Effect of primary care physicians' use of estimated glomerular filtration rate on the timing of their subspecialty referral decisions

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Primary care providers' suboptimal recognition of the severity of chronic kidney disease (CKD) may contribute to untimely referrals of patients with CKD to subspecialty care. It is unknown whether U.S. primary care physicians' use of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) rather than serum creatinine to estimate CKD severity could improve the timeliness of their subspecialty referral decisions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a cross-sectional study of 154 United States primary care physicians to assess the effect of use of eGFR (versus creatinine) on the timing of their subspecialty referrals. Primary care physicians completed a questionnaire featuring questions regarding a hypothetical White or African American patient with progressing CKD. We asked primary care physicians to identify the serum creatinine and eGFR levels at which they would recommend patients like the hypothetical patient be referred for subspecialty evaluation. We assessed significant improvement in the timing [from eGFR < 30 to ≥ 30 mL/min/1.73m²) of their recommended referrals based on their use of creatinine versus eGFR.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Primary care physicians recommended subspecialty referrals later (CKD more advanced) when using creatinine versus eGFR to assess kidney function [median eGFR 32 versus 55 mL/min/1.73m², p < 0.001]. Forty percent of primary care physicians significantly improved the timing of their referrals when basing their recommendations on eGFR. Improved timing occurred more frequently among primary care physicians practicing in academic (versus non-academic) practices or presented with White (versus African American) hypothetical patients [adjusted percentage(95% CI): 70% (45-87) versus 37% (reference) and 57% (39-73) versus 25% (reference), respectively, both p ≤ 0.01).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Primary care physicians recommended subspecialty referrals earlier when using eGFR (versus creatinine) to assess kidney function. Enhanced use of eGFR by primary care physicians' could lead to more timely subspecialty care and improved clinical outcomes for patients with CKD.</p

Incremental dialysis for preserving residual kidney function-Does one size fit all when initiating dialysis?

While many patients have substantial residual kidney function (RKF) when initiating hemodialysis (HD), most patients with end stage renal disease in the United States are initiated on 3-times per week conventional HD regimen, with little regard to RKF or patient preference. RKF is associated with many benefits including survival, volume control, solute clearance, and reduced inflammation. Several strategies have been recommended to preserve RKF after HD initiation, including an incremental approach to HD initiation. Incremental HD prescriptions are personalized to achieve adequate volume control and solute clearance with consideration to a patient's endogenous renal function. This allows the initial use of less frequent and/or shorter HD treatment sessions. Regular measurement of RKF is important because HD frequency needs to be increased as RKF inevitably declines. We narratively review the results of 12 observational cohort studies of twice-weekly compared to thrice-weekly HD. Incremental HD is associated with several benefits including preservation of RKF as well as extending the event-free life of arteriovenous fistulas and grafts. Patient survival and quality of life, however, has been variably associated with incremental HD. Serious risks must also be considered, including increased hospitalization and mortality perhaps related to fluid and electrolyte shifts after a long interdialytic interval. On the basis of the above literature review, and our clinical experience, we suggest patient characteristics which may predict favorable outcomes with an incremental approach to HD. These include substantial RKF, adequate volume control, lack of significant anemia/electrolyte imbalance, satisfactory health-related quality of life, low comorbid disease burden, and good nutritional status without evidence of hypercatabolism. Clinicians should engage patients in on-going conversations to prepare for incremental HD initiation and to ensure a smooth transition to thrice-weekly HD when needed

Measuring Residual Renal Function in Hemodialysis Patients without Urine Collection

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Wong, J., Kaja Kamal, R. M., Vilar, E. and Farrington, K. (2017), 'Measuring Residual Renal Function in Hemodialysis Patients without Urine Collection', Seminars in Dialysis, Vol. 30 (1): 39–49, which has been published in final form at doi: 10.1111/sdi.12557. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Many patients on hemodialysis retain significant residual renal function (RRF) but currently measurement of RRF in routine clinical practice can only be achieved using inter-dialytic urine collections to measure urea and creatinine clearances. Urine collections are difficult and inconvenient for patients and staff, and therefore RRF is not universally measured. Methods to assess RRF without reliance on urine collections are needed since RRF provides useful clinical and prognostic information and also permits the application of incremental hemodialysis techniques. Significant efforts have been made to explore the use of serum based biomarkers such as cystatin C, β-trace protein and β2 -microglobulin to estimate RRF. This article reviews blood-based biomarkers and novel methods using exogenous filtration markers which show potential in estimating RRF in hemodialysis patients without the need for urine collection.Peer reviewedFinal Accepted Versio

Pediatr Nephrol

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines advocate use of arteriovenous fistula (AVF) over central venous catheter (CVC) for children starting hemodialysis (HD). European data on current practice, determinants of access choice and switches, patient survival, and access to transplantation are limited. METHODS: We included incident patients from 18 European countries who started HD from 2000 to 2013 for whom vascular access type was reported to the ESPN/ERA-EDTA Registry. Data were evaluated using descriptive statistics, logistic and Cox regression models, and cumulative incidence competing risk analysis. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-three (55.1%) of 713 children started HD with a CVC and were more often females, younger, had more often an unknown diagnosis, glomerulonephritis, or vasculitis, and lower hemoglobin and height-SDS at HD initiation. AVF patients were 91% less likely to switch to a second access, and two-year patient survival was 99.6% (CVC, 97.2%). Children who started with an AVF were less likely to receive a living donor transplant (adjusted HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.54) and more likely to receive a deceased donor transplant (adjusted HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.17-1.93), even after excluding patients who died or were transplanted in the first 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: CVC remains the most frequent type of vascular access in European children commencing HD. Our results suggest that the choice for CVC is influenced by the time of referral, rapid onset of end-stage renal disease, young age, and an expected short time to transplantation. The role of vascular access type on the pattern between living and deceased donation in subsequent transplantation requires further study