[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background: Conservative kidney management (CKM) is recognised as an alternative to dialysis for a significant number of older adults with multi-morbid chronic kidney disease stage 5 (CKD5). However, little is known about the way CKM is delivered or how it is perceived.
Aim: To determine the practice patterns for CKM of older patients with CKD5, to inform service development and future research.
Objectives: i) To describe the differences between renal units in the extent and nature of CKM.
ii) To explore how decisions are made about treatment options for older patients with CKD5.
iii) To explore clinicians willingness to randomise patients with CKD5 to CKM versus dialysis.
iv) To describe the interface between renal units and primary care in managing CKD5.
v) To identify the resources involved and potential costs of CKM.
Methods: Mixed methods study. Interviews with 42 patients aged >75 with CKD5 and 60 renal unit staff in a purposive sample of nine UK renal units. Interviews informed the design of a survey to assess CKM practice, sent to all 71 UK units. Nineteen general practitioners were interviewed concerning referral of CKD patients to secondary care. We sought laboratory data on new CKD5 patients aged >75 years to link with the nine renal units’ records to assess referral patterns.
Results: 67/71 renal units completed the survey. Although terminology varied, there was general acceptance of the role of CKM. Only 52% of units were able to quantify the number of CKM patients. A wide range reflected varied interpretation of the designation ‘CKM’ by both staff and patients. It is used to characterise a future treatment option as well non dialysis care for end-stage kidney failure (ESKF, i.e. a disease state equivalent to being on dialysis), the number of patients in the latter group on CKM were relatively small (median 8 IQR 4.5-22). Patients’ expectations of CKM and dialysis were strongly influenced by renal staff. In a minority of units, CKM was not discussed. When discussed, often only limited information about illness progression was provided. Staff wanted more research into the relative benefits of CKM versus dialysis. There was almost universal support for an observational methodology and a quarter would definitely be willing to participate in a randomised clinical trial, indicating that clinicians placed value on high-quality evidence to inform decision making. Linked data indicated that most CKD5 patients were known to renal units. GPs expressed a need for guidance on when to refer older, multi-morbid patients with CKD5 to nephrology care. There was large variation in the scale and model of CKM delivery. In most, the CKM service was integrated within the service for all non-renal replacement therapy (RRT) CKD5 patients. A few units provided dedicated CKM clinics and some had dedicated modest funding for CKM.
Conclusions: CKM is accepted across UK renal units but there is much variation in the way it is described and delivered. For best practice in CKM to be developed and systematised across all renal units in the UK, we recommend: a) a standard definition and terminology for CKM; b) research to measure the relative benefits of CKM and dialysis; and c) development of evidence-based staff training and patient education interventions.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background and objectives:
Conservative kidney management (CKM) has been developed in the United Kingdom (UK) as an alternative to dialysis for older patients with stage 5 CKD (CKD5) and multiple comorbidities. This national survey sought to describe the current scale and pattern of delivery of conservative care in UK renal units and identify their priorities for its future development.
Design, setting, participants, & measurements:
A survey on practice patterns of CKM for patients age 75 and older with CKD5 was sent to clinical directors of all 71 adult renal units in the UK in March 2013.
Sixty-seven units (94%) responded. All but one unit reported providing CKM for some patients. Terminology varied, although "conservative management" was the most frequently used term (46%). Lack of an agreed-upon definition of when a patient is receiving CKM made it difficult to obtain meaningful data on the numbers of such patients. Fifty-two percent provided the number of CKM patients age ≥ 75 years in 2012; the median was 45 per unit (interquartile range [IQR], 20-83). The median number of symptomatic CKM patients who would otherwise have started dialysis was eight (IQR, 4.5-22). CKM practice patterns varied: 35% had a written guideline, 23% had dedicated CKM clinics, 45% had dedicated staff, and 50% provided staff training on CKM. Most units (88%) provided primary care clinicians with information/advice regarding CKM. Eighty percent identified a need for better evidence comparing outcomes on CKM versus dialysis, and 65% considered it appropriate to enter patients into a randomized trial.
CKM is provided in almost all UK renal units, but scale and organization vary widely. Lack of common terminology and definitions hinders the development and assessment of CKM. Many survey respondents expressed support for further research comparing outcomes with conservative care versus dialysis.
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 11/2014; 10(1). DOI:10.2215/CJN.05000514 · 4.61 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background and objectives: Conservative Kidney Management (CKM) has developed in the UK as an alternative to dialysis for older patients with stage 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD5) and multiple comorbidities. We report on a national survey which aims to describe the current scale and pattern of delivery of conservative care in UK renal units and identify their priorities for its future development.
Design, setting, participants, and measurements: A survey on practice patterns of CKM for patients aged over 75 years with CKD5 was sent to clinical directors of all 71 adult renal units in the UK in March 2013.
Results: Sixty-seven units (94%) responded. All but one unit reported providing CKM for some patients. Terminology varied, although ‘conservative management’ was the most frequently used term (46%). Lack of an agreed definition of when a patient is receiving CKM made it difficult to obtain meaningful data on the numbers of such patients. 52% provided the number of CKM patients aged ≥75 in 2012; the median was 45 per unit (IQR: 20-83). The median number of symptomatic CKM patients who would otherwise have started dialysis was 8 (IQR: 4.5-22). CKM practice patterns varied: 35% had a written guideline; 23% dedicated CKM clinics; 45% dedicated staff; and 50% provided staff training on CKM. Most units (88%) provided primary care clinicians with information/advice regarding CKM. 80% identified a need for better evidence comparing outcomes on CKM versus dialysis and 65% considered it appropriate to enter patients into a randomized trial.
Conclusions: CKM is provided in almost all UK renal units but with wide variation in scale and organization. Lack of common terminology and definitions hinders the development and assessment of CKM. Many survey respondents expressed support There is a need for clinical trials further research comparing outcomes with conservative care versus dialysis.
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 10/2014; · 4.61 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: An exploration of renal complications of diabetes from the patient perspective is important for developing quality care through the diabetic renal disease care pathway.
Newly referred South Asian and White diabetic renal patients over 16 years were recruited from nephrology outpatient clinics in three UK centres - Luton, West London and Leicester – and their experiences of the diabetes and renal care recorded.
A semi-structured qualitative interview was conducted with 48 patients. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically and comparisons made between the White and South Asian groups.
23 South Asian patients and 25 White patients were interviewed. Patient experience of diabetes ranged from a few months to 35 years with a mean time since diagnosis of 12.1 years and 17.1 years for the South Asian and White patients respectively. Confusion emerged as a response to referral shared by both groups. This sense of confusion was associated with reported lack of information at the time of referral, but also before referral. Language barriers exacerbated confusion for South Asian patients.
The diabetic renal patients who have been referred for specialist renal care and found the referral process confusing have poor of awareness of kidney complications of diabetes. Healthcare providers should be more aware of the ongoing information needs of long term diabetics as well as the context of any information exchange including language barriers.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: KDOQI practice guidelines recommend predialysis blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg; however, most prior studies had found elevated mortality with low, not high, systolic blood pressure. This is possibly due to unmeasured confounders affecting systolic blood pressure and mortality. To lessen this bias, we analyzed 24,525 patients by Cox regression models adjusted for patient and facility characteristics. Compared with predialysis systolic blood pressure of 130-159 mm Hg, mortality was 13% higher in facilities with 20% more patients at systolic blood pressure of 110-129 mm Hg and 16% higher in facilities with 20% more patients at systolic blood pressure of ≥160 mm Hg. For patient-level systolic blood pressure, mortality was elevated at low (<130 mm Hg), not high (≥180 mm Hg), systolic blood pressure. For predialysis diastolic blood pressure, mortality was lowest at 60-99 mm Hg, a wide range implying less chance to improve outcomes. Higher mortality at systolic blood pressure of <130 mm Hg is consistent with prior studies and may be due to excessive blood pressure lowering during dialysis. The lowest risk facility systolic blood pressure of 130-159 mm Hg indicates this range may be optimal, but may have been influenced by unmeasured facility practices. While additional study is needed, our findings contrast with KDOQI blood pressure targets, and provide guidance on optimal blood pressure range in the absence of definitive clinical trial data.
Kidney International 06/2012; 82(5):570-80. DOI:10.1038/ki.2012.136 · 8.56 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Self management and home-based dialysis therapies offer the prospect of improved patient experience and outcomes. To allow
more patients to realize these benefits requires changes in technology which focus on maximizing the ease and minimizing the
burdens of undertaking home dialysis. These developments are underway.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Comparing South Asians with White Europeans and examining the cultural context of any observed differences is a necessary step in achieving culturally competent services and in helping to reduce inequalities which exist in outcomes for South Asian patients with End Stage Renal Disease.
Newly referred South Asian and White adult patients with diabetes were recruited from nephrology outpatient clinics in three UK centres--Luton, West London and Leicester. A semi-structured qualitative interview was conducted with 48 patients and a thematic analysis of the data produced is reported.
Access to knowledge about renal complications of diabetes, was related to referral to renal services and recent monitoring and not to previous medical encounters. South Asian patients were aware of the high prevalence of diabetes within South Asian communities and a small number reported experience of kidney problems in other family members although any connection with diabetes was not made.
Ongoing renal care information should be provided to people with diabetes and the cultural context of any information exchange needs to be addressed.
Journal of Renal Care 03/2011; 37(1):2-11. DOI:10.1111/j.1755-6686.2011.00199.x
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Over the last 40 years the technical obstacles which prevented a convective contribution to diffusive dialysis have been overcome. Hemodiafiltration represents a natural evolution of intermittent extracorporeal blood purification and the technology is now available to offer this as standard treatment in-center. The first randomized control trial of dialysis dose (National Cooperative Dialysis Study) showed that for three times weekly dialysis a critical level of urea clearance was necessary to ensure complication-free survival, the effect being noticeable by 3 months. Following this, observational studies suggested that higher doses improved longer term outcome. In a second large randomized controlled study (HEMO), higher small molecule clearance did not further improve outcome, but high-flux membranes, which permitted enhanced clearance of middle molecules, appeared to confer survival benefit in patients who had already been on dialysis > 3.7 years. Recently, outcomes from the Membrane Permeability Outcome study confirmed a survival benefit of high-flux membranes in high-risk patients. These studies indicate that in the medium term survival is critically dependent on achieving a minimum level of small solute removal. However, longer term survival (measured in years or decades) not only requires better small solute clearance but also enhanced clearance of middle molecules, the toxicity of which manifest over longer time scales. The rationale for convective treatment is strongest, therefore in those patients who have the greatest potential for long-term survival. Patients who opt for self-care at home to allow frequent dialysis generally are constituents of this group. Hemodiafiltration is likely to become standard therapy in-center and in the home.
Contributions to nephrology 01/2011; 168:64-77. DOI:10.1159/000321745 · 1.80 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Elderly patients with end-stage renal disease and severe extra-renal comorbidity have a poor prognosis on renal replacement therapy (RRT) and may opt to be managed conservatively (CM). Information on the survival of patients on this mode of therapy is limited.
We studied survival in a large cohort of CM patients in comparison to patients who received RRT.
Over an 18-year period, we studied 844 patients, 689 (82%) of whom had been treated by RRT and 155 (18%) were CM. CM patients were older and a greater proportion had high comorbidity. Median survival from entry into stage 5 chronic kidney disease was less in CM than in RRT (21.2 vs 67.1 months: P < 0.001). However, in patients aged > 75 years when corrected for age, high comorbidity and diabetes, the survival advantage from RRT was ~ 4 months, which was not statistically significant. Increasing age, the presence of high comorbidity and the presence of diabetes were independent determinants of poorer survival in RRT patients. In CM patients, however, age > 75 years and female gender independently predicted better survival.
In patients aged > 75 years with high extra-renal comorbidity, the survival advantage conferred by RRT over CM is likely to be small. Age > 75 years and female gender predicted better survival in CM patients. The reasons for this are unclear.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Theoretical advantages exist of online hemodiafiltration (HDF) over high-flux hemodialysis (HD), but outcome data are scarce. Our objective was to compare outcomes between these modalities.
We studied 858 incident patients in our incremental high-flux HD and online HDF program during an 18-yr period. We compared outcomes, including survival, in those who were treated predominantly with HDF (>50% sessions) and those with high-flux HD. Survival comparisons used a Cox model taking into account the time-varying proportion of time spent on HDF. All data were prospectively collected.
A total of 152,043 sessions were delivered as HDF and 291,222 as high-flux HD. A total of 232 (27%) patients were treated predominantly with HDF and 626 (73%) with high-flux HD. Total Kt/V, serum albumin, erythropoietin resistance index, and BP were similar in both groups up to 5 yr after HD initiation. Intradialytic hypotension was less frequent in the predominant HDF group. Predominant HDF treatment was associated with a reduced risk for death after correction for confounding variables. In a second Cox model, proportion of time spent on HDF predicted survival, such that patients who were treated solely by HDF would have a hazard for death of 0.66 compared with those who solely used high-flux HD.
We found no benefits of HDF over high-flux HD with respect to anemia management, nutrition, mineral metabolism, and BP control. The mortality benefit associated with HDF requires confirmation in large randomized, controlled trials. These data may contribute to their design.
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 10/2009; 4(12):1944-53. DOI:10.2215/CJN.05560809 · 4.61 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The importance of residual renal function is well recognized in peritoneal dialysis but its role in haemodialysis (HD) has received much less attention. We studied 650 incident patients in our incremental high-flux HD programme over a 15-year period. Target total Kt/V urea (dialysis plus residual renal) was 1.2 per session and monitored monthly. Renal urea clearance (KRU) was estimated 1-3 monthly.
KRU declined during the first 5 years of HD from 3.1 +/- 1.9 at 3 months to 0.9 +/- 1.2 ml/min/1.73 m(2) at 5 years. The percentage of patients with KRU >or= 1 ml/min at these time points was 85% and 31%, respectively. Patients with KRU >or= 1 ml/min had a significantly lower mean creatinine (all time points), ultrafiltration requirement (all time points) and serum potassium (6, 12, 36 and 48 months). Nutritional parameters were also significantly better in respect to nPCR and serum albumin (6, 12, 24 and 36 months). Patients with KRU >or= 1 ml/min had significantly lower erythropoietin requirements and erythropoietin resistance indices (12, 24, 36 and 48 months). Mortality was significantly lower in patients with a KRU >or= 1 at 6, 12 and 24 months after HD initiation, this benefit being maintained after correcting for albumin, age, comorbidities, HDF use and renal diagnosis. Our unique finding was that these benefits occurred despite those with KRU >or= 1 ml/min having a significantly lower dialysis Kt/V at all time points.
The associations demonstrated suggest that residual renal function contributes significantly to outcome in HD patients and that efforts to preserve it are warranted. Comparative outcome studies should be controlled for residual renal function.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relation between pre-nephrology visit (PNV) and 1-yr patient survival after hemodialysis (HD) induction.
Data were analyzed from 8500 incident HD patients (on HD <or=30 d) in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) phases I and II. A visit to a nephrologist at least 1 mo before starting HD was regarded as PNV. Cox regression was used to estimate the adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) for mortality in the first year of HD in both patient- and facility-level analyses. All models were adjusted for age, sex, race, socioeconomic factors, cause of ESRD, 14 comorbid conditions, hemoglobin, serum albumin, and serum creatinine; accounted for facility clustering effects; and were stratified by country.
In patient-level analysis, PNV was associated with significantly lower risk for death (AHR 0.57; P < 0.0001). Facility-level analysis also showed a significant lower risk for death in facilities with greater prevalence of PNV in both continuous models (AHR 0.92 per 10% greater facility mean %PNV; P < 0.0004) and in categorical models (AHR 0.71 for facilities with >90% of patients receiving PNV [first quartile] compared with facilities with <71% of patients receiving PNV [fourth quartile]; P = 0.001).
These results provide not only patient-level but also facility practice evidence that PNV is related to improved patient survival during the first year after initiation of HD, indicating the possible mortality benefits with more increased attention to PNV.
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 03/2009; 4(3):595-602. DOI:10.2215/CJN.03540708 · 4.61 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Retrospective studies of haemodialysis patients from large dialysis organizations in the United States have indicated that intravenous vitamin D may be associated with a survival benefit. However, patients prescribed vitamin D are generally healthier than those who are not, suggesting that treatment by indication may have biased previous findings. Additionally, no survival benefit associated with vitamin D has been shown in a recent meta-analysis in CKD patients. Because treatment-by-indication bias due to both measured and unmeasured confounders cannot be completely accounted for in standard regression or marginal structural models (MSMs), this study evaluates the association between vitamin D and mortality among participants in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) using standard regression and MSMs with an expanded set of covariates, as well as by instrumental variable models to minimize potential bias due to unmeasured confounders.
Data from 38 066 DOPPS participants from 12 countries between 1996 and 2007 were analysed. Mortality risk was assessed using standard baseline and time-varying Cox regression models, adjusted for demographics and detailed comorbidities, and MSMs. In models similar to instrumental variable analysis, the facility percentage of patients prescribed vitamin D, adjusted for the patient case mix, was used to predict patient-level mortality.
Vitamin D prescription was significantly higher in the USA compared to other countries. On average, patients prescribed vitamin D had fewer comorbidities compared to those who were not. Vitamin D therapy was associated with lower mortality in adjusted time-varying standard regression models [relative ratio (RR) = 0.92 (95% confidence interval: 0.87-0.96)] and baseline MSMs [RR = 0.84 (0.78-0.98)] and time-varying MSMs [RR = 0.78 (0.73-0.84)]. No significant differences in mortality were observed in adjusted baseline standard regression models for patients with or without vitamin D prescription [RR = 0.98 (0.93-1.02)] or for patients in facility practices where vitamin D prescription was more frequent [RR for facilities in 75th versus 25th percentile of vitamin D prescription = 0.99 (0.94-1.04)].
Vitamin D was associated with a survival benefit in models prone to bias due to unmeasured confounding. In agreement with a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies, no difference in mortality was observed in instrumental variable models that tend to be more independent of unmeasured confounding. These findings indicate that a randomized controlled trial of vitamin D and clinical outcomes in haemodialysis patients are needed and can be ethically conducted.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To identify modifiable factors associated with health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among chronic hemodialysis patients.
Analysis of baseline data of 9,526 hemodialysis patients from seven countries enrolled in phase I of the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Using the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form (KDQOL-SF(TM)), we determined scores for 8 generic scale summaries derived from these scales, i.e., the physical component summary [PCS] and mental component summary [MCS], and 11 kidney disease- targeted scales. Regression models were used to adjust for differences in comorbidities and sociodemographic and treatment factors. The Benjamini-Hochberg procedure was used to correct P-values for multiple comparisons.
Unemployment and psychiatric disease were independently and significantly associated with lower scores for all generic and several kidney disease-targeted HRQOL measures. Several other comorbidities, lower educational level, lower income, and hypoalbuminemia were also independently and significantly associated with lower scores of PCS and/or MCS and several generic and kidney disease-targeted scales. Hemodialysis by catheter was associated with significantly lower PCS scores, partially explained by the correlation with covariates.
Associations of poorer HRQOL with preventable or controllable factors support a greater focus on psychosocial and medical interventions to improve the well-being of hemodialysis patients.
Quality of Life Research 06/2007; 16(4):545-57. DOI:10.1007/s11136-006-9143-7 · 2.49 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Existing national, racial, and ethnic differences in dialysis patient mortality rates largely are unexplained. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that mortality rates related to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in dialysis populations (DP) and in the background general populations (GP) are correlated. In a cross-sectional, multinational study, all-cause and ASCVD mortality rates were compared between GP and DP using the most recent data from the World Health Organization mortality database (67 countries; 1,571,852,000 population) and from national renal registries (26 countries; 623,900 population). Across GP of 67 countries (14,082,146 deaths), all-cause mortality rates (median 8.88 per 1000 population; range 1.93 to 15.40) were strongly related to ASCVD mortality rates (median 3.21; range 0.53 to 8.69), with Eastern European countries clustering in the upper and Southeast and East Asian countries in the lower rate ranges. Across DP (103,432 deaths), mortality rates from all causes (median 166.20; range 54.47 to 268.80) and from ASCVD (median 63.39 per 1000 population; range 21.52 to 162.40) were higher and strongly correlated. ASCVD mortality rates in DP and in the GP were significantly correlated; the relationship became even stronger after adjustment for age (R(2) = 0.56, P < 0.0001). A substantial portion of the variability in mortality rates that were observed across DP worldwide is attributable to the variability in background ASCVD mortality rates in the respective GP. Genetic and environmental factors may underlie these differences.
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 12/2006; 17(12):3510-9. DOI:10.1681/ASN.2006020156 · 9.34 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Little is known about proton pump inhibitor (PPI) or H(2) receptor antagonist (HA) prescription patterns or regarding use of predictors in hemodialysis patients. Proton pump inhibitor and HA prescribing patterns were investigated in 8628 hemodialysis patients from seven countries enrolled in the prospective, observational Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study. Logistic regression examined predictors associated with PPI and HA use, adjusting for age, sex, country, time with end-stage renal disease, medications, 14 comorbid conditions, and the association between the number of comorbid conditions and the prescription of gastrointestinal (GI) medications. In a cross-section from February 1, 2000, 3.4% to 36.9% of patients received an HA and 0.8% to 26.9% took a PPI, depending upon the country. From 1996 to 2001, the prescription of HAs declined while PPI use increased. Facility use of HAs and PPIs ranged from 0% to 94% of patients. H2 receptor antagonist or PPI use was significantly and independently associated with age, narcotic use, corticosteroids, acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, coronary artery disease history, cardiovascular diseases other than hypertension or congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, pulmonary disease, and GI bleed. Proton pump inhibitors or HAs were more likely to be prescribed in Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom than in the United States. The odds of PPI prescription increased if serum phosphorus <5.5 mEq/L or serum albumin <3.5 g/dL. Prescription of GI medications was associated with many comorbidities and use of several medications. Extreme variability of prescription patterns suggests that there is no standard approach in treatment practices.
Hemodialysis International 05/2006; 10(2):180-8. DOI:10.1111/j.1542-4758.2006.00092.x · 1.24 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The cause of the increase in core temperature (CT) during hemodialysis (HD) is still under debate. It has been suggested that peripheral vasoconstriction as a result of hypovolemia, leading to a reduced dissipation of heat from the skin, is the main cause of this increase in CT. If so, then it would be expected that extracorporeal heat flow (Jex) needed to maintain a stable CT (isothermic; T-control = 0, no change in CT) is largely different between body temperature control HD combined with ultrafiltration (UF) and body temperature control HD without UF (isovolemic). Consequently, significant differences in DeltaCT would be expected between isovolemic HD and HD combined with UF at zero Jex (thermoneutral; E-control = 0, no supply or removal of thermal energy to and from the extracorporeal circulation). During the latter treatment, the CT is expected to increase. In this study, changes in thermal variables (CT and Jex), skin blood flow, energy expenditure, and cytokines (TNF-alpha, IL-1 receptor antagonist, and IL-6) were compared in 13 patients, each undergoing body temperature control (T-control = 0) HD without and with UF and energy-neutral (E-control = 0) HD without and with UF. CT increased equally during energy-neutral treatments, with (0.32 +/- 0.16 degrees C; P = 0.000) and without (0.27 +/- 0.29 degrees C; P = 0.006) UF. In body temperature control treatments, the relationship between Jex and UF tended to be significant (r = -0.51; P = 0.07); however, there was no significant difference in cooling requirements regardless of whether treatments were done without (-17.9 +/- 9.3W) or with UF (-17.8 +/- 13.27W). Changes in energy expenditure did not differ among the four treatment modes. There were no significant differences in pre- and postdialysis levels of cytokines within or between treatments. Although fluid removal has an effect on thermal variables, no single mechanism seems to be responsible for the increased heat accumulation during HD.
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 07/2005; 16(6):1824-31. DOI:10.1681/ASN.2004080655 · 9.34 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) is a prospective, observational study of the relationships between hemodialysis (HD) patient outcomes and HD treatment practices. The DOPPS began in 1996 in the United States, expanding to France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, and the United Kingdom in 1998-1999, and then to Australia, Belgium, Canada, New Zealand, and Sweden in 2002. More than 300 dialysis units have participated in the DOPPS since 1996, with mortality data collected from nearly 90,000HD patients and detailed longitudinal data from nearly 30,000 HD patients. Large sample size and the large treatment practice variation observed in the DOPPS--given its international scope of participation--provide strong statistical power to investigate many different HD practices. Furthermore, the detailed patient data collected in the DOPPS allow relationships to account for differences in a large number of patient characteristics. More than 55 papers have been published from the DOPPS; here we provide a summary of selected DOPPS findings regarding nutrition, mineral metabolism, anemia management, vascular access, depression, and use of multivitamins and statins.
Contributions to nephrology 02/2005; 149:58-68. DOI:10.1159/000085458 · 1.80 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Medications affect many measures of hemodialysis patients' well-being.
The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) has evaluated the use of hydroxymethyl glutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins), analgesics, antidepressants, and multivitamins. Additionally, DOPPS has reported on the associations between vascular access outcomes and related medications.
Prescription of statins varied widely across countries, with the highest use in the United States. Patients prescribed statins had lower risk of cardiac and noncardiac causes of mortality than those who were not prescribed statins. DOPPS data also show that statins are underprescribed relative to recent Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative guidelines. No guidelines have been established for analgesic use, but high pain levels self-reported by hemodialysis patients suggest opportunities for improved pain management strategies. Guidelines for analgesic use in dialysis patients may help balance improved quality of life against potential side effects of analgesics. Medical and patient questionnaires show that depression in hemodialysis patients is common, frequently underdiagnosed, usually untreated, and associated with increased rates of mortality and hospitalization. Calcium channel blockers were associated with improved primary graft patency, aspirin with improved secondary graft patency, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors with improved secondary fistula patency. All 3 medications were associated with significantly decreased relative risk for access failure. There is large country variation in multivitamin use, with significantly higher use in the United States compared with Europe and Japan. Patients taking multivitamins had lower mortality risk than patients not taking multivitamins.
DOPPS findings on medications indicate that prospective trials are needed before guidelines can be developed for appropriate medication use in these different therapeutic categories.
American Journal of Kidney Diseases 12/2004; 44(5 Suppl 2):61-7. DOI:10.1053/j.ajkd.2004.08.013 · 5.90 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) remains a problem within hemodialysis units. This study measures HCV prevalence and seroconversion rates across seven countries and investigates associations with facility-level practice patterns.
The study sample was from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS), a prospective, observational study of adult hemodialysis patients randomly selected from 308 representative dialysis facilities in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Logistic regression was used to model odds of HCV prevalence, and Cox regression was used to model time from study entry to HCV seroconversion.
Mean HCV facility prevalence was 13.5% and varied among countries from 2.6% to 22.9%. Increased HCV prevalence was associated with longer time on dialysis, male gender, black race, diabetes, hepatitis B (HBV) infection, prior renal transplant, and alcohol or substance abuse in the previous 12 months. Approximately half of the facilities (55.6%) had no seroconversions during the study period. HCV seroconversion was associated with longer time on dialysis, human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), HBV infection, and recurrent cellulitis or gangrene. An increase in highly trained staff was associated with lower HCV prevalence (OR = 0.93 per 10% increase, P= 0.003) and risk of seroconversion (RR = 0.92, P= 0.07). Seroconversion was associated with an increase in facility HCV prevalence (RR = 1.36, P < 0.0001), but not with isolation of HCV-infected patients (RR = 1.01, P= 0.99).
There are differences in HCV prevalence and rate of seroconversion at the country and the hemodialysis facility level. The observed variation suggests opportunities for improved HCV outcomes.
Kidney International 07/2004; 65(6):2335-42. DOI:10.1111/j.1523-1755.2004.00649.x · 8.56 Impact Factor