Dataset Information

Value-based evaluation of dialysis versus conservative care in older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease: a cohort study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Conservative care is argued to be a reasonable treatment alternative for dialysis in older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, comparisons are scarce and generally focus on survival only. Comparative data on more patient-relevant outcomes are needed to truly foster shared decision-making on an individual level, and cost comparison is needed to assess value of care. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective observational single-center cohort study in 366 patients aged ?70 years with advanced CKD, who chose dialysis (n =?240) or conservative care (n =?126) after careful counselling by a multidisciplinary team in a non-academic teaching hospital in The Netherlands. Using a value-based health care approach (value?=?outcomes/cost): survival, health-related quality of life-cross-sectionally assessed with the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form™-treatment burden, and treatment costs were evaluated. RESULTS:The overall survival benefit of patients on a dialysis pathway compared with patients on conservative care diminished or lost significance in patients aged ?80 years or with severe comorbidity. There were no differences between patients managed conservatively and dialysis patients on physical and mental health summary scores (all P >?0.1). Patients on conservative care had 352.7 hospital free days per year versus 282.7 in patients on a dialysis pathway, calculated from treatment decision (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.09 to 1.21, P

SUBMITTER: Verberne WR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6097302 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Value-based evaluation of dialysis versus conservative care in older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease: a cohort study.

Verberne Wouter R WR Dijkers Janneke J Kelder Johannes C JC Geers Anthonius B M ABM Jellema Wilbert T WT Vincent Hieronymus H HH van Delden Johannes J M JJM Bos Willem Jan W WJW

BMC nephrology 20180816 1

<h4>Background</h4>Conservative care is argued to be a reasonable treatment alternative for dialysis in older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, comparisons are scarce and generally focus on survival only. Comparative data on more patient-relevant outcomes are needed to truly foster shared decision-making on an individual level, and cost comparison is needed to assess value of care.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a retrospective observational single-center cohort study in ...[more]

PMID: 30115028

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOlder adults with chronic kidney disease stage 5 may be offered a choice between dialysis and conservative management. Few studies have explored patients' reasons for choosing conservative management and none have compared the views of those who have chosen different treatments across renal units.Study designQualitative study with semistructured interviews.Settings & participantsPatients 75 years or older recruited from 9 renal units. Units were chosen to reflect variation in the scale of delivery of conservative management.MethodologySemistructured interviews audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim.Analytical approachData were analyzed using thematic analysis.Results42 interviews were completed, 4 to 6 per renal unit. Patients were sampled from those receiving dialysis, those preparing for dialysis, and those choosing conservative management. 14 patients in each group were interviewed. Patients who had chosen different treatments held varying beliefs about what dialysis could offer. The information that patients reported receiving from clinical staff differed between units. Patients from units with a more established conservative management pathway were more aware of conservative management, less often believed that dialysis would guarantee longevity, and more often had discussed the future with staff. Some patients receiving conservative management reported that they would have dialysis if they became unwell in the future, indicating the conditional nature of their decision.LimitationsRecruitment of older adults with frailty and comorbid conditions was difficult and therefore transferability of findings to this population is limited.ConclusionsOlder adults with chronic kidney disease stage 5 who have chosen different treatment options have contrasting beliefs about the likely outcomes of dialysis for those who are influenced by information provided by renal units. Supporting renal staff in discussing conservative management as a valid alternative to dialysis for a subset of patients will aid informed decision making. There is a need for better evidence about conservative management to support shared decision making for older people with chronic kidney failure.

Project description:BackgroundMany older patients approaching end-stage kidney disease have to decide whether to go for dialysis or non-dialytic conservative care (CC). Shared decision-making is recommended to align the treatment plan with the patient's preferences and values. Little is known about older patients' experiences with shared decision-making on dialysis or CC.MethodsWe performed a survey study, in collaboration with the Dutch Kidney Patients Association, in 99 patients aged ≥70 years who had chosen dialysis (n = 75) or CC (n = 24) after a shared decision-making process involving an experienced multidisciplinary team.ResultsPatients stated to be overall satisfied with the shared decision-making process (% with score 6-10 on 11-point Likert scale, dialysis versus CC: 93% vs. 91%, P = 0.06), and treatment decision (87% vs. 91%, P = 0.03). However, patients also reported negative experiences, especially those who had chosen dialysis. Such negative experiences were related to the timing, informing, and level of decision-making being shared. More patients who selected dialysis indicated to have felt forced to make a decision, mostly due to the circumstances, such as their deteriorating health or kidney function, or by their nephrologist (31% vs. 5%, P = 0.01). Also, patients who selected dialysis mentioned a perceived lack of choice as most common reason for choosing dialysis, and 55% considered their own opinion as most important rather than their nephrologists' or relatives' opinion compared to 90% of the patients who had chosen CC (P = 0.02). A subset of patients who had chosen dialysis still doubted their treatment decision compared to no patient who had chosen CC (17% vs. 0%, P = 0.03).ConclusionsOlder patients reported contrasting experiences with shared decision-making on dialysis or CC. Despite high overall satisfaction, the underlying negative experiences illustrate important but modifiable barriers to an optimal shared decision-making process.

Project description:Background and objectivesOutcomes of older patients with ESRD undergoing RRT or conservative management (CM) are uncertain. Adequate survival data, specifically of older patients, are needed for proper counseling. We compared survival of older renal patients choosing either CM or RRT.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsA retrospective survival analysis was performed of a single-center cohort in a nonacademic teaching hospital in The Netherlands from 2004 to 2014. Patients with ESRD ages ≥70 years old at the time that they opted for CM or RRT were included. Patients with acute on chronic renal failure needing immediate start of dialysis were excluded.ResultsIn total, 107 patients chose CM, and 204 chose RRT. Patients choosing CM were older (mean±SD: 83±4.5 versus 76±4.4 years; P<0.001). The Davies comorbidity scores did not differ significantly between both groups. Median survival of those choosing RRT was higher than those choosing CM from time of modality choice (median; 75th to 25th percentiles: 3.1, 1.5-6.9 versus 1.5, 0.7-3.0 years; log-rank test: P<0.001) and all other starting points (P<0.001 in all patients). However, the survival advantage of patients choosing RRT was no longer observed in patients ages ≥80 years old (median; 75th to 25th percentiles: 2.1, 1.5-3.4 versus 1.4, 0.7-3.0 years; log-rank test: P=0.08). The survival advantage was also substantially reduced in patients ages ≥70 years old with Davies comorbidity scores of ≥3, particularly with cardiovascular comorbidity, although the RRT group maintained its survival advantage at the 5% significance level (median; 75th to 25th percentiles: 1.8, 0.7-4.1 versus 1.0, 0.6-1.4 years; log-rank test: P=0.02).ConclusionsIn this single-center observational study, there was no statistically significant survival advantage among patients ages ≥80 years old choosing RRT over CM. Comorbidity was associated with a lower survival advantage. This provides important information for decision making in older patients with ESRD. CM could be a reasonable alternative to RRT in selected patients.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify the optimal estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at which to initiate dialysis in people with advanced chronic kidney disease.DesignNationwide observational cohort study.SettingNational Swedish Renal Registry of patients referred to nephrologists.ParticipantsPatients had a baseline eGFR between 10 and 20 mL/min/1.73 m2 and were included between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2016, with follow-up until 1 June 2017.Main outcome measuresThe strict design criteria of a clinical trial were mimicked by using the cloning, censoring, and weighting method to eliminate immortal time bias, lead time bias, and survivor bias. A dynamic marginal structural model was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios and absolute risks for five year all cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke) for 15 dialysis initiation strategies with eGFR values between 4 and 19 mL/min/1.73 m2 in increments of 1 mL/min/1.73 m2. An eGFR between 6 and 7 mL/min/1.73 m2 (eGFR6-7) was taken as the reference.ResultsAmong 10 290 incident patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (median age 73 years; 3739 (36%) women; median eGFR 16.8 mL/min/1.73 m2), 3822 started dialysis, 4160 died, and 2446 had a major adverse cardiovascular event. A parabolic relation was observed for mortality, with the lowest risk for eGFR15-16. Compared with dialysis initiation at eGFR6-7, initiation at eGFR15-16 was associated with a 5.1% (95% confidence interval 2.5% to 6.9%) lower absolute five year mortality risk and 2.9% (0.2% to 5.5%) lower risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, corresponding to hazard ratios of 0.89 (95% confidence interval 0.87 to 0.92) and 0.94 (0.91 to 0.98), respectively. This 5.1% absolute risk difference corresponded to a mean postponement of death of 1.6 months over five years of follow-up. However, dialysis would need to be started four years earlier. When emulating the intended strategies of the Initiating Dialysis Early and Late (IDEAL) trial (eGFR10-14 v eGFR5-7) and the achieved eGFRs in IDEAL (eGFR7-10 v eGFR5-7), hazard ratios for all cause mortality were 0.96 (0.94 to 0.99) and 0.97 (0.94 to 1.00), respectively, which are congruent with the findings of the randomised IDEAL trial.ConclusionsVery early initiation of dialysis was associated with a modest reduction in mortality and cardiovascular events. For most patients, such a reduction may not outweigh the burden of a substantially longer period spent on dialysis.

Dataset Information

Value-based evaluation of dialysis versus conservative care in older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease: a cohort study.

Publications

Value-based evaluation of dialysis versus conservative care in older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease: a cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets