4.6 Article

A clinical score to predict 6-month prognosis in elderly patients starting dialysis for end-stage renal disease

期刊

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
卷 24, 期 5, 页码 1553-1561

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfn698

关键词

dialysis withholding; elderly; end-stage renal disease; prognosis score; shared decision making

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a prognostic score for 6-month mortality in elderly patients starting dialysis for end-stage renal disease. Methods. Using data from the French Rein registry, we developed a prognostic score in a training sample of 2500 patients aged 75 years or older who started dialysis between 2002 and 2006, which we validated in a similar sample of 1642 patients. Multivariate logistic regression with 500 bootstrap samples allowed us to select risk factors from 19 demographic and baseline clinical variables. Results. The overall 6-month mortality was 19%. Age was not associated with early mortality. Nine risk factors were selected and points assigned for the score were as follows: body mass index < 18.5 kg/m(2) (2 points), diabetes (1), congestive heart failure stages III to IV (2), peripheral vascular disease stages III to IV (2), dysrhythmia (1), active malignancy (1), severe behavioural disorder (2), total dependency for transfers (3) and unplanned dialysis (2). The median score was 2. Mortality rates ranged from 8% in the lowest risk group (0 point) to 70% in the highest risk group (>= 9 points) and 17% in the median group (2 points). Seventeen percent of all deaths occurred after withdrawal from dialysis, ranging from 0% for a score of 0-1 to 15% for a score of 7 or higher. Conclusions. This simple clinical score effectively predicts short-term prognosis among elderly patients starting dialysis. It should help to illuminate clinical decision making, but cannot be used to withhold dialysis. It ought to only be used by nephrologists to facilitate the discussion with the patients and their families.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据