BACKGROUND: Ideally, care prior to the initiation of dialysis should increase the likelihood that patients start electively outside of the hospital setting with a mature arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter. However, unplanned dialysis continues to occur in patients both known and unknown to nephrology services, and in both late and early referrals. The objective of this article is to review the clinical and socioeconomic outcomes of unplanned dialysis initiation. The secondary objective is to explore the potential cost implications of reducing the rate of unplanned first dialysis in Canada. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to 2008 were used to identify studies examining the clinical, economic or quality of life (QoL) outcomes in patients with an unplanned versus planned first dialysis. Data were described in a qualitative manner. RESULTS: Eight European studies (5,805 patients) were reviewed. Duration of hospitalization and mortality was higher for the unplanned versus planned population. Patients undergoing a first unplanned dialysis had significantly worse laboratory parameters and QoL. Rates of unplanned dialysis ranged from 2449%. The total annual burden to the Canadian healthcare system of unplanned dialysis in 2005 was estimated at $33 million in direct hospital costs alone. Reducing the rate of unplanned dialysis by one-half yielded savings ranging from $13.3 to $16.1 million. CONCLUSION: The clinical and socioeconomic impact of unplanned dialysis is significant. To more consistently characterize the unplanned population, the term suboptimal initiation is proposed to include dialysis initiation in hospital and/or with a central venous catheter and/or with a patient not starting on their chronic modality of choice. Further research and implementation of initiatives to reduce the rate of suboptimal initiation of dialysis in Canada are needed.
BACKGROUND: Ideally, care prior to the initiation of dialysis should increase the likelihood that patients start electively outside of the hospital setting with a mature arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter. However, unplanned dialysis continues to occur in patients both known and unknown to nephrology services, and in both late and early referrals. The objective of this article is to review the clinical and socioeconomic outcomes of unplanned dialysis initiation. The secondary objective is to explore the potential cost implications of reducing the rate of unplanned first dialysis in Canada. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to 2008 were used to identify studies examining the clinical, economic or quality of life (QoL) outcomes in patients with an unplanned versus planned first dialysis. Data were described in a qualitative manner. RESULTS: Eight European studies (5,805 patients) were reviewed. Duration of hospitalization and mortality was higher for the unplanned versus planned population. Patients undergoing a first unplanned dialysis had significantly worse laboratory parameters and QoL. Rates of unplanned dialysis ranged from 2449%. The total annual burden to the Canadian healthcare system of unplanned dialysis in 2005 was estimated at $33 million in direct hospital costs alone. Reducing the rate of unplanned dialysis by one-half yielded savings ranging from $13.3 to $16.1 million. CONCLUSION: The clinical and socioeconomic impact of unplanned dialysis is significant. To more consistently characterize the unplanned population, the term suboptimal initiation is proposed to include dialysis initiation in hospital and/or with a central venous catheter and/or with a patient not starting on their chronic modality of choice. Further research and implementation of initiatives to reduce the rate of suboptimal initiation of dialysis in Canada are needed.
Authors: B M Curtis; B J Barret; K Jindal; O Djurdjev; A Levin; P Barre; K Bernstein; P Blake; E Carlisle; P Cartier; C Clase; B Culleton; C Deziel; S Donnelly; J Ethier; A Fine; G Ganz; M Goldstein; J Kappel; G Karr; S Langlois; D Mendelssohn; N Muirhead; B Murphy; G Pylpchuk; E Toffelmire Journal: Clin Nephrol Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 0.975
Authors: J L Górriz; A Sancho; L M Pallardó; M L Amoedo; M Martín; P Sanz; G Barril; R Selgas; M Salgueira; A Palma; M de la Torre; I Ferreras Journal: Nefrologia Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.033
Authors: Norbert Lameire; Jean-Pierre Wauters; Jose Luis Górriz Teruel; Wim Van Biesen; Raymond Vanholder Journal: Kidney Int Suppl Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 10.545
Authors: David C Mendelssohn; Jean Ethier; Stacey J Elder; Rajiv Saran; Friedrich K Port; Ronald L Pisoni Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2005-11-25 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Fergus J Caskey; Sarah Wordsworth; Thomas Ben; Frank T de Charro; Catherine Delcroix; Vladimir Dobronravov; Henk van Hamersvelt; Iain Henderson; Elizabeth Kokolina; Izhar H Khan; Anne Ludbrook; Merike Luman; Gordon J Prescott; Dimitri Tsakiris; Myftar Barbullushi; Alison M MacLeod Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Thomas W Ferguson; Amit X Garg; Manish M Sood; Claudio Rigatto; Elaine Chau; Paul Komenda; David Naimark; Gihad E Nesrallah; Steven D Soroka; Monica Beaulieu; Ahsan Alam; S Joseph Kim; Stephanie Dixon; Braden Manns; Navdeep Tangri Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Patrick Harnett; Matthew Jones; Michael Almond; Gowrie Ballasubramaniam; Vinni Kunnath Journal: Clin Med (Lond) Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 2.659