| Literature DB >> 27274835 |
Lindsey Kilshaw1, Hannah Sammut2, Rebecca Asher3, Peter Williams4, Rema Saxena4, Matthew Howse4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some patients with end-stage renal failure (ESRF) are unlikely to benefit from dialysis and conservative management (CM) is offered as a positive alternative. Understanding the trajectory of illness by health care professionals may improve end-of-life care.Entities:
Keywords: chronic kidney disease; end-of-life care; end-stage renal disease; functional trajectories; palliative care
Year: 2016 PMID: 27274835 PMCID: PMC4886902 DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfw005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Kidney J ISSN: 2048-8505
Baseline demographics of recruited subjects
| Total | Alive | Died | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 41 | 29 | 12 | ||
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 18 (44%) | 10 (34%) | 8 (67%) | |
| Female | 23 (56%) | 19 (66%) | 4 (33%) | 0.087 |
| Age, mean (SD), years | 82.7 (5.7) | 82.1 (5.8) | 83.9 (5.6) | 0.372 |
| eGFR | 14.3 (4.2) | 13 (10–16) | 11.5 (9.5–16.5) | 0.177 |
| Comorbidity | ||||
| 0 | 6 (15%) | 5 (17%) | 1 (8%) | |
| 1 | 27 (66%) | 21 (72%) | 6 (50%) | |
| 2 | 8 (20%) | 3 (10%) | 5 (42%) | 0.079 |
| Outcome | ||||
| Alive | 26 (63%) | |||
| Died | 12 (29%) | |||
| Withdrew | 3 (7%) | |||
Fig. 1.Trajectory of the TUG score, BI and EQ-5D. The number of observations at each time point in each group has been tabulated.
Fig. 2.Scatter plot of the overall change in the TUG score versus the change in BI for patients with more than one measurement (n = 35).
Multivariable analysis of the TUG score
| Unadjusted | Adjusted | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | 95% CI | P-value | Estimate | 95% CI | P-value | |
| Alive | ||||||
| 6 versus 0 | 1.30 | (0.99–1.70) | 0.060 | 1.14 | (0.85–1.54) | 0.373 |
| 12 versus 6 | 1.07 | (0.87–1.32) | 0.505 | 0.99 | (0.77–1.26) | 0.907 |
| Died | ||||||
| 6 versus 0 | 2.24 | (1.16–4.32) | 0.017 | 1.09 | (0.51–2.34) | 0.821 |
| 12 versus 6 | 1.18 | (0.75–1.85) | 0.462 | 1.25 | (0.68–2.30) | 0.459 |
| Age | 1.02 | (0.98–1.07) | 0.316 | |||
| Gender | 1.12 | (0.69–1.84) | 0.638 | |||
| Stoke Comorb | ||||||
| 1 | 1.44 | (0.80–2.59) | 0.217 | |||
| 2 | 2.14 | (0.94–4.84) | 0.069 | |||
| Sentinel event | 1.48 | (0.87–2.52) | 0.148 | |||
| eGFR | 1.00 | (0.96–1.05) | 0.916 | |||
| Haemoglobin | 0.96 | (0.80–1.15) | 0.654 | |||
| Albumin | 0.90 | (0.84–0.97) | 0.005 | |||
Fig. 3.Relationship between EQ-5D mobility, TUG score and serum albumin (g/dL).