BACKGROUND: Nephrologist-based multidisciplinary care (MDC) has a positive impact on slowing chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression. However, the benefits of MDC in patients with stage 5 CKD remain unclear. METHODS: Stage 5 CKD patients who visited the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chiayi, Taiwan during the period of 2002-2008 were enrolled. The incident dialysis and medical cost were compared between MDC recipients and nonrecipients. The MDC recipients were divided into two groups by educational duration to observe the clinical renal outcome and medical care expenses. The effect of MDC on renal disease progression was also compared in MDC recipients with and without diabetes. RESULTS: Out of 307 patients, 171 received MDC. For MDC recipients, the temporary usage of catheter was reduced (54.7% vs. 79.4%, p < 0.001), the hospital stay was shorter (18.64 ± 1.20 vs. 24.63 ± 1.22 months, p = 0.001), and the total medical cost was lower [New Taiwan dollars (NTD) 105,948.54 ± 9,967.22 vs. NTD 160,388.61 ± 16,373.97, p = 0.005] than for nonrecipients. Out of the 171 MDC recipients, those with MDC for more than 1 year had slower renal disease progression (0.76 ± 0.27 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) per year) and had an estimated per- capita annual cost savings of about NTD 336,500.66. MDC recipients with diabetes had a higher risk of requiring dialysis than those without diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: MDC could significantly reduce temporary use of the catheter, hospital stay, and total medical costs in patients with stage 5 CKD. Furthermore, longer (>1 year) MDC could preserve renal function and deliver annual medical cost savings.
BACKGROUND: Nephrologist-based multidisciplinary care (MDC) has a positive impact on slowing chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression. However, the benefits of MDC in patients with stage 5 CKD remain unclear. METHODS: Stage 5 CKD patients who visited the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chiayi, Taiwan during the period of 2002-2008 were enrolled. The incident dialysis and medical cost were compared between MDC recipients and nonrecipients. The MDC recipients were divided into two groups by educational duration to observe the clinical renal outcome and medical care expenses. The effect of MDC on renal disease progression was also compared in MDC recipients with and without diabetes. RESULTS: Out of 307 patients, 171 received MDC. For MDC recipients, the temporary usage of catheter was reduced (54.7% vs. 79.4%, p < 0.001), the hospital stay was shorter (18.64 ± 1.20 vs. 24.63 ± 1.22 months, p = 0.001), and the total medical cost was lower [New Taiwan dollars (NTD) 105,948.54 ± 9,967.22 vs. NTD 160,388.61 ± 16,373.97, p = 0.005] than for nonrecipients. Out of the 171 MDC recipients, those with MDC for more than 1 year had slower renal disease progression (0.76 ± 0.27 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) per year) and had an estimated per- capita annual cost savings of about NTD 336,500.66. MDC recipients with diabetes had a higher risk of requiring dialysis than those without diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: MDC could significantly reduce temporary use of the catheter, hospital stay, and total medical costs in patients with stage 5 CKD. Furthermore, longer (>1 year) MDC could preserve renal function and deliver annual medical cost savings.