Why do physicians prescribe dialysis? A prospective questionnaire study

Funding Information: This study was supported by an unrestricted grant 14CECPDEU1001 from Baxter Healthcare International. Baxter Novum is the result of a grant from Baxter Healthcare Corporation to Division of Renal Medicine and Baxter Novum, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, to support research activities at Karolinska Institutet to promote the understanding and treatment of renal disease. Bengt Lindholm is employed by Baxter Healthcare Corporation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. Publisher Copyright: © 2017 Heaf et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Copyright: Copyright 2018 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.Introduction.The incidence of unplanned dialysis initiation (DI) with consequent increased comorbidity, mortality and reduced modality choice remains high, but the optimal timing of dialysis initiation (DI) remains controversial, and there is a lack of studies of specific reasons for DI. We investigated why and when physicians prescribe dialysis and hypothesized that physician motivation for DI is an independent factor which may have clinical consequences. Methods In the Peridialysis study, an ongoing multicenter prospective study assessing the causes and timing of DI and consequences of unplanned dialysis, physicians in 11 hospitals were asked to describe their primary, secondary and further reasons for prescribing DI. The stated reasons for DI were analyzed in relation to clinical and biochemical data at DI, and characteristics of physicians. Results In 446 patients (median age 67 years; 38% females; diabetes 25.6%), DI was prescribed by 84 doctors who stated 23 different primary reasons for DI. The primary indication was clinical in 63% and biochemical in 37%; 23% started for life-threatening conditions. Reduced renal function accounted for only 19% of primary reasons for DI but was a primary or contributing reason in 69%. The eGFR at DI was 7.2 ±3.4 ml/min/1.73 m2, but varied according to comorbidity and cause of DI. Patients with cachexia, anorexia and pulmonary stasis (34% with heart failure) had the highest eGFR (8.2–9.8 ml/min/1.73 m2), and those with edema, “low GFR”, and acidosis, the lowest (4.6–6.1 ml/min/1.73 m2). Patients with multiple comorbidity including diabetes started at a high eGFR (8.7 ml/min/1.73 m2). Physician experience played a role in dialysis prescription. Non-specialists were more likely to prescribe dialysis for life-threatening conditions, while older and more experienced physicians were more likely to start dialysis for clinical reasons, and at a lower eGFR. Female doctors started dialysis at a higher eGFR than males (8.0 vs. 7.1 ml/min/1.73 m2). Conclusions DI was prescribed mainly based on clinical reasons in accordance with current recommendations while low renal function accounted for only 19% of primary reasons for DI. There are considerable differences in physicians´ stated motivations for DI, related to their age, clinical experience and interpretation of biochemical variables. These differences may be an independent factor in the clinical treatment of patients, with consequences for the risk of unplanned DI.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Obesity and risk of death or dialysis in younger and older patients on specialized pre-dialysis care

Obesity is associated with increased mortality and accelerated decline in kidney function in the general population. Little is known about the effect of obesity in younger and older pre-dialysis patients. The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which obesity is a risk factor for death or progression to dialysis in younger and older patients on specialized pre-dialysis care.In a multicenter Dutch cohort study, 492 incident pre-dialysis patients (>18y) were included between 2004-2011 and followed until start of dialysis, death or October 2016. We grouped patients into four categories of baseline body mass index (BMI): <20, 20-24 (reference), 25-29, and ≥30 (obesity) kg/m2 and stratified patients into two age categories (<65y or ≥65y).The study population comprised 212 patients younger than 65 years and 280 patients 65 years and older; crude cumulative risk of dialysis and mortality at the end of follow-up were 66% and 4% for patients <65y and 64% and 14%, respectively, for patients ≥65y. Among the <65y patients, the age-sex standardized combined outcome rate was 2.3 times higher in obese than those with normal BMI, corresponding to an excess rate of 35 events/100 patient-years. After multivariable adjustment the hazard ratios (HR) (95% CI) for the combined endpoint by category of increasing BMI were, for patients <65y, 0.92 (0.41-2.09), 1 (reference), 1.76 (1.16-2.68), and 1.81 (1.17-2.81). For patients ≥65y the BMI-specific HRs were 1.73 (0.97-3.08), 1 (reference), 1.25 (0.91-1.71) and 1.30 (0.79-1.90). In the competing risk analysis, taking dialysis as the event of interest and death as a competing event, the BMI-specific multivariable adjusted subdistribution HRs (95% CI) were, for patients <65y, 0.90 (0.38-2.12), 1 (reference), 1.47 (0.96-2.24) and 1.72 (1.15-2.59). For patients ≥65y the BMI-specific SHRs (95% CI) were 1.68 (0.93-3.02), 1 (reference), 1.50 (1.05-2.14) and 1.80 (1.23-2.65).We found that obesity in younger pre-dialysis patients and being underweight in older pre-dialysis patients are risk factors for starting dialysis and for death, compared with those with a normal BMI

Dialysis initiation: what's the rush?

The recent trend to early initiation of dialysis (at eGFR >10 ml/min/1.73 m(2) ) appears to have been based on conventional wisdoms that are not supported by evidence. Observational studies using administrative databases report worse comorbidity-adjusted dialysis survival with early dialysis initiation. Although some have concluded that the IDEAL randomized controlled trial of dialysis start provided evidence that patients become symptomatic with late dialysis start, there is no definitive support for this view. The potential harms of early start of dialysis, including the loss of residual renal function (RRF), have been well documented. The rate of RRF loss (renal function trajectory) is an important consideration for the timing of the dialysis initiation decision. Patients with low glomerular filtration rate (GFR) may have sufficient RRF to be maintained off dialysis for years. Delay of dialysis start until a working arterio-venous access is in place seems prudent in light of the lack of harm and possible benefit of late dialysis initiation. Prescribing frequent hemodialysis is not recommended when dialysis is initiated early. The benefits of early initiation of chronic dialysis after episodes of congestive heart failure or acute kidney injury require further study. There are no data to show that early start benefits diabetics or other patient groups. Preemptive start of dialysis in noncompliant patients may be necessary to avoid complications. The decision to initiate dialysis requires informed patient consent and a joint decision by the patient and dialysis provider. Possible talking points for obtaining informed consent are provided