Huzaifah Salat1,2, Andrei Javier1,2, Edward D Siew1,2, Rocio Figueroa3, Loren Lipworth2,4, Edmond Kabagambe2,4, Aihua Bian5, Thomas G Stewart5, Maie H El-Sourady6, Mohana Karlekar6, Cesar Y Cardona7, T Alp Ikizler1,2, Khaled Abdel-Kader8,2. 1. Divisions of Nephrology and Hypertension. 2. Vanderbilt Center for Kidney Disease, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Nashville, Tennessee. 3. Department of Medicine, School of Medicine and Health Science, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota. 4. Epidemiology, and. 5. Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee; and. 6. General Internal Medicine, Public Health and Palliative Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 7. Division of Nephrology, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tennessee. 8. Divisions of Nephrology and Hypertension, khaled.abdel-kader@vanderbilt.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Prognostic uncertainty is one barrier that impedes providers in engaging patients with CKD in shared decision making and advance care planning. The surprise question has been shown to identify patients at increased risk of dying. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In our prospective observational study, 488 patients ≥60 years of age with CKD stage 4 or 5 were enrolled. Binary surprise question (i.e., "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?") responses were recorded, and dialysis planning preferences, presence of advance care planning documentation, and care preceding death were abstracted. RESULTS: The median patient age was 71 (65-77) years old. Providers responded no and yes to the surprise question for 171 (35%) and 317 (65%) patients, respectively. Median follow-up was 1.9 (1.5-2.1) years, during which 18% of patients died (33% of surprise question no, 10% of surprise question yes; P<0.001). In patients with a known RRT preference (58%), 13% of surprise question no participants had a preference for conservative management (versus 2% of yes counterparts; P<0.001). A medical order (i.e., physician order for life-sustaining treatment) was documented in 13% of surprise question no patients versus 5% of yes patients (P=0.004). Among surprise question no decedents, 41% died at home or hospice, 38% used hospice services, and 54% were hospitalized in the month before death. In surprise question yes decedents, 39% died at home or hospice (P=0.90 versus no), 26% used hospice services (P=0.50 versus no), and 67% were hospitalized in the month before death (P=0.40 versus surprise question no). CONCLUSIONS: Nephrologists' prognostic perceptions were associated with modest changes in care, highlighting a critical gap in conservative management discussions, advance care planning, and end of life care among older adults with CKD stages 4 and 5 and high-risk clinical characteristics. PODCAST: This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2017_09_18_CJASNPodcast_17_11.mp3.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Prognostic uncertainty is one barrier that impedes providers in engaging patients with CKD in shared decision making and advance care planning. The surprise question has been shown to identify patients at increased risk of dying. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In our prospective observational study, 488 patients ≥60 years of age with CKD stage 4 or 5 were enrolled. Binary surprise question (i.e., "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?") responses were recorded, and dialysis planning preferences, presence of advance care planning documentation, and care preceding death were abstracted. RESULTS: The median patient age was 71 (65-77) years old. Providers responded no and yes to the surprise question for 171 (35%) and 317 (65%) patients, respectively. Median follow-up was 1.9 (1.5-2.1) years, during which 18% of patients died (33% of surprise question no, 10% of surprise question yes; P<0.001). In patients with a known RRT preference (58%), 13% of surprise question no participants had a preference for conservative management (versus 2% of yes counterparts; P<0.001). A medical order (i.e., physician order for life-sustaining treatment) was documented in 13% of surprise question no patients versus 5% of yes patients (P=0.004). Among surprise question no decedents, 41% died at home or hospice, 38% used hospice services, and 54% were hospitalized in the month before death. In surprise question yes decedents, 39% died at home or hospice (P=0.90 versus no), 26% used hospice services (P=0.50 versus no), and 67% were hospitalized in the month before death (P=0.40 versus surprise question no). CONCLUSIONS: Nephrologists' prognostic perceptions were associated with modest changes in care, highlighting a critical gap in conservative management discussions, advance care planning, and end of life care among older adults with CKD stages 4 and 5 and high-risk clinical characteristics. PODCAST: This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2017_09_18_CJASNPodcast_17_11.mp3.
Authors: Andrei D Javier; Rocio Figueroa; Edward D Siew; Huzaifah Salat; Jennifer Morse; Thomas G Stewart; Rakesh Malhotra; Manisha Jhamb; Jane O Schell; Cesar Y Cardona; Cathy A Maxwell; T Alp Ikizler; Khaled Abdel-Kader Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 8.860
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: Tim Luckett; Marcus Sellars; Jennifer Tieman; Carol A Pollock; William Silvester; Phyllis N Butow; Karen M Detering; Frank Brennan; Josephine M Clayton Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2014-01-14 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Balwinder Singh; Amandeep Singh; Adil Ahmed; Gregory A Wilson; Brian W Pickering; Vitaly Herasevich; Ognjen Gajic; Guangxi Li Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 7.616
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: 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: Nwamaka D Eneanya; Shananssa G Percy; Taylor L Stallings; Wei Wang; David J R Steele; Michael J Germain; Jane O Schell; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Angelo E Volandes Journal: Am J Nephrol Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 3.754
Authors: Susan P Y Wong; Lynne V McFarland; Chuan-Fen Liu; Ryan J Laundry; Paul L Hebert; Ann M O'Hare Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 21.873
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: Robert A Cohen; Alexandra Bursic; Emily Chan; Marie K Norman; Robert M Arnold; Jane O Schell Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-02-12 Impact factor: 10.614
Authors: Markus Ebke; Andreas Koch; Kim Dillen; Ingrid Becker; Raymond Voltz; Heidrun Golla Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Nwamaka D Eneanya; Joshua R Lakin; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Charlotta Lindvall; Edward T Moseley; Lori Henault; Amresh D Hanchate; Ernest I Mandel; Susan P Y Wong; Sophia N Zupanc; Aretha Delight Davis; Areej El-Jawahri; Lisa M Quintiliani; Yuchiao Chang; Sushrut S Waikar; Amar D Bansal; Jane O Schell; Andrew L Lundquist; Manjula Kurella Tamura; Margaret K Yu; Mark L Unruh; Christos Argyropoulos; Michael J Germain; Angelo Volandes Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 2.692