Jinn-Yang Chen1, Shin-Hung Tsai, Pei-Hung Chuang, Chia-Hao Chang, Chiao-Lin Chuang, Hui-Ling Chen, Ping-Ling Chen. 1. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, and, ‖Division of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan;, †School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan;, ‡Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Cheng Hsin General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan;, §Graduate Institute of Injury Prevention and Control, College of Public Health and Nutrition, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan, ¶Hepatitis Research Center, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chinese patients with ESRD have different comorbidity patterns than white patients with ESRD and require a validated comorbidity index. The objective of this study was to develop a new index for mortality prediction in 2006-2009 Taiwanese incident hemodialysis patients. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Data were retrieved from 2005 to 2010 Taiwan National Health Insurance claim records, and follow-up was available until December 31, 2010. The same comorbid conditions as the US Renal Data System (USRDS) index that occurred during a 12-month period from 9 months before to 3 months after dialysis initiation were used to construct the index. Integer weight of the comorbid conditions was derived from coefficient estimates of Cox regression for all-cause mortality, and the index was internally validated. The performance of the index was assessed by discrimination, calibration, and reclassification. RESULTS: A total of 30,303 hemodialysis patients were included in this study. The weight for individual comorbid conditions of this index differed from that of the USRDS index. The performance of this index was similar to that of USRDS and Charlson indices in terms of model fit statistics, overall predictive ability, discrimination, and calibration. Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed that all three indices demonstrated significant differences between predicted and observed mortality rates. When patients were categorized by the predicted 2.5-year survival probabilities, the index achieved a net reclassification improvement of 4.71% (P<0.001), referenced to USRDS index. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with USRDS index, this new index demonstrated better reclassification ability, but future studies should address the clinical significance.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chinese patients with ESRD have different comorbidity patterns than white patients with ESRD and require a validated comorbidity index. The objective of this study was to develop a new index for mortality prediction in 2006-2009 Taiwanese incident hemodialysis patients. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Data were retrieved from 2005 to 2010 Taiwan National Health Insurance claim records, and follow-up was available until December 31, 2010. The same comorbid conditions as the US Renal Data System (USRDS) index that occurred during a 12-month period from 9 months before to 3 months after dialysis initiation were used to construct the index. Integer weight of the comorbid conditions was derived from coefficient estimates of Cox regression for all-cause mortality, and the index was internally validated. The performance of the index was assessed by discrimination, calibration, and reclassification. RESULTS: A total of 30,303 hemodialysis patients were included in this study. The weight for individual comorbid conditions of this index differed from that of the USRDS index. The performance of this index was similar to that of USRDS and Charlson indices in terms of model fit statistics, overall predictive ability, discrimination, and calibration. Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed that all three indices demonstrated significant differences between predicted and observed mortality rates. When patients were categorized by the predicted 2.5-year survival probabilities, the index achieved a net reclassification improvement of 4.71% (P<0.001), referenced to USRDS index. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with USRDS index, this new index demonstrated better reclassification ability, but future studies should address the clinical significance.
Authors: Tara I Chang; David Shilane; Dhruv S Kazi; Maria E Montez-Rath; Mark A Hlatky; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Chi Pang Wen; Ting Yuan David Cheng; Min Kuang Tsai; Yen Chen Chang; Hui Ting Chan; Shan Pou Tsai; Po Huang Chiang; Chih Cheng Hsu; Pei Kun Sung; Yi Hua Hsu; Sung Feng Wen Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-06-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jeannette G van Manen; Johanna C Korevaar; Friedo W Dekker; Elisabeth W Boeschoten; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Raymond T Krediet Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Brian D Bradbury; Rachel B Fissell; Justin M Albert; Mary S Anthony; Cathy W Critchlow; Ronald L Pisoni; Friedrich K Port; Brenda W Gillespie Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2006-11-29 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Jürgen Floege; Iain A Gillespie; Florian Kronenberg; Stefan D Anker; Ioanna Gioni; Sharon Richards; Ronald L Pisoni; Bruce M Robinson; Daniele Marcelli; Marc Froissart; Kai-Uwe Eckardt Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2015-02-04 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Brian Forzley; Lee Er; Helen H L Chiu; Ognjenka Djurdjev; Dan Martinusen; Rachel C Carson; Gaylene Hargrove; Adeera Levin; Mohamud Karim Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Brian Forzley; Helen H L Chiu; Ognjenka Djurdjev; Rachel C Carson; Gaylene Hargrove; Dan Martinusen; Mohamud Karim Journal: Can J Kidney Health Dis Date: 2017-08-18
Authors: Victoria Garcia-Montemayor; Alejandro Martin-Malo; Carlo Barbieri; Francesco Bellocchio; Sagrario Soriano; Victoria Pendon-Ruiz de Mier; Ignacio R Molina; Pedro Aljama; Mariano Rodriguez Journal: Clin Kidney J Date: 2020-08-11