Frailty Severity and Hospitalization After Dialysis Initiation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Frailty is associated with hospitalization and mortality among dialysis patients. To now, few studies have considered the degree of frailty as a predictor of hospitalization.Objective
We evaluated whether frailty severity was associated with hospitalization after dialysis initiation.Design
Retrolective cohort study.Setting
Nova Scotia, Canada.Patients
Consecutive adult, chronic dialysis patients who initiated dialysis from January 1, 2009 to June 30, 2014, (last follow-up June, 2015).Methods
Frailty Severity, as determined by the 7-point Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS, ranging from 1 = very fit to 7 = severely frail), was measured at dialysis initiation and treated as continuous and in categories (CFS scores of 1-3, 4/5, and 6/7). Hospitalization was characterized by cumulative time admitted to hospital (proportion of days admitted/time at risk) and by the joint risk of hospitalization and death. Time at risk included time in hospital after dialysis initiation and patients were followed until transplantation or death.Results
Of 647 patients (mean age: 62 ± 15), 564 (87%) had CFS scores. The mean CFS score was 4 ("corresponding to "vulnerable") ± 2 ("well" to "moderately frail"). In an adjusted negative binomial regression model, moderate-severely frail patients (CFS 6/7) had a >2-fold increased risk of cumulative time admitted to hospital compared to the lowest CFS category (IRR = 2.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.31-3.63). In the joint model, moderate-severely frail patients had a 61% increase in the relative hazard for hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.29-2.02) and a 93% increase in the relative hazard for death compared to the lowest CFS category (HR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.16-3.22).Limitations
Potential unknown confounders may have affected the association between frailty severity and hospitalization given observational study design. The CFS is subjective and different clinicians may grade frailty severity differently or misclassify patients on the basis of limited availability.Conclusions
Among incident dialysis patients, a higher frailty severity as defined by the CFS is associated with both an increased risk of cumulative time admitted to hospital and joint risk of hospitalization and death.
SUBMITTER: Clark D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8202313 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:End-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients are at increased risk of sudden cardiac death, the risk of which is presumably related to arrhythmia. Electrocardiographic (ECG) parameters have been found to correlate with arrhythmia and predict cardiovascular outcomes in ESRD patients. Frailty is also a common feature in this population. We investigate whether the severity of dialysis frailty is associated with ECG findings, including PR interval, QRS duration, and QTc interval. Presence and severity of frailty was ascertained using six different self-report questionnaires with proven construct validity. Correlation analysis between frailty severity and ECG was made, and those with significant association entered into multiple regression analysis for confirmation. Among a cohort of chronic hemodialysis patients, we found that frailty severity, assessed by the Edmonton frailty scale, is significantly associated with QRS duration (r = - 0.3, p < 0.05). Dialysis patients with QRS longer than 120 ms had significantly lower severity of frailty than those with QRS less than 120 ms (p = 0.01 for the Edmonton frailty scale and 0.05 for simple FRAIL scale). Regression analysis showed that frailty severity, assessed by the Edmonton frailty scale and simple FRAIL scale, was significantly associated with QRS duration independent of serum electrolyte levels. In conclusion, a significant relationship exists between the severity of frailty and QRS duration in ESRD patients. This might be an under-recognized link between frailty and its adverse cardiovascular impact in these patients.
| S-EPMC4627921 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesDialysis patients have a high risk for inadequate nutrition. Their nutritional status is particularly susceptible to deterioration when faced with intercurrent events such as hospitalization. This study was conducted to improve the understanding of the temporal evolution of nutritional parameters as a foundation for rational and proactive nutritional intervention.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsA retrospective cohort study was performed to investigate the temporal evolution of nutritional parameters (serum albumin, serum phosphate, serum creatinine, equilibrated normalized protein catabolic rate, and interdialytic weight gain) and a composite nutritional score derived from these parameters, in two populations: (1) incident hemodialysis (HD) patients who started HD between January 2006 and December 2011 and were followed for up to 54 months (median 16.3), and (2) prevalent patients with HD vintage ≥2.5 years who were hospitalized between January 2006 and December 2011 and followed from 6 months before to 6 months after hospitalization.ResultsIn incident patients (n=126,964), each of the nutritional parameters improved after HD initiation, with a mean composite nutritional score at the 24th percentile at the start of HD and reaching a plateau at the 57th percentile toward the end of the second year on dialysis. Nutritional parameters increased more rapidly and reached higher values among patients who survived longer. In hospitalized patients (n=14,193), the nutritional parameters and the composite score began to decline 1-2 months before hospitalization, reached their lowest level in the month after hospitalization, and then partially recovered in the subsequent 5 months. The degree of recovery of the nutritional score was inversely related to the number of rehospitalizations.ConclusionsThis study increases the understanding of nutritional resilience and its determinants in HD patients. Application of the nutritional score, pending further validation, may facilitate targeted and timely interventions to avert the negative consequences of inadequate nutrition in chronic HD patients.
| S-EPMC4559517 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesFrailty is associated with poor outcomes for patients on dialysis; however, previous studies have not taken into account the severity of frailty as a predictor of outcomes. The purpose of this study was to assess if there was an association between the degree of frailty and mortality among patients on incident dialysis.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsA cohort study of incident chronic dialysis patients was conducted between January of 2009 and June of 2013 (last follow-up in December of 2013). On the basis of overall clinical impression, the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) score was determined for patients at the start of dialysis by their primary nephrologist. This simple scale allocates a single point to different states of frailty (1, very fit; 2, well; 3, managing well; 4, vulnerable; 5, mildly frail; 6, moderately frail; 7, severely frail or terminally ill) with an emphasis on function of the assessed individual. The primary outcome was time to death. Patients were censored at the time of transplantation.ResultsThe cohort consisted of 390 patients with completed CFS scores (mean age of 63±15 years old). Most were Caucasian (89%) and men (67%), and 30% of patients had ESRD caused by diabetic nephropathy. The median Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 4 (interquartile range =3-6), and the median CFS score was 4 (interquartile range =2-5). There were 96 deaths over 750 patient-years at risk. In an adjusted Cox survival analysis, the hazard ratio associated with each 1-point increase in the CFS was 1.22 (95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.43; P=0.02).ConclusionsA higher severity of frailty (as defined by the CFS) at dialysis initiation is associated with higher mortality.
| S-EPMC4422241 | biostudies-literature
Project description:While home dialysis is being promoted, there are few comparative effectiveness studies of home-based modalities to guide patient decisions. To address this, we matched 1116 daily home hemodialysis (DHD) patients by propensity scores to 2784 contemporaneous USRDS patients receiving home peritoneal dialysis (PD), and compared hospitalization rates from cardiovascular, infectious, access-related or bleeding causes (prespecified composite), and modality failure risk. We performed similar analyses for 1187 DHD patients matched to 3173 USRDS patients receiving in-center conventional hemodialysis (CHD). The composite hospitalization rate was significantly lower with DHD than with PD (0.93 vs. 1.35/patient-year, hazard ratio=0.73 (95% CI=0.67-0.79)). DHD patients spent significantly fewer days in hospital than PD patients (5.2 vs. 9.2 days/patient-year), and significantly more DHD patients remained admission-free (52% DHD vs. 32% PD). In contrast, there was no significant difference in hospitalizations between DHD and CHD (DHD vs. CHD: 0.93 vs. 1.10/patient-year, hazard ratio 0.92 (0.85-1.00)). Cardiovascular hospitalizations were lower with DHD than with CHD (0.68 (0.61-0.77)), while infectious and access hospitalizations were higher (1.15 (1.04-1.29) and 1.25 (1.08-1.43), respectively). Significantly more PD than DHD patients switched back to in-center HD (44% vs. 15%; 3.4 (2.9-4.0)). In this prevalent cohort, home DHD was associated with fewer admissions and hospital days than PD, and a substantially lower risk of modality failure.
| S-EPMC4526768 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background For frail patients with limited life expectancy, time in hospital following transcatheter aortic valve replacement is an important measure of quality of life; however, data remain scarce. Thus, we aimed to investigate frailty and its relation to time in hospital during the first year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Methods and Results From 2008 to 2020, all Danish patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement and were alive at discharge were included. Using the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score, patients were categorized in the low, intermediate, and high frailty groups. Time in hospital and mortality up to 1 year are reported according to frailty groups. In total, 3437 (57.6%), 2277 (38.1%), and 257 (4.3%) were categorized in the low, intermediate, and high frailty groups, respectively. Median age was ≈81 years. Female sex and comorbidity burden were incrementally higher across frailty groups (low frailty: heart failure, 24.1%; stroke, 7.2%; and chronic kidney disease, 4.5%; versus high frailty: heart failure, 42.8%; stroke, 34.2%; and chronic kidney disease, 29.2%). In the low frailty group, 50.5% survived 1 year without a hospital admission, 10.8% were hospitalized >15 days, and 5.8% of patients died. By contrast, 26.1% of patients in the high frailty group survived 1 year without a hospital admission, 26.4% were hospitalized >15 days, and 15.6% died within 1 year. Differences persisted in models adjusted for sex, age, frailty, and comorbidity burden (excluding overlapping comorbidities). Conclusions Among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, frailty is strongly associated with time in hospital and mortality. Prevention strategies for frail patients to reduce hospitalization burden could be beneficial.
| S-EPMC10227237 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesPeritoneal dialysis (PD) is associated with an increased risk of infection-related hospitalization (IRH) compared with hemodialysis. The objective of this study was to compare mortality and overall readmission after an IRH between PD and hemodialysis.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsThis propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study assessed patients undergoing long-term dialysis patients, derived from the Canadian Organ Replacement Register and Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec, who had at least one IRH between January 2001 and December 2007. Patients were followed until death, kidney transplantation, or end of the study period. To estimate the probability of receiving PD versus hemodialysis, propensity scores were obtained using multivariable logistic regression. Mortality and overall readmission risks after the initial IRH were compared using a Cox survival model.ResultsA total of 354 pairs of patients who had at least one IRH were matched for propensity score. During follow-up (median, 1.25 years), 138 hemodialysis patients (24.7/100 patient-years; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 20.7 to 29.1) and 130 PD patients (21.2/100 patient-years; 95% CI, 17.7 to 25.1) died; 265 hemodialysis patients (144.6/100 patient-years; 95% CI, 127.7 to 163.1) and 299 PD patients (173.2/100 patient-years; 95% CI, 154.1 to 194.0) were readmitted for any cause; and 121 hemodialysis patients (29.7/100 patient-years; 95% CI, 24.7 to 35.5) and 168 PD patients (44.7/100 patient-years; 95% CI, 38.2 to 52.0) were readmitted for an infection. Compared with hemodialysis, PD was not associated with a different mortality risk after an IRH (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.11). PD was associated with a higher risk of infection-related overall readmission compared with hemodialysis (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.81), but not with the risk of all-cause overall readmission (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.36).ConclusionsPD was not associated with higher mortality or all-cause overall readmission following an IRH compared with hemodialysis, but PD patients were at higher risk of infection-related overall readmission after IRH. IRHs are associated with significant mortality and overall readmissions. Evaluation of strategies to reduce infections in both hemodialysis and PD recipients are needed to improve patient care and outcomes.
| S-EPMC4422244 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesA geriatric assessment is an appropriate method for identifying frail elderly patients. In CKD, it may contribute to optimize personalized care. However, a geriatric assessment is time consuming. The purpose of our study was to compare easy to apply frailty screening tools with the geriatric assessment in patients eligible for dialysis.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsA total of 123 patients on incident dialysis ≥65 years old were included <3 weeks before to ≤2 weeks after dialysis initiation, and all underwent a geriatric assessment. Patients with impairment in two or more geriatric domains on the geriatric assessment were considered frail. The diagnostic abilities of six frailty screening tools were compared with the geriatric assessment: the Fried Frailty Index, the Groningen Frailty Indicator, Geriatric8, the Identification of Seniors at Risk, the Hospital Safety Program, and the clinical judgment of the nephrologist. Outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.ResultsIn total, 75% of patients were frail according to the geriatric assessment. Sensitivity of frailty screening tools ranged from 48% (Fried Frailty Index) to 88% (Geriatric8). The discriminating features of the clinical judgment were comparable with the other screening tools. The Identification of Seniors at Risk screening tool had the best discriminating abilities, with a sensitivity of 74%, a specificity of 80%, a positive predictive value of 91%, and a negative predictive value of 52%. The negative predictive value was poor for all tools, which means that almost one half of the patients screened as fit (nonfrail) had two or more geriatric impairments on the geriatric assessment.ConclusionsAll frailty screening tools are able to detect geriatric impairment in elderly patients eligible for dialysis. However, all applied screening tools, including the judgment of the nephrologist, lack the discriminating abilities to adequately rule out frailty compared with a geriatric assessment.
| S-EPMC5586582 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPhysicians' perceptions and opinions may influence when to initiate dialysis.ObjectiveTo examine providers' perspectives and opinions regarding the timing of dialysis initiation.DesignOnline survey.SettingCommunity and academic dialysis practices in Canada.ParticipantsA nationally-representative sample of dialysis providers.Measurements and methodsDialysis providers opinions assessing reasons to initiate dialysis at low or high eGFR. Responses were obtained using a 9-point Likert scale. Early dialysis was defined as initiation of dialysis in an individual with an eGFR greater than or equal to 10.5 ml/min/m(2). A detailed survey was emailed to all members of the Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN) in February 2013. The survey was designed and pre-tested to evaluate duration and ease of administration.ResultsOne hundred and forty one (25% response rate) physicians participated in the survey. The majority were from urban, academic centres and practiced in regionally administered renal programs. Very few respondents had a formal policy regarding the timing of dialysis initiation or formally reviewed new dialysis starts (N?=?4, 3.1%). The majority of respondents were either neutral or disagreed that late compared to early dialysis initiation improved outcomes (85-88%), had a negative impact on quality of life (89%), worsened AVF or PD use (84-90%), led to sicker patients (83%) or was cost effective (61%). Fifty-seven percent of respondents felt uremic symptoms occurred earlier in patients with advancing age or co-morbid illness. Half (51.8%) of the respondents felt there was an absolute eGFR at which they would initiate dialysis in an asymptomatic patient. The majority of respondents would initiate dialysis for classic indications for dialysis, such as volume overload (90.1%) and cachexia (83.7%) however a significant number chose other factors that may lead them to early dialysis initiation including avoiding an emergency (28.4%), patient preference (21.3%) and non-compliance (8.5%).Limitations25% response rate.ConclusionsAlthough the majority of nephrologists in Canada who responded followed evidence-based practice regarding the timing of dialysis initiation, knowledge gaps and areas of clinical uncertainty exist. The implementation and evaluation of formal policies and knowledge translation activities may limit potentially unnecessary early dialysis initiation.
| S-EPMC4346295 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Fractures are common in dialysis patients, but little is known about the trajectory of incidence rates of different types of fractures before and after dialysis initiation. To address this, we investigated the incidence of major fractures before and after dialysis initiation. We performed a retrospective statistical analysis using the Swedish Renal Registry of 9041 incident dialysis patients (median age 67 years, 67% men) starting dialysis 2005 through 2015 to identify major fractures (hip, spine, humerus, and forearm) occurring during the dialysis transition period from 1 year before until 1 year after dialysis initiation. Using flexible parametric hazard models and the Fine-Gray model, we estimated adjusted fracture incidence rates and predictors of major fractures. We identified 361 cases with primary diagnosis of major fracture, of which 196 (54%) were hip fractures. The crude incidence rate of major fractures before dialysis initiation was 17 per 1000 patient-years (n = 157) and after dialysis initiation it was 24 per 1000 patient-years (n = 204). The adjusted incidence rate of major fractures began to increase 6 months before dialysis initiation, and then stabilized at a higher rate after 1 year. The adjusted incidence rate of hip fractures started to increase sharply 3 months before dialysis initiation, peaked at initiation, and declined thereafter. In contrast, the adjusted incidence rate of non-hip fractures was stable during the transition period and gradually increased over time. Higher age, female sex, and history of previous major fractures were associated with increased fracture incidence both before and after dialysis initiation. We conclude that the incidence of major fractures, especially hip fractures, start to rise 6 months before initiation of dialysis therapy, indicating that heightened surveillance with implementation of preventive measures to avoid fractures is warranted during the transition period to dialysis. © 2020 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).
| S-EPMC7757394 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale & objectiveDialysis comes with a substantial treatment burden, so patients must select care plans that align with their preferences. We aimed to deepen the understanding of decisional regret with dialysis choices.Study designThis study had a mixed-methods explanatory sequential design.Setting & participantsAll patients from a single academic medical center prescribed maintenance in-center hemodialysis or presenting for home hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis check-up during 3 weeks were approached for survey. A total of 78 patients agreed to participate. Patients with the highest (15 patients) and lowest decisional regret (20 patients) were invited to semistructured interviews.PredictorsDecisional regret scale and illness intrusiveness scale were used in this study.Analytical approachQuantitatively, we examined correlations between the decision regret scale and illness intrusiveness scale and sorted patients into the highest and lowest decision regret scale quartiles for further interviews; then, we compared patient characteristics between those that consented to interview in high and low decisional regret. Qualitatively, we used an adapted grounded theory approach to examine differences between interviewed patients with high and low decisional regret.ResultsOf patients invited to participate in the interviews, 21 patients (8 high regret, 13 low regret) agreed. We observed that patients with high decisional regret displayed resignation toward dialysis, disruption of their sense of self and social roles, and self-blame, whereas patients with low decisional regret demonstrated positivity, integration of dialysis into their identity, and self-compassion.LimitationsPatients with the highest levels of decisional regret may have already withdrawn from dialysis. Patients could complete interviews in any location (eg, home, dialysis unit, and clinical office), which may have influenced patient disclosure.ConclusionsAlthough all patients experienced disruption after dialysis initiation, patients' approach to adversity differs between patients experiencing high versus low regret. This study identifies emotional responses to dialysis that may be modifiable through patient-support interventions.
| S-EPMC10907211 | biostudies-literature