

65–74, and 75 and older are 1,277, 1,786, and 1,106 per million

population, respectively — two to four times higher than

those seen in Malaysia, Taiwan, and the U.S.

Hemodialysis continues to be the most common mode

of therapy worldwide, evidenced by data showing that, in

over 70 percent of reporting countries, at least 80 percent

of patients are on this mode of therapy. In Hong Kong,

Jalisco, and Morelos, in contrast, peritoneal dialysis is used

by 78, 59, and 58 percent of patients, respectively. And

home dialysis therapy is provided to 16.3 and 9.3 percent

of patients in New Zealand and Australia.

Renal transplant rates are many times a reflection not

only of a country’s healthcare system, but of cultural diver-

sities and beliefs. As an example, transplant rates are less

than 10 per million population in countries such as Malay-

sia, the Philippines, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Romania, and

Russia, in contrast to rates above 50 in Canada, Norway,

Jalisco, the U.S., and the Netherlands. Rates of functioning

grafts reach 591 and 562 per million population in Nor-

way and the U.S., but are less than 40 in Russia, Romania,

Morelos, and the Philippines.

We invite all renal registries to participate in our interna-

tional data collection, and wish to thank all currently par-

ticipating registries for their willingness to provide data on

their ESRD programs, giving us a worldwide perspective

on patients with ESRD.» Figure 12.1; see page 394 for analytical methods. All rates unad-

justed. Data from Argentina (2005–2007, 2009), Czech Republic (2005–2008), Japan, & Taiwan are dialysis only.

This international chapter has expanded each year as more countries participate in the

collaborative effort to collate data for the public health surveillance of end-stage renal disease.

294 worldwide view of the incidence of ESRD

296 incidence of ESRD

298 prevalence of ESRD | dialysis

300 transplantation

302 summary

121ii Comparison of unadjusted ESRD incidence & prevalence worldwide

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Inci

dent

rate

per

mill

ion

popu

latio

n

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Argentina Uruguay

Canada

Isreal

Hong Kong

Japan

Rep. of Korea

Sweden

Australia

Czech Republic

Taiwan

United States

Incidence

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Prev

alen

t rat

e pe

r mill

ion

popu

latio

n

0

300

600

900

1,200

1,500

1,800

2,100

2,400

Argentina

Uruguay

Canada

Isreal

Hong Kong

Japan

Rep. of KoreaSweden

Australia

Czech Republic

Taiwan

United States

Prevalence

v2_12_1.zip

Tropic of CancerTropic of Cancer

Tropic of Capricorn

Equator Equator Equator

Tropic of Capricorn

Antarctic CircleAntarctic Circle Antarctic Circle Antarctic Circle

ATLANTIC

PACIFIC PACIFIC

INDIAN

OCEAN

OCEAN

OCEAN

OCEAN

ARCTICOCEAN

ARCTIC OCEAN

United States

Jalisco

Morelos

Brazil

Argentina

Chile

Columbia

Uruguay

Malaysia

Japan

Taiwan

Philippines

S. Korea

Thailand

Hong KongBangladesh

Russia

Australia

New Zealand

Canada

108 130 153 201


volumetwoesrd

page294

international comparisonsWORLDWIDE VIEW OF THE INCIDENCE OF ESRD

vol 2esrd

» Figure 12.2; see page 394 for analytical methods. Data presented only for countries from which relevant information was avail-

able. All rates unadjusted. Latest data for Lux-embourg, Philippines, & Poland are for

2008. Data for France include 20 regions. Data for Belgium & for

England/Wales/Northern Ireland do not include

patients younger than 20 & 18,

respectively.


Tropic of Capricorn


Tropic of Capricorn


ATLANTIC

PACIFIC PACIFIC

INDIAN

OCEAN

OCEAN

OCEAN

OCEAN

ARCTICOCEAN

ARCTIC OCEAN

United States

Jalisco

Morelos

Brazil

Argentina

Chile

Columbia

Uruguay

Malaysia

Japan

Taiwan

Philippines

S. Korea

Thailand

Hong KongBangladesh

Russia

Australia

New Zealand

Canada


Tropic of Capricorn


Tropic of Capricorn


ATLANTIC

PACIFIC PACIFIC

INDIAN

OCEAN

OCEAN

OCEAN

OCEAN

ARCTICOCEAN

ARCTIC OCEAN

Spain

Norway

Greece

Iceland

United Kingdom

Scotland

Sweden

HungaryAustria

Czech RepublicGermany

Netherlands

BelgiumLuxembourg

France

Finland

Denmark

Bos & Herz.CroatiaItaly

Poland

12CHAPTER

page295

122ii Geographic variations in the incidence of ESRD (per million population), 2009

v2_12_2.zip

Rate per million population0 200 400 600

BangladeshRussia

FinlandPhilippines†

IcelandBrazil

ScotlandColumbiaAustraliaRomania

UK^

NorwayNetherlands

ThailandDenmark

SwedenSpain

Poland†

New ZealandHong Kong

UruguayBosnia/Herzegovina

AustriaFrance

ArgentinaChile

CroatiaCanada

MalaysiaRep. of Korea

Czech RepublicIsrael

Belgium, French sp.Belgium, Dutch sp.

GreeceLuxembourg†

TurkeyJapan

TaiwanUnited States

Jalisco (Mexico)Morelos (Mexico) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Argentina 137 140 141 151 144 151Australia 97 113 118 113 119 107Austria 161 154 160 154 149 147Bangladesh 7 8 8 13 13 13Belgium, Dutch speaking 181 183 192 190 190 201Belgium, French speaking 186 177 187 187 190 196Bosnia/Herzegovina 108 104 133 151 149 143Brazil . 177 185 140 148 99Canada 164 164 166 168 165 159Chile 157 135 141 144 153 153Columbia 100 104 130 151 111 106Croatia 155 144 142 153 153 156Czech Republic 166 175 186 185 182 181Denmark 131 121 119 146 124 125Finland 97 97 87 93 95 83France . 140 144 140 147 149Greece 197 194 198 192 201 204Hong Kong 141 145 149 147 152 134Iceland 79 67 69 84 72 88Israel 189 186 192 193 189 193Jalisco (Mexico) 346 302 346 372 400 419Japan 267 271 275 285 288 287Rep. of Korea 171 173 185 184 182 176Luxembourg 188 164 224 155 227 .Malaysia 114 121 138 150 166 171Morelos (Mexico) . . . 553 557 597Netherlands 106 107 113 118 124 123New Zealand 113 111 119 110 116 132Norway 101 99 100 113 113 116Philippines 75 74 80 93 87 .Poland 97 120 122 127 130 .Romania . 94 75 90 96 109Russia 17 24 28 . 35 35Scotland 115 125 116 114 107 106Spain 175 126 128 121 128 129Sweden 123 121 130 129 123 126Taiwan 405 432 418 424 421 347Thailand 123 110 139 159 100 123Turkey 121 179 192 229 261 257U.K., England, Wales & N Ireland 100 111 115 116 108 110United States 347 354 365 362 363 371Uruguay 151 146 138 143 166 135


volumetwoesrd

page296

international comparisons

incidence of end-stage renal disease

INCIDENCE OF END-STAGE RENAL DISEASE

123ii Incidence of ESRD, 2009

12aii Incidence of ESRD, by year (per million population)

Incident rates of reported ESRD in 2009 were greatest in More-los (Mexico), at 597 per million population, followed by Jalisco (Mexico), the United States, Taiwan, and Japan at 419, 371, 347, and 287, respectively. Rates of less than 100 per million were reported in Brazil, Iceland, the Philippines, Finland, Russia, and Bangladesh. As stated in previous ADRs, it is important to note the distinction between the incidence of treatment guided by available funding, and the incidence of the disease itself. An affluent nation may allow elderly patients and those with dia-betes to receive hemodialysis, for example, while developing nations may restrict treatment to younger, healthier patients. » Figure 12.3 & Table 12.a; see page 394 for analytical methods.

Data presented only for countries from which relevant information was available; “.” signifies data not reported. All rates unadjusted. ^UK: England, Wales, & Northern Ireland (Scotland data reported separately). Data for Belgium & England/Wales/Northern Ireland do not include patients younger than 20 & 18, respec-tively. †Latest data for Luxembourg, Poland, & the Philippines are for 2008. Data for France include 13 regions in 2005, 15 regions in 2006, 18 regions in 2007, 20 regions in 2008 & 2009.

v2_12_3.zip

v2_12_a.zip

vol 2esrd

Percent of patients0 15 30 45 60

Romania

Netherlands

Russia

Iceland

Norway

Poland†

Belgium, Dutch sp.

Spain

France

Denmark

Scotland

Sweden

Belgium, French sp.

UK^

Turkey

Greece

Austria

Bosnia/Herzegovina

Australia

Croatia

Finland

Canada

Argentina*

Uruguay

Philippines†

Israel

United States

Taiwan*

Japan*

Rep. of Korea

Hong Kong

New Zealand

Thailand

Jalisco (Mexico)

Morelos (Mexico)

Malaysia

0 15 30 45 60

Belgium, Dutch sp.Netherlands

GreeceSpain

RomaniaRussiaFranceAustria

IsraelHong KongPhilippinesArgentina*

DenmarkSweden

AustraliaNorway

Belgium, French sp.Uruguay

CanadaScotland

Bosnia/Herzegov.FinlandTurkeyJapan*

New ZealandMalaysiaTaiwan*Iceland

United StatesMorelos, Mexico

0 500 1000 1500

RussiaNetherlands

RomaniaNorway

SpainFrance

DenmarkBelgium, Dutch sp.

ScotlandFinland

SwedenGreeceAustria

AustraliaBelgium, French sp.

CanadaBosnia/Herzegov.

UruguayHong KongArgentina*

New ZealandPhilippines

IsraelTurkeyJapan*

Taiwan*United States

MalaysiaMorelos, Mexico

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000

RussiaRomania

NetherlandsNorway

ScotlandFinland

DenmarkSwedenIceland

SpainFrance

Bosnia/Herzegov.Australia

AustriaBelgium, Dutch sp.

Belgium, French sp.Greece

UruguayCanada

New ZealandHong KongPhilippinesArgentina*

Japan*Turkey

IsraelUnited States

Taiwan*Malaysia

Morelos, Mexico

Rate per million population0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000

RussiaRomania

FinlandScotland

NorwayNetherlands

DenmarkSweden

SpainNew Zealand

AustraliaHong Kong

FranceAustria

UruguayArgentina*

Belgium, Dutch sp.Bosnia/Herzegov.

CanadaBelgium, French sp.

GreecePhilippines

TurkeyJapan*

MalaysiaIsrael

United StatesTaiwan*

Morelos, Mexico

20-44 45-64

65-74 75+

12CHAPTER

page297

end-stage renal disease due to diabetes124ii

Percentage of incident patients with ESRD due to diabetes, 2009

125ii Incident rates of ESRD due to diabetes, by age, 2009

In 2009, diabetes was the primary cause of ESRD in 58–60 percent of new patients in Malaysia, Morelos (Mexico), and Jalisco (Mexico). Thailand, New Zealand, Hong Kong, the Republic of Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the United States, Isreal, and the Phil-ippines all have rates of ESRD incidence due to diabetes of greater than 40 percent. Countries reporting rates below 20 percent include Norway, Iceland, Russia, the Netherlands, and Romania.

By age, the incident rate of ESRD due to diabetes is highest in Morelos, reaching 1,786 per million population in patients age 64–74 — two to three times higher than in Malaysia, Taiwan, and the United States. Rates in the United States are 44 per million for those age 20–44, and 282, 628, and 520, respectively, for those age 45–64, 65–74, and 75 and older. » Figures 12.4–5; see page 394 for analytical methods.

Data presented only for countries from which relevant information was available. All rates unadjusted. ^UK: England, Wales, & Northern Ireland (Scotland data reported separately). Data for Belgium & England/Wales/Northern Ireland do not include patients younger than 20 & 18, respectively. *Argentina (2005–2007, 2009), Bangladesh, Brazil, Czech Republic (2005–2008), Japan, Luxembourg, & Taiwan are dialysis only. †Latest data for the Philip-pines and Poland are for 2008. Data for France include 13 regions in 2005, 15 regions in 2006, 18 regions in 2007, & 20 regions in 2008 & 2009.

v2_12_4.zip

v2_12_5.zip

Rate per million population

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

Philippines†

Bangladesh*Russia

ColumbiaBrazil*

RomaniaIceland

ThailandLuxembourg†

Argentina*Bosnia& Herzegovina

Poland†

FinlandUK^

TurkeyMalaysiaAustraliaScotlandDenmark

NorwayNew Zealand

SwedenNetherlands

Czech Republic*Croatia

Morelos (Mexico)Austria

UruguaySpain

GreeceHong Kong

IsraelFrance

ChileRep. of Korea

CanadaBelgium, Dutch sp.

Belgium, French sp.Jalisco (Mexico)

United StatesJapan*

Taiwan*

Prevalent counts Prevalent rates 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Argentina 22,333 23,306 24,218 30,035 25,454 579 598 615 756 634 Australia 15,175 16,112 16,826 17,631 18,243 746 778 801 825 834 Austria 7,232 7,512 7,729 7,894 8,177 889 909 933 947 979 Bangladesh 11,565 12,864 15,089 16,963 21,067 78 86 99 112 140 Belgium, Dutch sp. 6,023 6,300 6,558 6,820 7,110 994 1,033 1,068 1,103 1,141 Belgium, French sp. 4,516 4,768 4,981 5,201 5,448 1,022 1,071 1,110 1,149 1,193 Bosnia & Herzegov. 2,009 2,115 2,306 2,441 2,477 524 552 602 637 646 Brazil 70,872 73,605 87,044 77,589 92,091 389 398 466 415 481 Canada 32,467 33,847 35,202 36,429 37,744 1,006 1,038 1,069 1,093 1,119 Chile 14,160 15,353 16,360 17,856 18,849 866 930 986 1,065 1,109 Columbia . . . 20,239 19,846 . . . 469 454 Croatia 3,708 3,799 3,932 4,009 4,124 836 856 886 904 930 Czech Republic 4,638 4,752 5,190 5,633 9,536 452 462 500 538 908 Denmark 4,219 4,295 4,538 4,622 4,677 770 782 822 833 838 Finland 3,755 3,829 3,951 4,082 4,166 716 727 747 768 780 France 31,151 34,835 52,763 57,992 62,742 917 963 1,013 1,054 1,094 Greece 10,641 10,994 11,337 11,652 12,018 958 986 1,013 1,037 1,065 Hong Kong 6,635 6,930 7,155 7,445 7,581 970 1,003 1,029 1,065 1,078 Iceland 141 147 160 166 172 475 484 515 523 540 Israel 6,747 7,125 7,472 7,826 8,134 974 1,010 1,041 1,071 1,087 Jalisco (Mexico) 5,455 6,357 6,865 7,218 9,222 808 929 986 1,030 1,314 Japan 240,170 249,718 262,968 271,471 281,212 1,880 1,954 2,058 2,126 2,205 Rep. of Korea 44,333 46,730 48,675 51,989 56,396 900 942 973 1,032 1,114 Luxembourg 224 240 245 292 . 498 522 521 608 . Malaysia 15,086 16,805 18,794 21,037 23,067 577 626 691 764 827 Morelos (Mexico) . . 1,447 1,561 1,638 . . 878 939 978 Netherlands 11,970 12,623 13,154 13,948 14,794 733 772 803 848 895 New Zealand 3,117 3,245 3,353 3,452 3,663 754 775 793 809 858 Norway 3,386 3,510 3,692 3,893 4,066 732 753 784 816 842 Philippines 7,676 7,437 7,967 10,552 . 91 86 90 110 . Poland 20,479 21,765 23,658 24,783 . 537 571 621 650 . Romania 5,504 6,578 7,922 9,071 10,792 254 305 368 422 502 Russia 16,483 18,486 . 22,234 24,246 115 130 . 157 173 Scotland 3,877 4,011 4,166 4,244 4,339 761 784 810 821 835 Spain 28,366 35,462 41,546 44,067 39,708 868 961 956 995 1,034Sweden 7,408 7,725 7,923 8,056 8,277 820 851 866 874 890Taiwan 47,849 50,255 52,462 54,101 56,578 2,101 2,197 2,285 2,348 2,447Thailand 13,741 17,967 26,457 31,496 35,110 220 286 420 497 553Turkey 33,014 42,992 50,221 53,859 59,443 451 589 711 753 819UK 37,502 40,101 41,581 43,435 44,907 680 723 745 772 793United States 475,291 496,119 516,244 536,618 558,239 1,599 1,653 1,704 1,755 1,811Uruguay 2,807 3,073 3,204 3,389 3,407 849 927 964 1,016 1,019


volumetwoesrd

page298

international comparisonsPREVALENCE OF END-STAGE RENAL DISEASE | DIALYSIS

prevalence of end-stage renal disease126ii

Prevalence of ESRD, 2009

12bii Prevalence of ESRD, by year (per million population)

Taiwan and Japan continue to report the highest rates of preva-lent ESRD, at 2,447 and 2,205 per million population, respec-tively, in 2009. The next highest rate is reported by the United States, at 1,811, followed by Jalisco (Mexico), and French-speaking and Dutch-speaking Belgium, at 1,314, 1,193, and 1,141, respectively. The lowest rates are reported by Bangladesh and the Philippines, at 140 and 110. » Figure 12.6 & Table 12.b; see page 394 for analytical methods.

Data presented only for countries from which relevant information was available; “.” signifies data not reported. All rates unadjusted. ^UK: England, Wales, & Northern Ireland (Scotland data reported separately). Data for Belgium & England/Wales/Northern Ireland do not include patients younger than 20 & 18, respec-tively. *Argentina (2005–2007, 2009), Ban-gladesh, Brazil, Czech Republic (2005–2008), Japan, Luxembourg, & Taiwan are dialysis only. †Latest data for Luxembourg, the Philippines, & Poland are for 2008. Data for France include 13 regions in 2005, 15 regions in 2006, 18 regions in 2007, & 20 regions in 2008 & 2009.

v2_12_6.zip

v2_12_b.zip

vol 2esrd

Percent of patients

0 20 40 60 80 100

Luxembourg†

BangladeshJapan

ArgentinaChile

Bosnia/HerzegoveniaPhilippines†

IsraelPoland†

BrazilGreece

Czech RepublicUnited States

RussiaCroatiaAustria

UruguaySpain

Belgium, Fr. Sp.Malaysia

TaiwanTurkey

Belg/Dutch sp.FranceIceland

RomaniaThailandScotland

Rep. of KoreaUK^

NorwayNetherlands

CanadaFinland

SwedenDenmarkAustralia

ColumbiaNew Zealand

Morelos (Mexico)Jalisco (Mexico)

Hong Kong

In-center HD Home HD CAPD/CCPD

Hemodialysis Home hemodialysis Peritoneal dialysis 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Argentina 96.0 96.0 96.1 96.0 95.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.1Australia 68.9 68.2 68.3 68.6 69.6 9.5 9.6 9.8 9.4 9.3 21.5 22.1 22.0 22.1 21.1Austria 92.1 90.8 91.2 91.0 90.9 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 7.7 9.0 8.7 8.9 9.0Bangladesh 98.6 99.6 100 98.4 98.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.4 0.0 1.6 1.4Belg/Dutch sp. 88.8 89.1 89.2 89.6 89.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 11.0 10.7 10.6 10.2 10.1Belgium, Fr. Sp. 89.5 89.2 90.5 90.8 90.3 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.2 9.3 9.5 8.3 7.9 8.5Bosnia/Herzegov. 95.7 95.3 95.2 95.1 94.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.3 4.7 4.7 4.9 5.0Brazil 90.7 90.8 89.4 89.6 92.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 9.2 10.6 10.4 7.7Canada 78.9 78.8 78.6 78.3 78.4 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.5 18.7 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.1Chile 94.3 95.0 95.2 95.3 95.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.7Columbia 62.4 63.9 63.4 68.0 68.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.6 36.1 36.6 32.0 31.8Croatia 90.8 91.6 92.8 91.8 91.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 8.4 7.2 8.2 9.0Czech Republic 92.5 92.4 92.3 91.8 92.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 7.6 7.7 8.2 8.0Denmark 72.2 72.0 71.4 72.3 73.4 3.1 4.1 4.3 4.7 4.9 24.8 23.9 24.3 23.0 21.7Finland 75.5 76.0 75.8 74.4 74.7 3.1 2.9 3.8 4.0 3.8 21.3 21.2 20.4 21.7 21.5France 85.2 85.4 87.2 87.6 88.4 2.6 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.1 12.2 12.6 11.2 11.1 10.5Greece 91.0 91.5 91.7 91.7 92.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 8.4 8.3 8.3 7.9Hong Kong 17.7 18.8 19.5 20.2 21.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 82.2 81.1 80.3 79.4 78.1Iceland 65.5 70.6 72.1 76.2 86.9 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.6 0.0 34.5 29.4 26.2 22.2 13.1Israel 90.9 91.9 92.9 93.6 93.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 8.1 7.1 6.4 6.7Jalisco (Mexico) 28.3 29.5 34.2 40.4 41.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.7 70.5 65.8 59.6 58.5Japan 96.6 96.8 96.7 96.8 96.7 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.2Rep. of Korea 77.7 78.4 80.2 81.0 83.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.3 21.6 19.8 19.0 16.9Luxembourg 100 100 99.2 99.0 . 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 . 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 .Malaysia 90.1 90.2 89.9 89.9 90.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 8.7 8.7 9.1 9.1 8.8Morelos (Mexico) . . 40.6 43.2 42.4 . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 . . 59.4 56.8 57.6Netherlands 73.4 74.8 76.0 77.5 79.7 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.4 24.5 22.9 21.7 20.0 17.9New Zealand 45.9 45.5 48.1 48.0 48.7 15.8 16.1 15.9 15.7 16.3 38.3 38.3 36.0 36.3 35.0Norway 83.2 80.5 80.6 83.4 80.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 16.2 19.1 19.1 16.4 18.8Philippines 87.9 94.5 87.3 93.3 . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 12.1 5.5 12.7 6.7 .Poland 92.9 92.8 92.8 93.1 . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 7.1 7.2 7.2 6.9 .Romania 81.9 80.6 81.8 82.8 84.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.1 19.4 18.2 17.2 15.5Russia 91.5 91.0 . 91.0 91.3 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 0.0 8.5 9.0 . 9.0 8.7Scotland 77.8 79.0 80.7 82.4 83.5 2.1 1.7 1.8 2.2 2.4 20.1 19.3 17.5 15.4 14.1Spain 90.6 90.1 89.4 90.6 90.6 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 9.4 9.7 10.5 9.2 9.2Sweden 75.8 75.5 73.1 73.4 73.8 3.1 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.7 21.1 21.9 24.1 23.8 23.6Taiwan 93.0 92.4 91.5 90.8 89.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 7.6 8.5 9.2 10.3Thailand 93.9 95.8 94.5 90.5 84.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 4.2 5.5 9.5 15.9Turkey 87.9 88.7 88.1 87.4 89.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.1 11.3 11.9 12.5 10.4UK^ 76.3 78.6 78.9 81.0 82.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.5 21.6 19.4 19.1 16.9 15.1United States 91.7 91.9 92.0 92.0 91.9 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 7.6 7.3 7.1 6.9 6.9Uruguay 92.3 92.6 90.6 91.1 90.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 7.4 9.4 8.9 9.2

12CHAPTER

page299

patient distribution, by type of dialysis127ii

Percent distribution of prevalent dialysis patients, by modality, 2009

12cii Percent distribution of prevalent dialysis patients, by modality & year

In Hong Kong, four of five prevalent dialysis patients were treated with CAPD/CCPD in 2009. More than half of prevalent dialysis patients in Jalisco (Mexico) and Morelos (Mexico) use this therapy, as do 35 percent of those treated in New Zealand. In-center hemodialysis remains the most common mode of therapy worldwide; in New Zealand and Australia, however, 16.3 and 9.3 percent of patients, respectively, use home hemodi-alysis. » Figure 12.7 & Table 12.c; see page 394 for analytical methods.

Data presented only for countries from which relevant information was available; “.” signifies data not reported. All rates unadjusted. ^UK: England, Wales, & Northern Ireland (Scotland data reported separately). Data for Belgium & England/Wales/Northern Ireland do not include patients younger than 20 & 18, respec-tively. *Argentina (2005–2007, 2009), Ban-gladesh, Brazil, Czech Republic (2005–2008), Japan, Luxembourg & Taiwan are dialysis only. †Latest data for Luxembourg, the Philippines, & Poland are for 2008. Data for France include 13 regions in 2005, 15 regions in 2006, 18 regions in 2007, & 20 regions in 2008 & 2009.

v2_12_7.zip

v2_12_c.zip


0 150 300 450 600

Philippines†

Morelos (Mexico)

Romania

Russia

Bosnia & Herzegov.

Thailand

Columbia

Malaysia

Turkey

Chile

Greece

Rep. of Korea

Poland†

Croatia

Uruguay

New Zealand

Iceland

Czech Republic

Australia

Denmark

UK^

Israel

Scotland

Canada

Jalisco (Mexico)

Hong Kong

Finland

Belgium, Dutch sp.

Austria

Belgium, French sp.

Spain

Sweden

Netherlands

France

United States

Norway 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Australia 312 322 331 338 351 361Austria 413 428 439 456 460 476Belgium, Dutch speaking 402 405 423 440 455 466Belgium, French speaking 393 410 434 453 469 484Bosnia & Herzegovina 32 33 32 32 40 44Canada 381 393 408 426 441 457Chile 156 157 165 175 189 191Columbia . . . . 62 62Croatia 154 166 188 205 231 261Czech Republic 317 . . . . 359Denmark 297 267 318 331 345 363Finland 409 418 434 446 450 460France . 390 409 461 481 509Greece 170 182 192 202 214 215Hong Kong 361 387 410 420 442 458Iceland 247 276 316 319 324 349Israel 313 337 358 372 386 383Jalisco (Mexico) . 315 352 399 436 458Rep. of Korea 183 188 196 202 213 225Malaysia 62 64 66 65 65 65Morelos (Mexico) . . . 42 34 32Netherlands 377 397 419 446 478 508New Zealand 299 300 298 304 316 325Norway 513 525 537 552 573 591Philippines . 5 5 6 5 .Poland 176 194 209 233 242 .Romania . 15 20 22 29 34Russia 23 25 29 . 34 38Scotland 351 361 369 384 402 414Spain 522 386 445 453 505 495Sweden 430 439 454 468 485 497Thailand 25 25 20 57 36 46Turkey 47 21 58 80 109 102U.K., England, Wales & N Ireland 286 271 288 340 361 375United States 465 486 507 526 544 562Uruguay 151 132 210 235 256 273


volumetwoesrd

page300

international comparisonsTRANSPLANTATION

prevalent rates of functioning grafts128ii

Prevalent rates of functioning grafts, 2009

12dii Prevalent rates of functioning grafts, by year (per million population)

Reported prevalent rates of functioning grafts are greatest in Norway, the United States, and France, at 591, 562, and 509 per million population in 2009. Countries and regions reporting rates above 400 per million include Scotland, Canada, Jalisco (Mexico), Hong Kong, Finland, Belgium (both French- and Dutch-speaking), Austria, Spain, and Sweden. The Philippines, Morelos (Mexico), Romania, and Russia report rates below 40 per million population. » Figure 12.8 & Table 12.d; see page 394 for ana-lytical methods.

Data presented only for countries from which relevant information was available; “.” signifies data not reported. All rates unadjusted. ^UK: England, Wales, & Northern Ireland (Scotland data reported separately). Data for Belgium & England/Wales/Northern Ireland do not include patients younger than 20 & 18, respec-tively. †Latest data for the Philippines, & Poland are for 2008. Data for France include 13 regions in 2005, 15 regions in 2006, 18 regions in 2007, & 20 regions in 2008 & 2009.

v2_12_8.zip

v2_12_d.zip

vol 2esrd


0 25 50 75

Bangladesh

Thailand

Russia

Romania

Bosnia & Herzegovina

Philippines†

Malaysia

Hong KongLuxembourg†

Greece

Chile

Columbia

Poland†

Iceland

Brazil

Rep. of Korea

Turkey

Argentina

New Zealand

Israel

Finland

Czech Republic

Uruguay

Australia

Belgium, French sp.

Belgium, Dutch sp.

UK^†

Denmark

Scotland

Morelos (Mexico)

Sweden

France

Austria

Spain

Netherlands

United States

Jalisco (Mexico)

Norway

Canada 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Argentina . 19.1 21.7 23.0 25.1 26.4Australia 32.3 30.6 31.0 29.3 38.0 35.3Austria 43.6 45.9 47.9 43.7 39.4 47.5Bangladesh 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.6Belgium, Dutch speaking 31.5 28.4 39.7 42.7 38.6 37.2Belgium, French speaking 29.8 37.6 39.3 40.8 36.7 36.6Bosnia & Herzegovina 7.6 11.5 6.8 8.4 9.1 7.0Brazil 18.8 18.4 17.8 18.5 20.2 22.2Canada 32.1 32.7 64.7 65.7 63.3 63.1Chile 16.9 17.2 18.5 17.1 16.8 15.1Columbia 11.4 12.3 15.4 15.2 16.6 19.4Czech Republic 41.6 38.0 41.6 38.0 31.9 34.0Denmark 34.8 32.7 30.8 30.4 34.2 40.3Finland 37.1 31.8 39.7 32.3 27.9 32.8France . 36.6 39.9 45.1 44.8 43.5Greece 19.1 23.7 22.2 21.8 23.8 14.9Hong Kong 7.4 8.6 9.6 9.5 11.3 13.5Iceland 10.3 33.7 26.3 22.5 15.8 22.0Israel 37.0 43.4 43.2 37.7 33.1 28.6Jalisco (Mexico) 56.5 55.7 52.2 59.3 54.3 58.1Rep. of Korea 17.4 15.5 18.8 18.5 22.7 24.5Luxembourg 37.2 51.1 39.1 44.7 14.6 .Malaysia 7.4 6.2 11.1 8.2 9.2 9.5Morelos (Mexico) . . . 54.6 44.5 41.8Netherlands 41.8 43.1 41.0 50.8 47.1 50.0New Zealand 25.7 22.5 21.5 29.1 28.6 28.0Norway 57.7 49.5 45.5 55.2 58.3 60.5Philippines 5.6 7.5 8.0 11.8 7.1 .Poland 28.9 29.3 24.5 18.3 21.3 .Romania . 4.7 5.3 2.8 7.3 6.3Russia 2.0 2.8 2.9 . 5.5 5.9Scotland 26.6 29.2 26.4 37.5 41.8 41.4Spain 59.0 67.3 48.2 47.3 48.3 49.8Sweden 41.7 43.2 40.5 42.1 45.4 42.0Thailand 4.3 . 3.6 5.9 5.4 4.8Turkey 9.2 4.5 11.6 18.6 18.1 26.3U.K., England, Wales & N Ireland 33.8 29.9 33.9 35.5 38.5 .United States 57.9 59.0 60.5 58.2 57.1 57.7Uruguay 31.8 35.4 42.8 28.9 37.5 35.0

12CHAPTER

page301

transplant rates129ii

Transplant rates, 2009

12eii Transplant rates, by year (per million population)

Canada, Norway, Jalisco (Mexico), the United States, and the Netherlands reported transplant rates of 63.1, 60.5, 58.1, 57.7, and 50.0, respectively, per million population in 2009. Rates are less than 10 per million, in contrast, in Malaysia, the Phil-ippines (2008), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Romania, Russia, Thailand, and Bangladesh. » Figure 12.9 & Table 12.e; see page 394 for analytical methods.

Data presented only for countries from which relevant information was available; “.” signifies data not reported. All rates unadjusted. ^UK: England, Wales, & Northern Ireland (Scotland data reported separately). Data for Belgium & England/Wales/Northern Ireland do not include patients younger than 20 & 18, respec-tively. †Latest data for the Philippines, Poland, Luxembourg, and the UK are for 2008. Data for France include 13 regions in 2005, 15 regions in 2006, 18 regions in 2007, & 20 regions in 2008 & 2009.

v2_12_9.zip

v2_12_e.zip


volumetwoesrd

page302

international comparisonsSUMMARY

highest rates of reported incident esrd, 2009 per million population » moreles mexico 597 » jalisco mexico 419 » u.s. 371 » taiwan 347 (fig 12.2)

highest rates of reported prevalent esrd, 2009per million population » taiwan 2,447 » japan 2,205 » u.s. 1,811 (fig 12.6)

incident patients with esrd due to diabetes, 2009 » malaysia 60% » morelos mexico 58% » jalisco mexico 58% » u.s. 44% (fig 12.4)

prevalent rates of a functioning graft, 2009per million population » norway 591 » u.s. 562 » france 509 » netherlands 508 (fig 12.8)

transplant rates, 2009per million population » canada 63 » norway 61 » jalisco mexico 58 » u.s. 58 » netherlands 50 (fig 12.9)

gpepe er ve international comparisons - USRDS

Documents

Transcript of gpepe er ve international comparisons - USRDS