Andrei D Javier1, Rocio Figueroa2, Edward D Siew1, Huzaifah Salat1, Jennifer Morse3, Thomas G Stewart3, Rakesh Malhotra4, Manisha Jhamb5, Jane O Schell6, Cesar Y Cardona7, Cathy A Maxwell8, T Alp Ikizler1, Khaled Abdel-Kader9. 1. Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Vanderbilt Center for Kidney Disease, Nashville, TN. 2. Division of Nephrology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. 4. Division of Nephrology, University of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA. 5. Renal-Electrolyte Division, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA. 6. Renal-Electrolyte Division, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA; Section of Palliative Care and Medical Ethics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA. 7. Division of Nephrology, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN. 8. The School of Nursing, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. 9. Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Vanderbilt Center for Kidney Disease, Nashville, TN. Electronic address: khaled.abdel-kader@vanderbilt.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prognostic uncertainty is one barrier to engaging in goals-of-care discussions in chronic kidney disease (CKD). The surprise question ("Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?") is a tool to assist in prognostication. However, it has not been studied in non-dialysis-dependent CKD and its reliability is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 388 patients at least 60 years of age with non-dialysis-dependent CKD stages 4 to 5 who were seen at an outpatient nephrology clinic. PREDICTOR: Trinary (ie, Yes, Neutral, or No) and binary (Yes or No) surprise question response. OUTCOMES: Mortality, test-retest reliability, and blinded inter-rater reliability. MEASUREMENTS: Baseline comorbid conditions, Charlson Comorbidity Index, cause of CKD, and baseline laboratory values (ie, serum creatinine/estimated glomerular filtration rate, serum albumin, and hemoglobin). RESULTS: Median patient age was 71 years with median follow-up of 1.4 years, during which time 52 (13%) patients died. Using the trinary surprise question, providers responded Yes, Neutral, and No for 202 (52%), 80 (21%), and 106 (27%) patients, respectively. About 5%, 15%, and 27% of Yes, Neutral, and No patients died, respectively (P<0.001). Trinary surprise question inter-rater reliability was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.42-0.72), and test-retest reliability was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.54-0.72). The trinary surprise question No response had sensitivity and specificity of 55% and 76%, respectively (95% CIs, 38%-71% and 71%-80%, respectively). The binary surprise question had sensitivity of 66% (95% CI, 49%-80%; P=0.3 vs trinary), but lower specificity of 68% (95% CI, 63%-73%; P=0.02 vs trinary). LIMITATIONS: Single center, small number of deaths. CONCLUSIONS: The surprise question associates with mortality in CKD stages 4 to 5 and demonstrates moderate to good reliability. Future studies should examine how best to deploy the surprise question to facilitate advance care planning in advanced non-dialysis-dependent CKD.
BACKGROUND: Prognostic uncertainty is one barrier to engaging in goals-of-care discussions in chronic kidney disease (CKD). The surprise question ("Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?") is a tool to assist in prognostication. However, it has not been studied in non-dialysis-dependent CKD and its reliability is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 388 patients at least 60 years of age with non-dialysis-dependent CKD stages 4 to 5 who were seen at an outpatient nephrology clinic. PREDICTOR: Trinary (ie, Yes, Neutral, or No) and binary (Yes or No) surprise question response. OUTCOMES: Mortality, test-retest reliability, and blinded inter-rater reliability. MEASUREMENTS: Baseline comorbid conditions, Charlson Comorbidity Index, cause of CKD, and baseline laboratory values (ie, serum creatinine/estimated glomerular filtration rate, serum albumin, and hemoglobin). RESULTS: Median patient age was 71 years with median follow-up of 1.4 years, during which time 52 (13%) patients died. Using the trinary surprise question, providers responded Yes, Neutral, and No for 202 (52%), 80 (21%), and 106 (27%) patients, respectively. About 5%, 15%, and 27% of Yes, Neutral, and No patients died, respectively (P<0.001). Trinary surprise question inter-rater reliability was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.42-0.72), and test-retest reliability was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.54-0.72). The trinary surprise question No response had sensitivity and specificity of 55% and 76%, respectively (95% CIs, 38%-71% and 71%-80%, respectively). The binary surprise question had sensitivity of 66% (95% CI, 49%-80%; P=0.3 vs trinary), but lower specificity of 68% (95% CI, 63%-73%; P=0.02 vs trinary). LIMITATIONS: Single center, small number of deaths. CONCLUSIONS: The surprise question associates with mortality in CKD stages 4 to 5 and demonstrates moderate to good reliability. Future studies should examine how best to deploy the surprise question to facilitate advance care planning in advanced non-dialysis-dependent CKD.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Sara N Davison; Adeera Levin; Alvin H Moss; Vivekanand Jha; Edwina A Brown; Frank Brennan; Fliss E M Murtagh; Saraladevi Naicker; Michael J Germain; Donal J O'Donoghue; Rachael L Morton; Gregorio T Obrador Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Mae Thamer; James S Kaufman; Yi Zhang; Qian Zhang; Dennis J Cotter; Heejung Bang Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2015-06-26 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: C Barrett Bowling; John N Booth; Monika M Safford; Heather E Whitson; Christine S Ritchie; Virginia G Wadley; Mary Cushman; Virginia J Howard; Richard M Allman; Paul Muntner Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2013-04-25 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Melissa W Wachterman; Edward R Marcantonio; Roger B Davis; Robert A Cohen; Sushrut S Waikar; Russell S Phillips; Ellen P McCarthy Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-07-08 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Khaled Abdel-Kader; Manisha Jhamb; Lee Anne Mandich; Jonathan Yabes; Robert M Keene; Scott Beach; Daniel J Buysse; Mark L Unruh Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2014-02-06 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Sarah J Ramer; Nicolas A Baddour; Edward D Siew; Huzaifah Salat; Aihua Bian; Thomas G Stewart; Susan P Y Wong; Manisha Jhamb; Khaled Abdel-Kader Journal: Am J Nephrol Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 3.754
Authors: Huzaifah Salat; Andrei Javier; Edward D Siew; Rocio Figueroa; Loren Lipworth; Edmond Kabagambe; Aihua Bian; Thomas G Stewart; Maie H El-Sourady; Mohana Karlekar; Cesar Y Cardona; T Alp Ikizler; Khaled Abdel-Kader Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Nicolas A Baddour; Cassianne Robinson-Cohen; Loren Lipworth; Aihua Bian; Thomas G Stewart; Manisha Jhamb; Edward D Siew; Khaled Abdel-Kader Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2019-06-28 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Sarah J Ramer; Natalie N McCall; Cassianne Robinson-Cohen; Edward D Siew; Huzaifah Salat; Aihua Bian; Thomas G Stewart; Maie H El-Sourady; Mohana Karlekar; Loren Lipworth; T Alp Ikizler; Khaled Abdel-Kader Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Shirley Chambers; Helen Healy; Wendy E Hoy; Adrian Kark; Sharad Ratanjee; Geoffrey Mitchell; Carol Douglas; Patsy Yates; Ann Bonner Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2018-04-05 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: Gwen M Bernacki; Cara L McDermott; Daniel D Matlock; Ann M O'Hare; Lyndia Brumback; Nisha Bansal; James N Kirkpatrick; Ruth A Engelberg; Jared Randall Curtis Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2021-08-04 Impact factor: 3.612