COnsiderations of Nephrologists when SuggestIng Dialysis in Elderly patients with Renal failure (CONSIDER): a discrete choice experiment

Narrative Review: Clinical Implications and Assessment of Frailty in Patients With Advanced CKD

Frailty is a multidimensional clinical syndrome characterized by low physical activity, reduced strength, accumulation of multiorgan deficits, decreased physiological reserve, and vulnerability to stressors. Frailty has key social, psychological, and cognitive implications. Frailty is accelerated by uremia, leading to a high prevalence of frailty in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) as well as contributing to adverse outcomes in this patient population. Frailty assessment is not routine in patients with CKD; however, a number of validated clinical assessment tools can assist in prognostication. Frailty assessment in nephrology populations supports shared decision-making and advanced communication and should inform key medical transitions. Frailty screening and interventions in CKD or ESKD are a developing research priority with a rapidly expanding literature base.

Prevalence of physical frailty and impact on survival in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Frailty is common in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients and becomes more prevalent as kidney disease progresses. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of physical frailty and quantify the relationship between frailty and mortality risk in patients with CKD.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Clinicaltrial.gov, and major renal academic conferences were systematically searched, and additional references to relevant articles were manually searched. The prevalence of physical frailty and the risk of mortality based on random-effects models were assessed using percentages and hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 139 articles, including 1,675,482 participants, met the eligibility criteria for the meta-analysis. The results showed that 34.5% (95% CI 31.0 to 38.1%) of CKD patients showed signs of frailty, and 39.4% (95% CI 35.4 to 43.5%) had prefrail symptoms. Compared to non-frail patients, the risk of mortality was increased by 94.1% (95% CI 1.586 to 2.375) in frail patients and 34.5% (95% CI 1.231 to 1.469) in prefrail patients.

CONCLUSION

The high prevalence of frailty and prefrail in adults with CKD and resulting in premature death emphasize the importance of measuring frailty, which provides important prognostic information and may provide opportunities for interventions to improve the prognosis of patients with CKD.

Use of frailty assessment instruments in nephrology populations: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Frailty is a clinical syndrome of accelerated aging associated with adverse outcomes. Frailty is prevalent among patients with chronic kidney disease but is infrequently assessed in clinical settings, due to lack of consensus regarding frailty definitions and diagnostic tools. This study aimed to review the practice of frailty assessment in nephrology populations and evaluate the context and timing of frailty assessment.

METHODS

The search included published reports of frailty assessment in patients with chronic kidney disease, undergoing dialysis or in receipt of a kidney transplant, published between January 2000 and November 2021. Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsychINFO, PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were examined. A total of 164 articles were included for review.

RESULTS

We found that studies were most frequently set within developed nations. Overall, 161 studies were frailty assessments conducted as part of an observational study design, and 3 within an interventional study. Studies favoured assessment of participants with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and transplant candidates. A total of 40 different frailty metrics were used. The most frequently utilised tool was the Fried frailty phenotype. Frailty prevalence varied across populations and research settings from 2.8% among participants with CKD to 82% among patients undergoing haemodialysis. Studies of frailty in conservatively managed populations were infrequent (N = 4). We verified that frailty predicts higher rates of adverse patient outcomes. There is sufficient literature to justify future meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

There is increasing recognition of frailty in nephrology populations and the value of assessment in informing prognostication and decision-making during transitions in care. The Fried frailty phenotype is the most frequently utilised assessment, reflecting the feasibility of incorporating objective measures of frailty and vulnerability into nephrology clinical assessment. Further research examining frailty in low and middle income countries as well as first nations people is required. Future work should focus on interventional strategies exploring frailty rehabilitation.

Frailty in chronic kidney disease: challenges in nephrology practice. A review of the current literature

Frailty is a multidimensional clinical syndrome characterised by low physical activity, reduced strength, accumulation of multi-organ deficits, decreased physiological reserve and vulnerability to stressors. Frailty pathogenesis and "inflammaging" is augmented by uraemia, leading to a high prevalence of frailty potentially contributing to adverse outcomes in patients with advanced chronic kidney (CKD) disease including end stage kidney disease (ESKD). The presence of frailty is a stronger predictor of CKD outcomes than estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR) and more aligned with dialysis outcomes than age. Frailty assessment should form part of routine assessment of patients with CKD and inform key medical transitions. Frailty screening and interventions in CKD/ESKD should be a research priority. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Dialysis decisions concerning cognitively impaired adults: a scoping literature review

Background

Chronic kidney disease is a significant cause of global deaths. Those who progress to end-stage kidney disease often commence dialysis as a life-extending treatment. For cognitively impaired patients, the decision as to whether they commence dialysis will fall to someone else. This scoping review was conducted to map existing literature pertaining to how decisions about dialysis are and should be made with, for, and on behalf of adult patients who lack decision-making capacity. In doing so, it forms the basis of a larger body of work that is exploring how these decisions ought to be made.

Methods

To identify relevant papers, searches were conducted on Ovid MEDLINE(R), Embase, PsychINFO, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria were then applied, requiring that papers: report on empirical studies about how decisions about dialysis are made and/or discuss how decisions about dialysis should be made with, for, and on behalf of adult patients who lack decision-making capacity; be published from 1961 onwards; and be published in English. This resulted in 27 papers eligible for inclusion.

Results

Of note, the majority of papers originated in the United States. There was wide variation across the included papers. Extracted data were grouped under the following themes: involving various parties (patient involvement, family dominance, and wider communication); objectivity about care options (including difficulties with family detachment); cultural sensitivity; medical versus non-medical factors; managing nonadherent patients; and the role and prevalence of substituted judgement. The literature shows that there is inconsistency in the principles and processes surrounding decisions made about dialysis with, for, and on behalf of adult patients who lack decision-making capacity.

Conclusions

This scoping review demonstrates that there is significant variation in both the practice and theory of dialysis decision making with, for, and on behalf of cognitively impaired adult patients. Complexity arises in considering who should get a say, how influential their say should be in a decision, and what factors are most relevant to the decision. A lack of up-to-date literature exploring this issue is highlighted, with this scoping review providing a useful groundwork from which further research can be undertaken.

Integrating Conservative kidney management Options and advance care Planning Education (COPE) into routine CKD care: a protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Predialysis education for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) typically focuses narrowly on haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis as future treatment options. However, patients who are older or seriously ill may not want to pursue dialysis and/or may not benefit from this treatment. Conservative kidney management, a reasonable alternative treatment, and advance care planning (ACP) are often left out of patient education and shared decision-making. In this study, we will pilot an educational intervention (Conservative Kidney Management Options and Advance Care Planning Education-COPE) to improve knowledge of conservative kidney management and ACP among patients with advanced CKD who are older and/or have poor functional status.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a single-centre pilot randomised controlled trial at an academic centre in Philadelphia, PA. Eligible patients will have: age ≥70 years and/or poor functional status (as defined by Karnofsky Performance Index Score <70), advanced CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate<20 mL/min/1.73 m²), prefer to speak English during clinical encounters and self-report as black or white race. Enrolled patients will be randomised 1:1, with stratification by race, to receive enhanced usual care or usual care and in-person education about conservative kidney management and ACP (COPE). The primary outcome is change in knowledge of CKM and ACP. We will also explore intervention feasibility and acceptability, change in communication of preferences and differences in the intervention's effects on knowledge and communication of preferences by race. We will assess outcomes at baseline, immediately post-education and at 2 and 12 weeks.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Pennsylvania. We will obtain written informed consent from all participants. The results from this work will be presented at academic conferences and disseminated through peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under NCT03229811.

Kidney supportive care: an update of the current state of the art of palliative care in CKD patients

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) has become a public health burden worldwide for its increasing incidence and prevalence, high impact on the health related quality of life (HRQoL) and life expectancy, and high personal and social cost. Patients with advanced CKD, in dialysis or not, suffer a burden from symptoms very similar to other chronic diseases and have a life span not superior to many malignancies. Accordingly, in recent years, renal palliative care has been recommended to be integrated in the traditional care delivered to this population. This research provides an updated overview on renal palliative care from the relevant literature.

An opportunity for improved engagement and transparency: A systematic review of renal dialysis cost effectiveness and discrete choice experiment studies

Much attention is given to patient and provider engagement, cost, and quality. Nephrology is in a unique position to examine the intersection of these issues given kidney dialysis is delivered at a high cost to chronically ill patients. Annual dialysis treatments in Canada range from $56,000-$107,000 per patient dependent on modality. Economists quantify the preferred modality by calculating cost effectiveness through quality-adjusted life years or determining utilization through Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs). Cost-effectiveness studies identify peritoneal dialysis as the most economical, yet it is the least used. Discrete choice experiments address patient preferences but rarely include cost attributes. This presents a unique paradigm: cost studies do not include patient or physician perspectives, and DCEs do not consider cost. This systematic review of dialysis cost-effectiveness studies and DCEs identifies an opportunity to increase engagement and transparency by involving all care partners in assessing quality and cost.

Quality of life may be a more valuable prognostic factor than depression in older hemodialysis patients

PURPOSE

Depression and impairment of quality of life (QoL) reduce the survival of individual on hemodialysis (HD). However, few studies evaluated the impact of these conditions on the survival of older patients undergoing HD.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed including patients aged ≥ 60 years on HD in Recife, Brazil, assessed in 2013 and monitored until 2017. Depression was evaluated with the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview and QoL with the Control, Autonomy, Self-realization, and Pleasure Questionnaire (CASP-16). Survival differences according to the depression and QoL status were measured by Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression. Death Certificates were analyzed to assess the cause of death.

RESULTS

A total of 171 patients were included (mean age 68.7 ± 6.9 years). The mean follow-up time was 3 years (maximum 4.5 years) and there were 98 deaths (57.3% of the sample). In a multivariate model that included depression and QoL, only QoL impairment was associated with a higher risk of death (HR 1.62, p = 0.035). Among CASP domains, only "Control" was associated with survival (HR 0.90, p = 0.014). Depression was unrelated to the cause of death, but there was a trend for death by endocrine diseases if QoL was impaired (p = 0.057).

CONCLUSION

QoL impairment is a key predictor of prognosis in older patients on HD and may be more important than depression. It is important that teams dealing with this population include in protocols an assessment of QoL, in order to offer a range of care according to the needs of these patients.

Is Chronic Dialysis the Right Hard Renal End Point To Evaluate Renoprotective Drug Effects?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

RRT and doubling of serum creatinine are considered the objective hard end points in nephrology intervention trials. Because both are assumed to reflect changes in the filtration capacity of the kidney, drug effects, if present, are attributed to kidney protection. However, decisions to start RRT are not only on the basis of filtration capacity of the kidney, but also on other factors. We therefore compared the time to RRT with the time to a fixed eGFR threshold and assessed the effect of the renoprotective drug irbesartan on both components.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Post hoc analysis of two clinical trials, the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial (IDNT) and Reduction of End points in Non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan Trial, in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. The time to a predefined eGFR level of 11 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (eGFR11), calculated by within-patient linear regression, was compared with the time to RRT or sustained serum creatinine ≥6 mg/dl.

RESULTS

A large difference was observed in the median time to RRT (779 days) compared with eGFR11 (678 days; P=0.01). We also observed a large variation in the difference between the time to RRT and eGFR11. In IDNT, the hazard ratio for the effect of irbesartan on the serum creatinine ≥6.0 mg/dl end point was 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.39 to 0.91; P=0.02), whereas it was smaller for the RRT end point (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 1.07; P=0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows a difference in the time to RRT and a fixed eGFR threshold, and shows that the effect of an angiotensin receptor blocker on a filtration-based end point versus RRT varies. This implies that evaluating renoprotective effects of drugs with a combined RRT and doubling of serum creatinine end point may result in evaluating other effects beyond renoprotection alone. Future trials should consider registering all parameters that lead to RRT decisions.

Blood transfusion in elderly patients with chronic anemia: a qualitative analysis of the general practitioners' attitudes

Background

Blood transfusion in chronic anemia is not covered by guidelines specific to older adults. When they consider that this treatment is necessary in elderly patients, French general practitioners (GPs) contact a hospital specialist to plan a transfusion.

Methods

Twenty French GPs were questioned individually regarding their approach to blood transfusion using semi-structured interviews. Each interview was recorded, typed up verbatim and then coded using an inductive procedure by theme, in a cross-over design (two researchers) in two phases: analysis and summary, followed by grouping of the recorded comments.

Results

The criteria for transfusion were hemoglobin level < 8 g/dL and cardiac comorbidities. Some geriatric issues, such as cognitive disorder or dependence, were considered, either as aspects of frailty favoring transfusion or as markers of reduced life expectancy that limit care. Falls and fear of an unpleasant death from anemia prompted GPs to order blood transfusion. The patient’s family provided guidance, but the patient was not routinely consulted. The specialists were rarely asked to participate in decision making. GPs’ perceptions were ambivalent: they considered transfusion to be extraordinary and magical, but also pointless since its effects are transient.

Conclusion

The decision to give a transfusion to an elderly patient with chronic anemia is deemed complex, but GPs seem to take it alone, sometimes guided by the patient’s family. The drawing up of an advance care plan could help involve the patient in decision making.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-017-0647-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Factors that influence variation in clinical decision-making about thrombolysis in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke: results of a discrete choice experiment

Background

Intravenous thrombolysis for patients with acute ischaemic stroke is underused (only 80% of eligible patients receive it) and there is variation in its use across the UK. Previously, variation might have been explained by structural differences; however, continuing variation may reflect differences in clinical decision-making regarding the eligibility of patients for treatment. This variation in decision-making could lead to the underuse, or result in inappropriate use, of thrombolysis.

Objectives

To identify the factors which contribute to variation in, and influence, clinicians’ decision-making about treating ischaemic stroke patients with intravenous thrombolysis.

Methods

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) using hypothetical patient vignettes framed around areas of clinical uncertainty was conducted to better understand the influence of patient-related and clinician-related factors on clinical decision-making. An online DCE was developed following an iterative five-stage design process. UK-based clinicians involved in final decision-making about thrombolysis were invited to take part via national professional bodies of relevant medical specialties. Mixed-logit regression analyses were conducted.

Results

A total of 138 clinicians responded and opted to offer thrombolysis in 31.4% of cases. Seven patient factors were individually predictive of the increased likelihood of offering thrombolysis (compared with reference levels in brackets): stroke onset time of 2 hours 30 minutes (50 minutes); pre-stroke dependency modified Rankin Scale score (mRS) of 3 (mRS4); systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 185 mmHg (140 mmHg); stroke severity scores of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) 5 without aphasia, NIHSS 14 and NIHSS 23 (NIHSS 2 without aphasia); age 85 years (65 years); and Afro-Caribbean (white). Factors predictive of not offering thrombolysis were age 95 years; stroke onset time of 4 hours 15 minutes; severe dementia (no memory problems); and SBP of 200 mmHg. Three clinician-related factors were predictive of an increased likelihood of offering thrombolysis (perceived robustness of the evidence for thrombolysis; thrombolysing more patients in the past 12 months; and high discomfort with uncertainty) and one factor was predictive of a decreased likelihood of offering treatment (clinicians’ being comfortable treating patients outside the licensing criteria).

Limitations

We anticipated a sample size of 150–200. Nonetheless, the final sample of 138 is good considering that the total population of eligible UK clinicians is relatively small. Furthermore, data from the Royal College of Physicians suggest that our sample is representative of clinicians involved in decision-making about thrombolysis.

Conclusions

There was considerable heterogeneity among respondents in thrombolysis decision-making, indicating that clinicians differ in their thresholds for treatment across a number of patient-related factors. Respondents were significantly more likely to treat 85-year-old patients than patients aged 68 years and this probably reflects acceptance of data from Third International Stroke Trial that report benefit for patients aged > 80 years. That respondents were more likely to offer thrombolysis to patients with severe stroke than to patients with mild stroke may indicate uncertainty/concern about the risk/benefit balance in treatment of minor stroke. Findings will be disseminated via peer-review publication and presentation at national/international conferences, and will be linked to training/continuing professional development (CPD) programmes.

Future work

The nature of DCE design means that only a subset of potentially influential factors could be explored. Factors not explored in this study warrant future research. Training/CPD should address the impact of non-medical influences on decision-making using evidence-based strategies.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Dialysis modality selection: physician guided or patient led?

The process of choosing dialysis modality for patients is complex and requires input from the expert renal team. Although it is commonplace for nephrologists to recommend dialysis modalities to patients, this might not always lead to the patient receiving treatment which they regard as most suitable. Nephrologists should consider whether it is appropriate for pre-dialysis education to be directive, or whether the choice between treatment options should be led by the patient.

Treatment of End-stage Kidney Failure without Renal Replacement Therapy

For the majority of patients with end-stage kidney failure (ESKF) replacement of excretory renal function by dialysis or transplantation (RRT) can extend life and alleviate symptoms. Historically, the availability of RRT has been insufficient and this remains the case for much of the world. However, RRT is now widely available in healthcare systems of higher income countries. Increasing numbers of elderly patients are developing ESKF. RRT in this population is largely by dialysis, comorbidity is high and life expectancy short. Evidence of effectiveness coupled with the burden of treatment among these individuals has raised concerns that health services in high-income countries may have moved from an era of unmet need into one of potential over-treatment. Alongside the requirement to make treatment more patient-centered, this has driven the development of comprehensive conservative care as an alternative approach for older comorbid individuals with ESKF, with the potential for acceptable symptom control and reduced treatment burden. This paper provides a largely UK-perspective on treating ESKF without RRT. Emphasis is on the need for high-quality evidence to inform treatment decisions. Complexities of defining, delivering and improving treatment of ESKF without dialysis care are explored. Quantitative and qualitative evidence are summarized and the relationship with palliative and terminal care examined. A framework is suggested for classifying management of ESKF and recommendations made to improve delivery of nondialysis care in the future. For patients with a poor prognosis, such treatment may not result in significantly different survival or quality of life when compared with dialysis. There is a key need to generate the best possible evidence of person-centered health outcomes associated with the various treatment options for ESKF and to present this to patients in a balanced, personalized way that allows them to make the treatment decision most appropriate for them.

Nephrologist-Facilitated Advance Care Planning for Hemodialysis Patients: A Quality Improvement Project

BACKGROUND

The Renal Physicians Association's clinical practice guideline recommends that physicians address advance care planning with dialysis patients. However, data are lacking about how best to implement this recommendation.

STUDY DESIGN

Quality improvement project.

SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS

Nephrologists caring for patients treated with maintenance hemodialysis at 2 dialysis facilities identified patients who might benefit most from advance care planning using the "surprise" question ("Would I be surprised if this patient died in the next year?").

QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Patients identified with a "no" response to the surprise question were invited to participate in nephrologist-facilitated advance care planning, including completion of a Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) form.

OUTCOMES

Change in MOLST completion rate and identification of preferences for limits on life-sustaining treatment.

MEASUREMENTS

Pre- and postintervention code status, MOLST completion rate, and vital status at 1 year.

RESULTS

Nephrologists answered "no" to the surprise question for 50 of 201 (25%) hemodialysis patients. Of these, 41 (82%) patients had a full-code status and 9 (18%) had a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) status. Encounters lasted 15 to 60 minutes. Following the encounter, 21 (42%) patients expressed preference for a DNR status and 29 (58%) maintained full-code status (P=0.001). The MOLST completion rate increased from 10% to 90%. One-year survival for patients whose nephrologists answered "no" to the surprise question was 58% compared to 92% for those with a "yes" answer (P<0.001).

LIMITATIONS

Sample size and possible nonrepresentative dialysis population.

CONCLUSIONS

Nephrologist-facilitated advance care planning targeting hemodialysis patients with limited life expectancy led to significant changes in documented patient preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and limits on life-sustaining treatment. These changes demonstrate the benefit of advance care planning with dialysis patients and likely reflect better understanding of end-of-life treatment options.

[Conservative treatment, hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis for elderly patients: The choice of treatment does not influence the survival]

Hemodialysis is the predominant replacement therapy in the 70 year-old French population (18% in peritoneal dialysis, 72% in hemodialysis from the REIN registry). Managing older patients reaching the end stage renal disease poses many ethical questions, since outcomes balanced regarding survival and quality of life. The aim of this study was to compare the survival of patients aged over 70 years according to the ESRD treatment choice: conservative treatment without dialysis (CT), hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD). We included all patients over 70 years reaching stade IV CKD integrated in a predialysis information program between 01/01/2005 and 31/12/2010. We compared their survival from the start of their program, in function of their treatment choice: HD, PD or CT. On this period, 148 patients were included, we excluded from analysis 17 patients who had a contraindication to PD, 26 patients who did not make a choice because their kidney function was stabilized, 4 patients lost to follow-up and 12 patients who died before the treatment choice. The average age was 79±6 years, 40% of patients were women, and the mean eGFR was 16±9 mL/min/1.73 m(2) at the entry in the program. Among the 89 patients, 21 choose CT (24%), 68 accepted dialysis (76%), including 48 HD (71%) and 20 PD (29%). No significant eGFR difference at the inclusion time between the groups. The time initiation of dialysis was significantly shorter in the PD group (146 days vs 442 in the HD group; P=0.004). Survival between the groups of patients who accepted or refused dialysis was not statistically different (749 days or 2 years in the HD + PD group vs 562 days, or 1 year and 6 months in the CT group; P=0.95) and between the HD group (760 days or 2 years and 2 months) and the PD group (343 days or 11 months; P=0.32). As measured from the time they entered in the predialysis program, the survival of older patients over 70 years does not seem to depend on their choice of treatment modality. Whether they accepted or refused dialysis, whatever their choice concerning hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis, their survival was close to one year.

Pro and con arguments in using alternative dialysis regimens in the frail and elderly patients

In the last decade, an increasing number of patients over 75 years of age are starting renal replacement therapy. Frailty is highly prevalent in elderly patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the context of the increased prevalence of some ESRD-associated conditions: protein-energy wasting, inflammation, anaemia, acidosis or hormonal disturbances. There are currently no hard data to support guidance on the optimal duration of dialysis for frail/elderly ESRD patients. The current debate is not about starting dialysis or managing conservatory frail ESRD patients, but whether a more intensive regimen once dialysis is initiated (for whatever reasons and circumstances) would improve patients' outcome. The most important issue is that all studies performed with extended/alternative dialysis regimens do not specifically address this particular type of patients and therefore all the inferences are derived from the general ESRD population. Care planning should be responsive to end-of-life needs whatever the treatment modality. Care in this setting should focus on symptom control and quality of life rather than life extension. We conclude that, similar to the general dialysed population, extensive application of more intensive dialysis schedules is not based on solid evidence. However, after a thorough clinical evaluation, a limited period of a trial of intensive dialysis could be prescribed in more problematic patients.