BACKGROUND: The adverse effects arising from late referral to a nephrologist of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are well known. Retrospectively we examined the initial characteristics of patients referred in various stages of CKD to our nephrology division and tried to identify potential baseline factors associated with subsequent changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between September 1997 and June 2006 1,443 patients (909 male, 534 female) with CKD, with eGFRs ranging from 15 to 89 ml/min, were referred to our nephrology division and categorized using the National Kidney Foundation classification for CKD based on eGFR. The slope of eGFR change (ml/min-1/1.73/m2-1/year-1) was determined by linear regression analysis and the patients were divided into five groups: (1) significantly progressive slope (deterioration) (more negative than -5 ml/min/year); (2) mildly progressive slope (>-5 to <or=-1); (3) stable slope (>-1 to <or=+1); (4) mildly improved slope (>+1 to <or=+5), and (5) significantly improved slope (>or=+5). RESULTS: At the first nephrology referral, 5.8% of the patients were on CKD stage 2 (eGFR: 90-60 ml/m), 46.7% on CKD stage 3 (eGFR: 59-30 ml/m), and 47.5% on CKD stage 4 (eGFR: 29-15 ml/m) CKD. Significantly improved slope was detected in 48.2% of CKD stage 2 patients, 29.3% of CKD stage 3 patients, and only 14.7% of CKD stage 4 patients (P<0.05). Being in stage 4 or stage 3 versus being in stage 2 significantly reduced the likelihood of an improved slope in logistic regression analysis whereas age, gender, presence of hypertension, and diabetes mellitus did not reach the level of significance. CONCLUSION: Referral to a nephrology clinic can lead not only to arrest of progression of CKD but also to regression/improvement. Early referral is a positive predictive factor for improvement in eGFR, which emphasizes the importance of such referral. The previously held idea that, once established, CKD progresses invariably is not valid anymore.
BACKGROUND: The adverse effects arising from late referral to a nephrologist of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are well known. Retrospectively we examined the initial characteristics of patients referred in various stages of CKD to our nephrology division and tried to identify potential baseline factors associated with subsequent changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between September 1997 and June 2006 1,443 patients (909 male, 534 female) with CKD, with eGFRs ranging from 15 to 89 ml/min, were referred to our nephrology division and categorized using the National Kidney Foundation classification for CKD based on eGFR. The slope of eGFR change (ml/min-1/1.73/m2-1/year-1) was determined by linear regression analysis and the patients were divided into five groups: (1) significantly progressive slope (deterioration) (more negative than -5 ml/min/year); (2) mildly progressive slope (>-5 to <or=-1); (3) stable slope (>-1 to <or=+1); (4) mildly improved slope (>+1 to <or=+5), and (5) significantly improved slope (>or=+5). RESULTS: At the first nephrology referral, 5.8% of the patients were on CKD stage 2 (eGFR: 90-60 ml/m), 46.7% on CKD stage 3 (eGFR: 59-30 ml/m), and 47.5% on CKD stage 4 (eGFR: 29-15 ml/m) CKD. Significantly improved slope was detected in 48.2% of CKD stage 2 patients, 29.3% of CKD stage 3 patients, and only 14.7% of CKD stage 4 patients (P<0.05). Being in stage 4 or stage 3 versus being in stage 2 significantly reduced the likelihood of an improved slope in logistic regression analysis whereas age, gender, presence of hypertension, and diabetes mellitus did not reach the level of significance. CONCLUSION: Referral to a nephrology clinic can lead not only to arrest of progression of CKD but also to regression/improvement. Early referral is a positive predictive factor for improvement in eGFR, which emphasizes the importance of such referral. The previously held idea that, once established, CKD progresses invariably is not valid anymore.
Authors: P Arora; G T Obrador; R Ruthazer; A T Kausz; K B Meyer; C S Jenuleson; B J Pereira Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: W A Wilmer; L A Hebert; E J Lewis; R D Rohde; F Whittier; D Cattran; A S Levey; J B Lewis; S Spitalewitz; S Blumenthal; R P Bain Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: P Ruggenenti; A Perna; R Benini; T Bertani; C Zoccali; Q Maggiore; M Salvadori; G Remuzzi Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Andrea Remuzzi; Elena Gagliardini; Chiara Donadoni; Anna Fassi; Fabio Sangalli; Maria Serena Lepre; Giuseppe Remuzzi; Ariela Benigni Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Marcin Adamczak; Marie-Luise Gross; Jan Krtil; Andreas Koch; Karin Tyralla; Kerstin Amann; Eberhard Ritz Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Ai-Hua Zhang; Paul Tam; Denise LeBlanc; Hui Zhong; Christopher T Chan; Joanne M Bargman; Dimitrios G Oreopoulos Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2009-07-04 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Jenna M Norton; Marva M Moxey-Mims; Paul W Eggers; Andrew S Narva; Robert A Star; Paul L Kimmel; Griffin P Rodgers Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-05-13 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Jesse D Schold; Sankar D Navaneethan; Stacey E Jolly; Emilio D Poggio; Susana Arrigain; Welf Saupe; Anil Jain; John W Sharp; James F Simon; Martin J Schreiber; Joseph V Nally Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2010-11-29 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Lise Weis; Marie Metzger; Jean-Philippe Haymann; Eric Thervet; Martin Flamant; François Vrtovsnik; Cédric Gauci; Pascal Houillier; Marc Froissart; Emmanuel Letavernier; Bénédicte Stengel; Jean-Jacques Boffa Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-13 Impact factor: 3.240