Supplemental Figure 1. Sensitivity analysis with the add-on of an unmeasured residual confounding factor. This figure shows the trend

estimates of the peritoneal dialysis (PD) group hazard ratio for acute pancreatitis using a multivariable-adjusted Cox regression model. For

example, when all patients with PD had the add-on residual confounder (prevalence of the unmeasured confounder is 1.0) and none of the

patients in the comparison group had this residual confounder (prevalence of the unmeasured confounder is 0.0), the effect of PD would be a

risk for acute pancreatitis (HR = 1.3, the rightmost point on the bottom line).

Supplemental Figure 2. Sensitivity analysis with the add-on of an unmeasured residual confounding factor. This figure shows the trend

estimates of the hemodialysis (HD) group hazard ratio for acute pancreatitis using a multivariable-adjusted Cox regression model.

Supplemental Figure 3. Sensitivity analysis with the add-on of an unmeasured residual confounding factor. This figure shows the trend

estimates of the peritoneal dialysis (PD) group hazard ratio for liver cirrhosis using a multivariable-adjusted Cox regression model.

Supplemental Figure 4. Sensitivity analysis with the add-on of an unmeasured residual confounding factor. This figure shows the trend

estimates of the hemodialysis (HD) group hazard ratio for liver cirrhosis using a multivariable-adjusted Cox regression model.

Supplemental Figure 5. Study flow chart of pure PD and HD cohort model. ESRD = end-stage renal disease; GI = gastrointestinal disease;

HD = hemodialysis; ICD-9-CM = International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision Clinical Modification; mixed group = patients ever

receive both HD and PD therapy; PD = peritoneal dialysis.

Supplemental Figure 6. Study flow chart of the unmatched cohort model. ESRD = end-stage renal disease; GI = gastrointestinal disease;

HD = hemodialysis; ICD-9-CM = International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision Clinical Modification; mixed group = patients ever

receive both HD and PD therapy; PD = peritoneal dialysis.

Supplemental Figure 7. Study flow chart of the intent-to-treat analysis cohort model. ESRD = end-stage renal disease; GI = gastrointestinal

disease; HD = hemodialysis; ICD-9-CM = International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision Clinical Modification; PD = peritoneal

dialysis.

Supplemental Table

SupplementalTable 1

ALL Male Female

PD HD Comparison PD HD Comparison PD HD Comparison

Gastrointestinal disease n=1791 n=8955 n=8955 n=862 n=4673 n=4156 n=929 n=4282 n=4799

Total GI event 587 (32.8) 3748 (41.9) 3826 (42.7) 302 (35.0) 1890 (40.5) 1747 (42.0) 285 (30.7) 1858 (43.4) 2079 (43.3)

Gastroesophageal reflux 61 (3.4) 210 (2.4) 185 (2.1) 30 (3.5) 124 (2.7) 99 (2.4) 31 (3.4) 86 (2.0) 86 (1.8)

Peptic ulcer disease 355 (19.8) 2801 (31.3) 3211 (35.9) 175 (20.3) 1375 (29.4) 1402 (33.7) 180 (19.4) 1426 (33.3) 1809 (37.7)

Mesenteric ischemia 10 (0.6) 96 (1.1) 23 (0.3) 2 (0.2) 42 (0.9) 9 (0.2) 8 (0.9) 54 (1.3) 14 (0.3)

Intestinal obstruction or adhesions 54 (3.2) 291 (3.3) 275 (3.1) 25 (2.9) 139 (3.0) 129 (3.1) 32 (3.4) 152 (3.6) 146 (3.0)

Appendicitis 5 (0.3) 86 (1.0) 111 (1.2) 1 (0.1) 46 (1.0) 51 (1.2) 4 (0.4) 40 (0.9) 60 (1.3)

Lower GI diverticula and bleeding 143 (8.0) 1274 (14.2) 545 (6.1) 79 (9.2) 661 (14.2) 305 (7.3) 64 (6.9) 613 (14.3) 240 (5.0)

Liver cirrhosis 42 (2.4) 395(4.4) 250 (2.8) 28 (3.3) 269 (5.8) 143 (3.4) 14 (1.5) 126 (2.9) 107 (2.2)

Acute pancreatitis 28(1.6) 226 (2.5) 128 (1.4) 26(1.7) 86(1.8) 68 (1.6) 13 (1.4) 140 (3.3) 60 (1.3)

Abdominal hernia 105 (5.9) 168 (1.9) 200 (2.2) 65 (7.5) 113 (2.4) 169 (4.1) 40 (4.3) 55 (1.3) 31 (0.7)

PD = peritoneal dialysis; HD = hemodialysis; GI = gastrointestinalData are presented as incidence rate (percentage)This table showed the total incidence rates of total and each GIevent in both HD and PD patients, and the reference cohort.The result showed that in most disease, totalincidence rates was higher in dialysis patients.But in some GI disease, although The most important reason was as follows: In survival analysis, censoring of observationsand time of eventaretwo important issues. In our result, there were more censoring of observationsin dialysis group; besides,time of event ofthese GI of comparison groups was preceded by dialysis group.

SupplementalTable2PD (N = 1791) HD (N = 8955) Comparison (N = 8955)

Gastrointestinal disease

40-49

n=653

50-59

n=639

60-69

n=315

≥70

n=184

40-49

n=2376

50-59

n=2822

60-69

n=2128

≥70

n=1629

40-49

n=3835

50-59

n=2682

60-69

n=1672

≥70

n=766

Total GI event 199 (30.5) 208 (32.6) 111 (35.2) 69 (37.5) 901 (37.9) 1202 (42.6) 961 (45.2) 684 (42.0) 1367 (35.7) 1219 (45.5) 809 (48.4) 431 (56.3)

Gastroesophageal reflux 20 (3.1) 24 (3.8) 12 (3.8) 5 (2.7) 53 (2.2) 70 (2.5) 53 (2.5) 34 (2.1) 56 (1.5) 76 (2.8) 29 (1.7) 24 (3.1)

Peptic ulcer disease 126 (19.3) 129 (20.2) 63 (20.0) 37 (20.1) 714 (30.1) 923 (32.7) 699 (32.9) 465 (28.6) 1139 (29.7) 1030 (38.4) 697 (41.7) 345 (45.0)

Mesenteric ischemia 3 (0.5) 2 (0.3) 3 (1.0 ) 2 (1.1) 10 (0.4) 24 (0.9) 28 (1.3) 34 (2.1) 2 (0.1) 4 (0.2) 10 (0.6) 7 (0.9)

Intestinal obstruction or adhesions 22 (3.4) 15 (2.4) 9 (2.9) 11 (6.0) 52 (2.2) 70 (2.5) 81 (3.8) 88 (5.4) 62 (1.6) 78 (2.9) 61 (3.7) 74 (9.7)

Appendicitis 2 (0.3) 2 (0.3) 1 (0.3) 0 (0.0 ) 33 (1.4 ) 24 (0.9 ) 19 (0.9 ) 10 (0.6) 45 (1.2 ) 37 (1.4) 16 (1.0 ) 13 (1.7)

Lower GI diverticula and bleeding 34 (5.2 ) 52 (8.1) 30 (9.5) 27 (14.7) 242 (10.2) 397 (14.1) 358 (16.8) 277 (17.0) 152 (4.0) 179 (6.7) 115 (6.9) 99 (12.9)

Liver cirrhosis 9 (1.4) 14 (2.2) 12 (3.8) 7 (3.8) 80 (3.4) 119 (4.2) 119 (5.6) 77 (4.7) 92 (2.4) 78 (2.9) 49(2.9) 31 (4.1)

Acute pancreatitis 6 (0.9) 9 (1.4) 10 (3.2) 3 (1.6) 52 (2.2) 73 (2.6) 59 (2.8) 26 (1.6) 47 (1.2) 28 (1.0) 21 (1.3) 14 (1.8)

Abdominal hernia 34 (5.2) 44 (6.9) 20 (6.3) 7 (3.8) 38 (1.6) 57 (2.0) 42 (2.0) 31 (1.9) 52 (1.4) 58 (2.2) 51 (3.1) 39 (5.1)

PD = peritoneal dialysis; HD = hemodialysis; GI = gastrointestinal

The study group was divided into four age groups: 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, and

Data are presented as incidence rate (percentage)

Supplemental Table3.The number of modality change, death, and renal transplantation patients in HD and PD cohorts.

Modality

changeDeath (%)

Transplantation

(%)

PD (n=1791)Pure (n=1218)

152 (8.5) 64 (3.6)Mixed (n=573)

HD (n=8955)Pure (n=8356)

1129 (12.6) 213 (2.4)Mixed (n=599)

PD = peritoneal dialysis; HD = hemodialysis; pure = patient who received only one dialysis modality; Mixed = patient who received both HD and PDIn PD cohort, there were 573 patients ever change their dialysis modality; in HD cohort, there were 599 patients ever change their dialysis modality.In PD cohort, there were total152 patients (8.5%) death during follow up period; in HD cohort, there were total 1129 patients (12.6 %) death.In PD cohort, there were total 64 patients (3.6 %) arrange renal transplantation during follow up period; in HD cohort, there were total 213 patients (2.4 %) arrange renal transplantation.

Supplemental Table4.Demographic characteristics and co-morbidities of peritoneal dialysis, hemodialysis and non-dialysis comparison

cohorts in pure PD andHD model.

Characteristic

PD

(N = 1218)

HD

(N =6090)

Comparison

(N = 6090)

p-value

Age, years (%)

40-49 438 (36.0) 2190 (36.0) 2190 (36.0) 1.000

50-59 454 (37.3) 2270 (37.3) 2270 (37.3)

60-69 207 (17.0) 1035 (17.0) 1035 (17.0)

≥70 119 (9.8) 595 (9.8) 595 (9.8)

mean ± SD 55.0 ± 10.2 55.3 ± 10.0 54.9 ± 10.4 0.076

Male, n (%) 613 (50.3) 3065 (50.3) 3065 (50.3) 1.000

Comorbidities (%)

Diabetes mellitus 435 (35.7) 3032 (49.8) 624 (10.3) <0.001*

Hyperlipidemia 389 (31.9) 1735 (28.5) 384 (6.3) <0.001*

Hypertension 1047 (86.0) 5074 (83.3) 1342(22.0) <0.001*

Congestive heart failure 78 (6.4) 708 (11.6) 101 (1.7) <0.001*

Coronary artery disease 247 (20.3) 1806 (29.7) 613 (10.1) <0.001*

Atrial fibrillation 32 (2.6) 166 (2.7) 6 (0.1) <0.001*

Cerebrovascular disease 119 (9.8) 924 (15.2) 351 (5.8) <0.001*

Asthma or COPD 104 (8.5) 733 (12.0) 503 (8.3) <0.001*

Diseases of MSCT 83 (6.8) 504 (8.3) 355 (5.8) <0.001*

Chronic hepatitis 143 (11.7) 937 (15.4) 585 (9.6) <0.001*

Depression 24 (2.0) 142 (2.3) 51 (0.8) <0.001*

Dementia 15 (1.2) 67 (1.1) 20 (0.3) <0.001*

Obesity 1 (0.1) 15 (0.3) 16 (0.3) 0.493

Alcohol related illness 2 (0.2) 16 (0.3) 9 (0.2) 0.351

Non GI Cancer 65 (5.3) 403 (6.6) 140 (2.3) <0.001*

PD = peritoneal dialysis; HD = hemodialysis;SD = standard deviation; COPD = chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; MSCT = musculoskeletal system and connective tissue; GI = gastrointestinal*P < 0.05In this pure PD and HDmodel, only patients who never change their dialysis modalities were enrolled. Finally, we enrolled 1,218incident pure PD patients, 6,090 incident pure HD patients and 6,090 non-dialysis patients as our study group at a ratio of 1:5:5. Above table presents the demographic characteristics and clinical comorbidities for the three patient groups.)

SupplementalTable5. Age and sex matched multivariable-adjusted Cox regression model hazard ratios of common gastrointestinal disease

among the cohort of sampled patients during follow-up(pure PD andHD model)

Gastrointestinal disease

PD

(N = 1218)

HD

(N = 6090)

Comparison

(N = 6090)

Total GI event 1.39 (1.23, 1.57), <0.001* 1.45 (1.35, 1.56), <0.001* 1

Gastroesophageal reflux 5.09 (3.13, 8.29), <0.001* 2.63 (1.90, 3.65), <0.001* 1

Peptic ulcer disease 0.95 (0.82, 1.11), 0.543 1.28 (1.18, 1.39), <0.001* 1

Mesenteric ischemia 3.41 (0.92, 12.70), 0.067 7.08 (3.53, 14.21), <0.001* 1

Intestinal obstruction or adhesions 1.72 (1.11, 2.66), 0.015* 1.31 (1.01, 1.70), 0.043* 1

Appendicitis 0.49 (0.15, 1.65), 0.250 1.45 (0.91, 2.33), 0.121 1

Lower GI diverticula and bleeding 3.68 (2.86, 4.75), <0.001* 4.10 (3.48, 4.83), <0.001* 1

Liver cirrhosis 1.41 (0.88, 2.27), 0.149 2.12 (1.67, 2.71), <0.001* 1

Acute pancreatitis 3.14 (1.80, 5.45), <0.001* 2.56 (1.78, 3.69), <0.001* 1

Abdominal hernia 4.76 (3.34, 6.79), <0.001* 1.13 (0.83, 1.53), 0.432* 1

HR = hazard ratio; CI = confidence interval; PD = peritoneal dialysis; HD = hemodialysis; GI = gastrointestinalData are presented as number of events (percentage of group with event), adjusted HR (95% CI) and P-value; *P < 0.05Adjustments were made for age, sex, and comorbidities.Abovetable showed that in pure PD and HD model, the result has followed a similar pattern as non-pure PD and HD model (Table 2). But the risk of mesenteric ischemiaand liver cirrhosis in PD was not significant higher than comparison group.

16

Supplemental Table6. Age and sex matched multivariable-adjusted competing-risk regression (CRR) models hazard ratios of common

gastrointestinal disease among the cohort of sampled patients during follow-up(pure PD andHD model)

Gastrointestinal disease

PD

(N = 1218)

HD

(N = 6090)

Comparison

(N = 6090)

Total GI event 1.15 (1.01, 1.32), 0.037* 1.23 (1.14, 1.33), <0.001* 1

Gastroesophageal reflux 3.36 (2.10, 5.38), <0.001* 2.11 (1.54, 2.89), <0.001* 1

Peptic ulcer disease 0.80 (0.68, 0.94), 0.008 1.11 (1.02, 1.21), 0.020* 1

Mesenteric ischemia 1.08 (0.15, 8.04), 0.940 5.99 (2.97, 12.09), <0.001* 1

Intestinal obstruction or adhesions 1.40 (0.84, 2.34), 0.200 1.20 (0.89, 1.61), 0.230 1

Appendicitis 0.30 (0.07, 1.29), 0.110 1.27 (0.75, 2.15), 0.380 1

Lower GI diverticula and bleeding 2.61 (1.96, 3.48), <0.001* 3.38 (2.82, 4.04), <0.001* 1

Liver cirrhosis 0.98 (0.54, 1.77), 0.940 2.04 (1.55, 2.69), <0.001* 1

Acute pancreatitis 2.62 (1.45, 4.72), 0.001 2.36 (1.64, 3.38), <0.001* 1

Abdominal hernia 4.59 (3.22, 6.54), <0.001* 0.97 (0.71, 1.34), 0.870 1

CRR = Fine and Gray competing-risk regression; HR = hazard ratio; CI = confidence interval; PD = peritoneal dialysis; HD = hemodialysis; GI = gastrointestinalData are presented as adjusted competing-risk HR (95% CI) and P-value; *P< 0.05Adjustments were made for age, sex, and comorbidities

17

Abovetable showed that in pure PD and HD CRR model, the result has followed a similar pattern as non-pure PD and HDCRRmodel(Table 3). But the risk of intestinal obstruction was not higher in dialysis patients. Besides, the risk of liver cirrhosis in PD was not significant higher than comparison group.

18

Supplemental Table7.Demographic characteristics and co-morbidities of unmatched sampled of peritoneal dialysis, hemodialysis and non-dialysis comparison cohortsin unmatched sample model

Characteristic

PD

(N = 1791)

HD

(N =8955)

Comparison

(N = 8955)

p-value

Age, years (%)

40-49 653 (36.5) 1912 (21.4) 4224 (47.2) <0.001*

50-59 639 (35.7) 2638 (29.5) 2148 (24.0)

60-69 315 (17.6) 2342 (26.2) 1458 (16.3)

≥70 184 (10.2) 2063 (23.0) 1125 (12.6)

mean ± SD 55.1 ± 10.3 60.5 ± 11.5 54.3 ± 11.6 <0.001*

Male, n (%) 862 (48.1) 4170 (46.6) 4496 (50.2) <0.001*

Comorbidities (%)

Diabetes mellitus 618 (34.5) 4784 (53.4) 863 (9.6) <0.001*

Hyperlipidemia 555 (31.0) 2529 (28.2) 600 (6.7) <0.001*

Hypertension 1505 (84.0) 7531 (84.1) 1994(22.3) <0.001*

Congestive heart failure 104 (5.8) 1152 (12.9) 122 (1.4) <0.001*

Coronary artery disease 351 (19.6) 3050 (34.1) 869 (9.7) <0.001*

Atrial fibrillation 45 (2.5) 356 (4.0) 10 (0.1) <0.001*

19

Cerebrovascular disease 187 (10.4) 1696 (18.9) 515 (5.8) <0.001*

Asthma or COPD 160 (8.9) 1391 (15.5) 749 (8.4) <0.001*

Diseases of MSCT 126 (7.0) 776 (8.7) 488 (5.5) <0.001*

Chronic hepatitis 205 (11.5) 1203 (13.4) 792 (8.8) <0.001*

Depression 36 (2.0) 193 (2.2) 57 (0.6) <0.001*

Dementia 22 (1.2) 189 (2.1) 30 (0.3) <0.001*

Obesity 2 (0.1) 14 (0.2) 30 (0.3) 0.025*

Alcohol related illness 2 (0.1) 27 (0.3) 13 (0.2) 0.047*

Non GI Cancer 96 (5.4) 726 (8.1) 218 (2.4) <0.001*

PD = peritoneal dialysis; HD = hemodialysis;SD = standard deviation; COPD = chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; MSCT = musculoskeletal system and connective tissue; GI = gastrointestinal*P < 0.05(In this unmatched samplemodel, we randomly selected 1,791 incident PD patients, 8,955 incident HD patients and 8,955 non-dialysis patients without matching as our study group at a ratio of 1:5:5. Above Table presents the demographic characteristics and clinical comorbidities for the three patient groups.)

20

SupplementalTable 8.Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression model hazard ratios of common gastrointestinal disease among the peritoneal

dialysis, hemodialysis and non-dialysis comparison cohorts during follow-up (unmatched sampled model)

Gastrointestinal disease

PD

(N = 1791)

HD

(N = 8955)

Comparison

(N = 8955)

Total GI event 1.19 (1.35, 1.64), <0.001* 1.37 (1.29, 1.46), <0.001* 1

Gastroesophageal reflux 5.11 (3.61, 7.25), <0.001* 2.02 (1.54, 2.63), <0.001* 1

Peptic ulcer disease 1.03 (0.92, 1.16), 0.691 1.17 (1.09, 1.25), <0.001* 1

Mesenteric ischemia 6.45 (2.67, 15.56), <0.001* 6.61 (3.44, 12.70), <0.001* 1

Intestinal obstruction or adhesions 2.06 (1.51, 2.80), <0.001* 1.11 (0.90, 1.35), 0.328 1

Appendicitis 0.50 (0.20, 1.30), 0.156 1.65 (1.11, 2.45), 0.014* 1

Lower GI diverticula and bleeding 2.97(2.42, 3.63), <0.001* 3.23 (2.84, 3.67), <0.001* 1

Liver cirrhosis 1.87 (1.31, 2.67), 0.001* 2.15 (1.75, 2.65), <0.001* 1

Acute pancreatitis 2.84 (1.79, 4.52), <0.001* 2.85 (2.10, 3.87), <0.001* 1

Abdominal hernia 5.39 (4.08, 7.13), <0.001* 1.09 (0.85, 1.39), 0.513 1

HR = hazard ratio; CI = confidence interval; PD = peritoneal dialysis; HD = hemodialysis; GI = gastrointestinalData are presented as number of events (percentage of group with event), adjusted HR (95% CI) and P-value; *P < 0.05Adjustments were made for age, sex, and comorbiditiesAbove table showed that in unmatched sampled model, the result has followed a similar pattern as matched sampled model (Table 2). But the risk of intestinal obstruction or adhesions and abdominal hernia was not higher in HD cohort. Besides, the risk of appendicitis in HD was significant higher than comparison group.

21

SupplementalTable 9.Multivariable-adjusted competing-risk regression (CRR) models hazard ratios of common gastrointestinal disease

among the peritoneal dialysis, hemodialysis and non-dialysis comparison cohorts during follow-up (unmatched sampled model)

Age and Sex Matched

Gastrointestinal disease

PD

(N = 1791)

HD

(N = 8955)

Comparison

(N = 8955)

Total GI event 1.28 (1.15, 1.41), <0.001* 1.17 (1.10, 1.25), <0.001* 1

Gastroesophageal reflux 3.95 (2.80, 5.56), <0.001* 1.74 (1.34, 2.27), <0.001* 1

Peptic ulcer disease 0.88 (0.78, 1.00), 0.055 1.02 (0.95, 1.10), 0.610 1

Mesenteric ischemia 3.31 (0.94, 11.7), 0.063 6.31 (2.79, 1.43), <0.001* 1

Intestinal obstruction or adhesions 1.86 (1.32, 2.63), <0.001* 1.08 (0.86, 1.36), 0.510 1

Appendicitis 0.41 (0.15, 1.16), 0.093 1.52 (0.95, 2.43), 0.079 1

Lower GI diverticula and bleeding 2.31 (1.84, 2.90), <0.001* 2.87 (2.49, 3.31), <0.001* 1

Liver cirrhosis 1.68 (1.11, 2.55), 0.015* 2.25 (1.75, 2.88), <0.001* 1

Acute pancreatitis 2.32 (1.41, 3.82), <0.001* 2.45 (1.77, 3.39), <0.001* 1

Abdominal hernia 4.92 (3.74, 6.47), <0.001* 0.89 (0.68, 1.15), 0.370 1

CRR = Fine and Gray competing-risk regression; HR = hazard ratio; CI = confidence interval; PD = peritoneal dialysis; HD = hemodialysis; GI = gastrointestinalData are presented as adjusted competing-risk HR (95% CI) and P-value; *P < 0.05Adjustments were made for age, sex, and comorbidities

22

Above table showed that in unmatched sampled CRR model, the result has followed a similar pattern as matched sampled CRR model (Table 3). But the risk of PUD and intestinal obstruction or adhesions was not higher in HD cohort.SupplementalTable10.Demographic characteristics and co-morbidities of intent-to-treat analysis model amongperitoneal dialysis,

hemodialysis and non-dialysis comparison cohorts

Characteristic

PD

(N = 1412)

HD

(N =7060)

Comparison

(N = 7060)

p-value

Age, years (%)

40-49 508 (36.0) 2540 (36.0) 2540 (36.0) 1.000

50-59 501 (35.5) 2505 (35.5) 2505 (35.5)

60-69 261 (18.5) 1305 (18.5) 1305 (18.5)

≥70 142 (10.1) 710 (10.1) 710 (10.1)

mean ± SD 55.2 ± 10.3 55.5 ± 10.2 55.1 ± 10.6 0.069

Male, n (%) 711 (50.4) 3555 (50.4) 3555 (50.4) 1.000

Comorbidities (%)

Diabetes mellitus 528 (37.4) 3516 (49.8) 734 (10.4) <0.001*

Hyperlipidemia 446 (31.6) 2060 (29.2) 465 (6.6) <0.001*

Hypertension 1195 (84.6) 5885 (83.4) 1636 (23.2) <0.001*

23

Congestive heart failure 95 (6.7) 819 (11.6) 115 (1.6) <0.001*

Coronary artery disease 294 (20.8) 2148 (30.4) 657 (9.3) <0.001*

Atrial fibrillation 33 (2.3) 203 (2.9) 9 (0.1) <0.001*

Cerebrovascular disease 148 (10.5) 1098 (15.6) 421 (6.0) <0.001*

Asthma or COPD 120 (8.5) 932 (13.2) 596 (8.4) <0.001*

Diseases of MSCT 104 (7.4) 551 (7.8) 407 (5.8) <0.001*

Chronic hepatitis 167 (11.8) 1029 (14.6) 697 (9.9) <0.001*

Depression 27 (1.9) 171 (2.4) 56 (0.8) <0.001*

Dementia 20 (1.4) 88 (1.3) 22 (0.3) <0.001*

Obesity 0 (0.0) 22 (0.3) 24 (0.3) 0.095

Alcohol related illness 2 (0.1) 16 (0.2) 7 (0.1) 0.165

Non GI Cancer 76 (5.4) 472 (6.7) 200 (2.8) <0.001*

PD = peritoneal dialysis; HD = hemodialysis;SD = standard deviation; COPD = chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; MSCT = musculoskeletal system and connective tissue; GI = gastrointestinal*P < 0.05(In this intent-to-treat analysis model, dialysis patients were classified according to their initial dialysis modalities. Above table presents the demographic characteristics and clinical comorbidities for the three patient groups.)

24

SupplementalTable 11. Age and sex matched multivariable-adjusted Cox regression model hazard ratios of common gastrointestinal disease

among the cohort of sampled patients during follow-up(An intent-to-treat analysis model)

Age and Sex Matched

Gastrointestinal disease

PD

(N = 1412)

HD

(N = 7060)

Comparison

(N = 7060)

Total GI event 1.66 (1.49, 1.84), <0.001* 1.51 (1.41, 1.61), <0.001* 1

Gastroesophageal reflux 6.87 (4.70, 10.02), <0.001* 2.64 (1.97, 3.55), <0.001* 1

Peptic ulcer disease 1.14 (1.01, 1.30), 0.042* 1.31 (1.22, 1.41), <0.001* 1

Mesenteric ischemia 4.59 (1.70, 12.39), 0.003* 8.15 (4.38, 15.16), <0.001* 1

Intestinal obstruction or adhesions 3.48 (2.52, 4.83), <0.001* 1.44 (1.13, 1.83), 0.003* 1

Appendicitis 0.73 (0.29, 1.88), 0.519 1.57 (1.04, 2.37), 0.031* 1

Lower GI diverticula and bleeding 3.74 (3.00, 4.66), <0.001* 3.70 (3.20, 4.27), <0.001* 1

Liver cirrhosis 1.86 (1.27, 2.72), 0.001* 2.15 (1.72, 2.68), <0.001* 1

Acute pancreatitis 3.30 (2.01, 5.43), <0.001* 2.62 (1.85, 3.70), <0.001* 1

Abdominal hernia 5.85 (4.30, 7.95), <0.001* 1.42 (1.08, 1.87), 0.011* 1

HR = hazard ratio; CI = confidence interval; PD = peritoneal dialysis; HD = hemodialysis; GI = gastrointestinalData are presented as number of events (percentage of group with event), adjusted HR (95% CI) and P-value; *P < 0.05Adjustments were made for age, sex, and comorbidities.

25

Above table showed that in intent-to-treat analysis model, the result has followed a similar pattern as non-intent-to-treat analysis model (Table 2). But the risk of PUDin PD wassignificant higher than comparison group. Besides, the risk of appendicitis in HD was significant higher than comparison group.

26

SupplementalTable12. Age and sex matched multivariable-adjusted competing-risk regression (CRR) models hazard ratios of common

gastrointestinal disease among the cohort of sampled patients during follow-up(An intent-to-treat analysis model)

Age and Sex Matched

Gastrointestinal disease

PD

(N = 1412)

HD

(N = 7060)

Comparison

(N = 7060)

Total GI event 1.41 (1.26, 1.58), <0.001* 1.28 (1.20, 1.38), <0.001* 1

Gastroesophageal reflux 5.63 (3.91, 8.11), <0.001* 2.38 (1.79, 3.16), <0.001* 1

Peptic ulcer disease 1.00 (0.88, 1.15), 0.970 1.14 (1.05, 1.24), 0.001* 1

Mesenteric ischemia 2.25 (0.66, 7.72), 0.200 6.42 (3.35, 12.29), <0.001* 1

Intestinal obstruction or adhesions 3.46 (2.43, 4.91), <0.001* 1.45 (1.13, 1.85), 0.003* 1

Appendicitis 0.57 (0.21, 1.60), 0.290 1.46 (0.96, 2.22), 0.079 1

Lower GI diverticula and bleeding 2.97 (2.33, 3.78), <0.001* 3.12 (2.67, 3.66), <0.001* 1

Liver cirrhosis 1.34 (0.84, 2.14), 0.230 1.85 (1.41, 2.42), <0.001* 1

Acute pancreatitis 3.39 (2.02, 5.70), <0.001* 2.61 (1.67, 3.66), <0.001* 1

Abdominal hernia 5.83 (4.31, 7.88), <0.001* 1.36 (1.04, 1.79), 0.026* 1

CRR = Fine and Gray competing-risk regression; HR = hazard ratio; CI = confidence intervalData are presented as adjusted competing-risk HR (95% CI) and P-value; *P< 0.05Adjustments were made for age, sex, and comorbidities

27

Above table showed that in intent-to-treat analysis CRR model, the result has followed a similar pattern as non-intent-to-treat analysis CRR model (Table 3). But the risk of liver cirrhosis in PD was not higher than comparison group. Besides, the risk of abdominal hernia in HD was significant higher than comparison group.

28