4.6 Article

Quality of Life and Survival in Patients with Advanced Kidney Failure Managed Conservatively or by Dialysis

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.01130112

关键词

-

资金

  1. British Renal Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectives Benefits of dialysis in elderly dependent patients are not clearcut. Some patients forego dialysis, opting for conservative kidney management (CKM). This study prospectively compared quality of life and survival in CKM patients and those opting for dialysis. Design, setting, participants, & measurements Quality-of-life assessments (Short-Form 36, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Satisfaction with Life Scale) were performed every 3 months for up to 3 years in patients with advanced, progressive CKD (late stage 4 and stage 5). Results After 3 years, 80 and 44 of 170 patients had started or were planned for hemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis, respectively; 30 were undergoing CKM; and 16 remained undecided. Mean baseline estimated GFR +/- SD was similar (14.0 +/- 4.0 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)) in all groups but was slightly higher in undecided patients. CKM patients were older, more dependent, and more highly comorbid; had poorer physical health; and had higher anxiety levels than the dialysis patients. Mental health, depression, and life satisfaction scores were similar. Multilevel growth models demonstrated no serial change in quality-of-life measures except life satisfaction, which decreased significantly after dialysis initiation and remained stable in CKM. In Cox models controlling for comorbidity, Karnofsky performance scale score, age, physical health score, and propensity score, median survival from recruitment was 1317 days in HD patients (mean of 326 dialysis sessions) and 913 days in CKM patients. Conclusions Patients choosing CKM maintained quality of life. Adjusted median survival from recruitment was 13 months shorter for CKM patients than HD patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 7: 2002-2009, 2012. doi: 10.2215/CJN.01130112

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