Unfavorable effects of history of volume overload and late referral to a nephrologist on mortality in patients initiating dialysis: a multicenter prospective cohort study in Japan

Sex differences in clinical outcomes in Japanese incident dialysis patients: a prospective observational multicenter study

BACKGROUND

A Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) has shown a one-to-one male-to-female mortality ratio, notwithstanding the statistically longer life expectancy of women in the general population. This finding contrasts with the recent report that Japanese women on dialysis treatment have a more favorable longevity. Accordingly, we further investigated the clinical procedures and outcomes to clarify the sex differences in Japanese patients undergoing dialysis treatment.

METHODS

Subjects were incident dialysis patients who participated in a multicenter prospective cohort study from October 2011 to September 2013. The all-cause mortality was analyzed by a Cox proportional hazard regression model and studied separately in women and men with or without cardiovascular disease (CVD) at baseline.

RESULTS

Overall, 492 (32.3%) of the 1520 test subjects were women. All-cause mortality was higher in men (28.6%) than in women (19.9%, p < 0.001). Female sex (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54-0.90) and history of CVD (HR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.18-1.95) were independent predictors of all-cause mortality. In patients without CVD, female gender was strong independent contributor (HR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.30-0.70, p < 0.001). In contrast, patients with CVD showed no difference in survival between the sexes (HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.67-1.24, p = 0.597).

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that women undergoing chronic dialysis therapy had a lower mortality risk than men. However, complication with CVD canceled out the survival advantage in Japanese women on chronic dialysis. We should reevaluate the risk of women with CVD undergoing dialysis and apply the optimal care for CVD.

Early Referral to Nephrological Care and the Uptake of Peritoneal Dialysis. An Analysis of German Claims Data

Background: Hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) are medically equivalent alternatives for symptomatic therapy of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). An early referral (ER) of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) to a nephrological specialist is associated with a higher proportion of patients choosing PD. Germany historically shows a low PD uptake. This article is the first investigation into the impact of ER on the uptake of PD, using a large German claims database. Methods: Claims data of 4727 incident dialysis patients in 2015 and 2016 were analyzed. Accounting codes for nephrological care and dialysis modalities were identified. Their first documentation was defined as their first encounter with a nephrologist and their first dialysis treatment (HD or PD). ER was determined as receiving nephrological care at least six months before the first dialysis. A multivariate logistic regression model with adjusted odds ratios (AOR) investigates the impact of ER, outpatient dialysis start, age, comorbidities, and sex on the chance for PD. Results: Forty-three percent were referred to the nephrologist six months before their first dialysis (ER). Single tests, as well as the adjusted multivariate logistic regression, highlighted that ER significantly increases the chance for PD. In the multivariate model, the uptake of PD was associated with ER (AOR = 3.05; p < 0.001; 95% CI = 2.16–4.32), outpatient dialysis start (AOR = 0.71; p = 0.044; 95% CI = 0.51–0.99), younger age (AOR = 0.96; p < 0.001; 95% CI = 0.95–0.97), and fewer comorbidities (AOR = 0.85; p < 0.001; 95% CI = 0.44–1.58). Conclusions: ER of patients with CKD to a nephrologist increases PD uptake. It gives both nephrologists and patients enough time for patient education about different treatment options and can contribute to informed decisions about the dialysis treatment.

Most emergency department patients meeting sepsis criteria are not diagnosed with sepsis at discharge

OBJECTIVES

Effective sepsis resuscitation depends on useful criteria for prompt identification of eligible patients. These criteria should reliably predict a discharge diagnosis of sepsis, ensuring that interventions are triggered for those who need it while avoiding potentially harmful interventions in those who do not. We sought to determine the proportion of patients meeting sepsis criteria in the emergency department (ED) that was ultimately diagnosed with sepsis and to quantify the subset of nonseptic patients with risk factors for harm from fluid resuscitation.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of adult ED patients at a tertiary academic medical center included vital signs and laboratory results from the first 6 hours, plus administration of intravenous antibiotics, to determine if patients met 2016 Sepsis-3 consensus criteria. If these patients also had hypotension and lactic acidosis, we categorized them as Sepsis-3 plus shock. We used discharge ICD-9 codes to determine if patients were ultimately diagnosed with sepsis.

RESULTS

Over 8 years, 3,121 ED patients met 2016 Sepsis-3 criteria in the first 6 hours. Of these, only 25% and 48% met explicit and implicit criteria for a discharge diagnosis of sepsis. Of 1,032 patients with Sepsis-3 plus shock, 48% and 62% met explicit and implicit criteria. Overall, 60% to 75% of ED patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria with or without shock did not receive a sepsis discharge diagnosis. At least one plausible risk factor for harm from large-volume fluid resuscitation was identified among 19% to 36% of patients meeting sepsis criteria in the ED but not ultimately diagnosed with sepsis at discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients meeting sepsis criteria in the ED were not diagnosed with sepsis at discharge. Urgent treatment bundles triggered by consensus criteria in the early phase of ED care may be administered to several patients without sepsis, potentially exposing some to interventions of uncertain benefit and possible harm.

Predialysis nephrology care amongst Palestinian hemodialysis patients and its impact on initial vascular access type

Referral time for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients to nephrologists and initial vascular access method are considered significant factors that impact health outcomes at the time of hemodialysis (HD) initiation. Native arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is strongly recommended as initial access. However, little is known about the referral rate among ESRD receiving HD in Palestine and its correlation with AVF creation. In Ramallah Hemodialysis Center, we investigated the pre-dialysis nephrology care and AVF usage in 156 patients. Type of access at HD initiation was temporary central venous catheter (CVC) in 114 (73%), tunneled hemodialysis catheter (TDC) in 21 (13%) and AVF in 21 (13%). Out of all participants, 120 (77%) were seen by nephrologist prior to dialysis. Of the participants who initiated dialysis with a CVC, 36 (31%) had not received prior nephrology care. All participants who initiated dialysis with functional AVF had received prior nephrology care. Patients who were not seen by a nephrologist prior to HD initiation had no chance at starting HD with AVF, whereas 17% of those who had nephrology care >12 months started with AVF. In conclusion, a relatively large percentage of Palestinian HD patients who were maintained on HD did not have any predialysis nephrology care. In addition, patients who received predialysis nephrology care were significantly more likely to start their HD through AVF whereas all those without predialysis nephrology care started through CVC. More in-depth national studies focusing on improving nephrology referral in ESRD patients are needed to increase AVF utilization.

Where Are You Going, Nephrology? Considerations on Models of Care in an Evolving Discipline

Nephrology is a complex discipline, including care of kidney disease, dialysis, and transplantation. While in Europe, about 1:10 individuals is affected by chronic kidney disease (CKD), 1:1000 lives thanks to dialysis or transplantation, whose costs are as high as 2% of all the health care budget. Nephrology has important links with surgery, bioethics, cardiovascular and internal medicine, and is, not surprisingly, in a delicate balance between specialization and comprehensiveness, development and consolidation, cost constraints, and competition with internal medicine and other specialties. This paper proposes an interpretation of the different systems of nephrology care summarising the present choices into three not mutually exclusive main models (“scientific”, “pragmatic”, “holistic”, or “comprehensive”), and hypothesizing an “ideal-utopic” prevention-based fourth one. The so-called scientific model is built around kidney transplantation and care of glomerulonephritis and immunologic diseases, which probably pose the most important challenges in our discipline, but do not mirror the most common clinical problems. Conversely, the pragmatic one is built around dialysis (the most expensive and frequent mode of renal replacement therapy) and pre-dialysis treatment, focusing attention on the most common diseases, the holistic, or comprehensive, model comprehends both, and is integrated by several subspecialties, such as interventional nephrology, obstetric nephrology, and the ideal-utopic one is based upon prevention, and early care of common diseases. Each model has strength and weakness, which are commented to enhance discussion on the crucial issue of the philosophy of care behind its practical organization. Increased reflection and research on models of nephrology care is urgently needed if we wish to rise to the challenge of providing earlier and better care for older and more complex kidney patients with acute and chronic kidney diseases, with reduced budgets.