Pregnancy is rare in women with ESRD and when it occurs, it is often accompanied by significant maternal and fetal morbidity and even mortality. Preliminary data from the Toronto Nocturnal Hemodialysis Program suggested that increased clearance of uremic toxins by intensified hemodialysis improves pregnancy outcomes, but small numbers and the absence of a comparator group limited widespread applicability of these findings. We compared pregnancy outcomes from 22 pregnancies in the Toronto Pregnancy and Kidney Disease Clinic and Registry (2000-2013) with outcomes from 70 pregnancies in the American Registry for Pregnancy in Dialysis Patients (1990-2011). The primary outcome was the live birth rate and secondary outcomes included gestational age and birth weight. The live birth rate in the Canadian cohort (86.4%) was significantly higher than the rate in the American cohort (61.4%; P=0.03). Among patients with established ESRD, the median duration of pregnancy in the more intensively dialyzed Toronto cohort was 36 weeks (interquartile range, 32-37) compared with 27 weeks (interquartile range, 21-35) in the American cohort (P=0.002). Furthermore, a dose response between dialysis intensity and pregnancy outcomes emerged, with live birth rates of 48% in women dialyzed ≤20 hours per week and 85% in women dialyzed >36 hours per week (P=0.02), with a longer gestational age and greater infant birth weight for women dialyzed more intensively. Pregnancy complications were few and manageable. We conclude that pregnancy may be safe and feasible in women with ESRD receiving intensive hemodialysis.

has been reviewed by the Editorial Board and by special expert referees. Although it is judged not acceptable for publication in Obstetrics & Gynecology in its present form, we would be willing to give further consideration to a revised version. If you wish to consider revising your manuscript, you will first need to study carefully the enclosed reports submitted by the referees and editors. Each point raised requires a response, by either revising your manuscript or making a clear and convincing argument as to why no revision is needed. To facilitate our review, we prefer that the cover letter include the comments made by the reviewers and the editor followed by your response. The revised manuscript should indicate the position of all changes made. We suggest that you use the "track changes" feature in your word processing software to do so (rather than strikethrough or underline formatting).