In Quality We Trust; but Quality of Life or Quality of Care?

Validity of computed tomography defined body composition as a prognostic factor for functional outcome after kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of sarcopenia is markedly higher in kidney transplant candidates than in the general population. It is a syndrome characterized by progressive and generalized loss of skeletal muscle mass and strength, which increases the risk of adverse postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

We studied the impact of computed tomography defined preoperative sarcopenia, defined as a skeletal muscle index below age and gender specific cut-off values, on postoperative physical functional outcomes (grip strength, 4-m walking test, timed up and go, and sit to stand) at 6 months follow up.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients transplanted between 2015 and 2019 were included in this single-centre study. Mean age was 60.3 (±13.1), and 68.2% of patients were male. Ten patients (9.4%) were identified as sarcopenic. Sarcopenic patients were younger (55.6 (±15.1) vs. 60.8 (±12.9) years), more likely to be female (60.0% vs. 28.9%), and had an increased dialysis vintage (19 [2.5-32.8] vs. 9 [0.0-21.0] months) in comparison with their non-sarcopenic counterparts. In univariate analysis, they had a significantly lower body mass index and skeletal muscle area (P ≤ 0.001). In multivariate regression analysis, skeletal muscle index was significantly associated with grip strength (β = 0.690, R2  = 0.232) and timed up and go performance (β = -0.070, R2  = 0.154).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a significant association between sarcopenia existing pre-transplantation and poorer 6 months post-transplantation physical functioning with respect to hand grip strength and timed up and go tests in kidney transplant recipients. These results could be used to preoperatively identify patients with an increased risk of poor postoperative physical functional outcome, allowing for preoperative interventions to mitigate these risks.

An Evidence-Based Theory About PRO Use in Kidney Care: A Realist Synthesis

BACKGROUND

There is international interest on the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in nephrology.

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to develop a kidney-specific program theory about use of PROs in nephrology that may enhance person-centered care, both at individual and aggregated levels of care, and to test and refine this theory through a systematic review of the empirical literature. Together, these objectives articulate what works or does not work, for whom, and why.

METHODS

Realist synthesis methodology guided the electronic database and gray literature searches (in January 2017 and October 2018), screening, and extraction conducted independently by three reviewers. Sources included all nephrology patients and/or practitioners. Through a process of extraction and synthesis, each included source was examined to assess how contexts may trigger mechanisms to influence specific outcomes.

RESULTS

After screening 19,961 references, 84 theoretical and 34 empirical sources were used. PROs are proposed to be useful for providing nephrology care through three types of use. The first type is use of individual-level PRO data at point of care, receiving the majority of theoretical and empirical explorations. Clinician use to support person-centered care, and patient use to support patient engagement, are purported to improve satisfaction, health, and quality of life. Contextual factors specific to the kidney care setting that may influence the use of PRO data include the complexity of kidney disease symptom burden, symptoms that may be stigmatized, comorbidities, and time or administrative constraints in dialysis settings. Electronic collection of PROs may facilitate PRO use given these contexts. The second type is use of aggregated PRO data at point of care, including public reporting of PROs to inform decisions at point of care and improve quality of care, and use of PROs for treatment decisions. The third type is use of aggregated PRO data by organizations, including publicly available PRO data to compare centers. In single-payer systems, regular collection of PROs by dialysis centers can be achieved through economic incentives. Both the second and third types of PRO use include pressures that may trigger quality improvement processes.

CONCLUSION

The current state of the evidence is primarily theoretical. There is pressing need for empirical research to improve the evidence-base of PRO use at individual and aggregated levels of nephrology care.

Development of an International Standard Set of Value-Based Outcome Measures for Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Report of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) CKD Working Group

Value-based health care is increasingly promoted as a strategy for improving care quality by benchmarking outcomes that matter to patients relative to the cost of obtaining those outcomes. To support the shift toward value-based health care in chronic kidney disease (CKD), the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled an international working group of health professionals and patient representatives to develop a standardized minimum set of patient-centered outcomes targeted for clinical use. The considered outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures were generated from systematic literature reviews. Feedback was sought from patients and health professionals. Patients with very high-risk CKD (stages G3a/A3 and G3b/A2-G5, including dialysis, kidney transplantation, and conservative care) were selected as the target population. Using an online modified Delphi process, outcomes important to all patients were selected, such as survival and hospitalization, and to treatment-specific subgroups, such as vascular access survival and kidney allograft survival. Patient-reported outcome measures were included to capture domains of health-related quality of life, which were rated as the most important outcomes by patients. Demographic and clinical variables were identified to be used as case-mix adjusters. Use of these consensus recommendations could enable institutions to monitor, compare, and improve the quality of their CKD care.

Palliative Care Disincentives in CKD: Changing Policy to Improve CKD Care

The dominant health delivery model for advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the United States, which focuses on provision of dialysis, is ill-equipped to address many of the needs of seriously ill patients. Although palliative care may address some of these gaps in care, its integration into advanced CKD care has been suboptimal due to several health system barriers. These barriers include uneven access to specialty palliative care services, underdeveloped models of care for seriously ill patients with advanced CKD, and misaligned policy incentives. This article reviews policies that affect the delivery of palliative care for this population, discusses reforms that could address disincentives to palliative care, identifies quality measurement issues for palliative care for individuals with advanced CKD and ESRD, and considers potential pitfalls in the implementation of new models of integrated palliative care. Reforming health care delivery in ways that remove policy disincentives to palliative care for patients with advanced CKD and ESRD will fill a critical gap in care.

The Use of a Multidimensional Measure of Dialysis Adequacy-Moving beyond Small Solute Kinetics

Urea removal has become a key measure of the intensity of dialysis treatment for kidney failure. Small solute removal, exemplified by Kt/Vurea, has been broadly applied as a means to quantify the dose of thrice weekly hemodialysis. Yet, the reliance on small solute clearances alone as a measure of dialysis adequacy fails fully to quantify the intended clinical effects of dialysis therapy. This review aims to (1) understand the strengths and limitations of small solute kinetics as a surrogate marker of dialysis dose, and (2) present the prospect of a more comprehensive construct for dialysis dose, one that considers more broadly the goals of ESRD care to maximize both quality of life and survival. On behalf of the American Society of Nephrology Dialysis Advisory Group, we propose the need to ascertain the validity and utility of a multidimensional measure that moves beyond small solute kinetics alone to quantify optimal dialysis derived from both patient-reported and comprehensive clinical and dialysis-related measures.