Margaret K Yu1, Ann M O'Hare2, Adam Batten3, Christine A Sulc3, Emily L Neely3, Chuan-Fen Liu4, Paul L Hebert4. 1. Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington; Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, and Kidney Research Institute, Seattle, Washington mkyu@uw.edu. 2. Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington; Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, and Kidney Research Institute, Seattle, Washington. 3. Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington; 4. Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington; Department of Health Services, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington; and.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The secular trend toward dialysis initiation at progressively higher levels of eGFR is not well understood. This study compared temporal trends in eGFR at dialysis initiation within versus outside the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-the largest non-fee-for-service health system in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: The study used linked data from the US Renal Data System, VA, and Medicare to compare temporal trends in eGFR at dialysis initiation between 2000 and 2009 (n=971,543). Veterans who initiated dialysis within the VA were compared with three groups who initiated dialysis outside the VA: (1) veterans whose dialysis was paid for by the VA, (2) veterans whose dialysis was not paid for by the VA, and (3) nonveterans. Logistic regression was used to estimate average predicted probabilities of dialysis initiation at an eGFR≥10 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). RESULTS: The adjusted probability of starting dialysis at an eGFR≥10 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) increased over time for all groups but was lower for veterans who started dialysis within the VA (0.31; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.30 to 0.32) than for those starting outside the VA, including veterans whose dialysis was (0.36; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.38) and was not (0.40; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.40) paid for by the VA and nonveterans (0.39; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.39). Differences in eGFR at initiation within versus outside the VA were most pronounced among older patients (P for interaction <0.001) and those with a higher risk of 1-year mortality (P for interaction <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Temporal trends in eGFR at dialysis initiation within the VA mirrored those in the wider United States dialysis population, but eGFR at initiation was consistently lowest among those who initiated within the VA. Differences in eGFR at initiation within versus outside the VA were especially pronounced in older patients and those with higher 1-year mortality risk.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The secular trend toward dialysis initiation at progressively higher levels of eGFR is not well understood. This study compared temporal trends in eGFR at dialysis initiation within versus outside the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-the largest non-fee-for-service health system in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: The study used linked data from the US Renal Data System, VA, and Medicare to compare temporal trends in eGFR at dialysis initiation between 2000 and 2009 (n=971,543). Veterans who initiated dialysis within the VA were compared with three groups who initiated dialysis outside the VA: (1) veterans whose dialysis was paid for by the VA, (2) veterans whose dialysis was not paid for by the VA, and (3) nonveterans. Logistic regression was used to estimate average predicted probabilities of dialysis initiation at an eGFR≥10 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). RESULTS: The adjusted probability of starting dialysis at an eGFR≥10 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) increased over time for all groups but was lower for veterans who started dialysis within the VA (0.31; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.30 to 0.32) than for those starting outside the VA, including veterans whose dialysis was (0.36; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.38) and was not (0.40; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.40) paid for by the VA and nonveterans (0.39; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.39). Differences in eGFR at initiation within versus outside the VA were most pronounced among older patients (P for interaction <0.001) and those with a higher risk of 1-year mortality (P for interaction <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Temporal trends in eGFR at dialysis initiation within the VA mirrored those in the wider United States dialysis population, but eGFR at initiation was consistently lowest among those who initiated within the VA. Differences in eGFR at initiation within versus outside the VA were especially pronounced in older patients and those with higher 1-year mortality risk.
Authors: Amal N Trivedi; Sierra Matula; Isomi Miake-Lye; Peter A Glassman; Paul Shekelle; Steven Asch Journal: Med Care Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Bernard Canaud; Lin Tong; Francesca Tentori; Takashi Akiba; Angelo Karaboyas; Brenda Gillespie; Tadao Akizawa; Ronald L Pisoni; Juergen Bommer; Friedrich K Port Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Waqar H Kazmi; David T Gilbertson; Gregorio T Obrador; Haifeng Guo; Brian J G Pereira; Allan J Collins; Annamaria T Kausz Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Anthony Harris; Bruce A Cooper; Jing Jing Li; Liliana Bulfone; Pauline Branley; John F Collins; Jonathan C Craig; Margaret B Fraenkel; David W Johnson; Joan Kesselhut; Grant Luxton; Andrew Pilmore; Martin Rosevear; David J Tiller; Carol A Pollock; David C Harris Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2011-02-23 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: J Bradley Layton; Susan L Hogan; Caroline E Jennette; Barbara Kenderes; Jenna Krisher; J Charles Jennette; William M McClellan Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2010-08-05 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: William F Clark; Yingbo Na; Steven J Rosansky; Jessica M Sontrop; Jennifer J Macnab; Richard J Glassock; Paul W Eggers; Kirby Jackson; Louise Moist Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-12-06 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Jamie P Traynor; Keith Simpson; Colin C Geddes; Christopher J Deighan; Jonathan G Fox Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Shahid M Chandna; Maria Da Silva-Gane; Catherine Marshall; Paul Warwicker; Roger N Greenwood; Ken Farrington Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2010-11-22 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: Nicholas Burwick; Scott V Adams; Jeffrey A Todd-Stenberg; Nilka Rios Burrows; Meda E Pavkov; Ann M O'Hare Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2018-11-15 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Susan P Y Wong; Paul L Hebert; Ryan J Laundry; Kenric W Hammond; Chuan-Fen Liu; Nilka R Burrows; Ann M O'Hare Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Susan P Y Wong; Elizabeth K Vig; Janelle S Taylor; Nilka R Burrows; Chuan-Fen Liu; Desmond E Williams; Paul L Hebert; Ann M O'Hare Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Manjula Kurella Tamura; I-Chun Thomas; Maria E Montez-Rath; Kristopher Kapphahn; Manisha Desai; Randall C Gale; Steven M Asch Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 21.873