Ryan T Anderson1, Hailey Cleek2, Atieh S Pajouhi3, M Fernanda Bellolio4, Ananya Mayukha2, Allyson Hart5,6, LaTonya J Hickson7,8, Molly A Feely9, Michael E Wilson2,10, Ryan M Giddings Connolly3, Patricia J Erwin11, Abdul M Majzoub10, Navdeep Tangri12,13, Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir14,3,7. 1. Mayo Clinic School of Graduate Medical Education. 2. Biomedical Ethics Program. 3. Division of Community Internal Medicine. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 6. Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 7. Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for Science of Health Care Delivery. 8. Division of Nephrology and Hypertension. 9. Division of General Internal Medicine. 10. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, and. 11. Mayo Medical Library, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 12. Department of Medicine and. 13. Department of Community Health Sciences, Seven Oaks General Hospital, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. 14. Biomedical Ethics Program, thorsteinsdottir.bjorg@mayo.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Dialysis is a preference-sensitive decision where prognosis may play an important role. Although patients desire risk prediction, nephrologists are wary of sharing this information. We reviewed the performance of prognostic indices for patients starting dialysis to facilitate bedside translation. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus for eligible studies of patients starting dialysis published from inception to December 31, 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Articles describing validated prognostic indices predicting mortality at the start of dialysis. We excluded studies limited to prevalent dialysis patients, AKI and studies excluding mortality in the first 1-3 months. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts, performed full text assessment of inclusion criteria and extracted: study design, setting, population demographics, index performance and risk of bias. Pre-planned random effects meta-analysis was performed stratified by index and predictive window to reduce heterogeneity. RESULTS: Of 12,132 articles screened and 214 reviewed in full text, 36 studies were included describing 32 prognostic indices. Predictive windows ranged from 3 months to 10 years, cohort sizes from 46 to 52,796. Meta-analysis showed discrimination area under the curve (AUC) of 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 073) with high heterogeneity (I 2=99.12). Meta-analysis by index showed highest AUC for The Obi, Ivory, and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI)=0.74, also CCI was the most commonly used (ten studies). Other commonly used indices were Kahn-Wright index (eight studies, AUC 0.68), Hemmelgarn modification of the CCI (six studies, AUC 0.66) and REIN index (five studies, AUC 0.69). Of the indices, ten have been validated externally, 16 internally and nine were pre-existing validated indices. Limitations include heterogeneity and exclusion of large cohort studies in prevalent patients. CONCLUSIONS: Several well validated indices with good discrimination are available for predicting survival at dialysis start.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Dialysis is a preference-sensitive decision where prognosis may play an important role. Although patients desire risk prediction, nephrologists are wary of sharing this information. We reviewed the performance of prognostic indices for patients starting dialysis to facilitate bedside translation. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus for eligible studies of patients starting dialysis published from inception to December 31, 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Articles describing validated prognostic indices predicting mortality at the start of dialysis. We excluded studies limited to prevalent dialysis patients, AKI and studies excluding mortality in the first 1-3 months. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts, performed full text assessment of inclusion criteria and extracted: study design, setting, population demographics, index performance and risk of bias. Pre-planned random effects meta-analysis was performed stratified by index and predictive window to reduce heterogeneity. RESULTS: Of 12,132 articles screened and 214 reviewed in full text, 36 studies were included describing 32 prognostic indices. Predictive windows ranged from 3 months to 10 years, cohort sizes from 46 to 52,796. Meta-analysis showed discrimination area under the curve (AUC) of 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 073) with high heterogeneity (I 2=99.12). Meta-analysis by index showed highest AUC for The Obi, Ivory, and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI)=0.74, also CCI was the most commonly used (ten studies). Other commonly used indices were Kahn-Wright index (eight studies, AUC 0.68), Hemmelgarn modification of the CCI (six studies, AUC 0.66) and REIN index (five studies, AUC 0.69). Of the indices, ten have been validated externally, 16 internally and nine were pre-existing validated indices. Limitations include heterogeneity and exclusion of large cohort studies in prevalent patients. CONCLUSIONS: Several well validated indices with good discrimination are available for predicting survival at dialysis start.
Authors: Katia López Revuelta; Fernando J García López; Fernando de Alvaro Moreno; Jordi Alonso Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2004-07-13 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: A Nicolucci; D Cubasso; D Labbrozzi; E Mari; P Impicciatore; D A Procaccini; M Forcella; I Stella; M Querques; A Pappani Journal: ASAIO J Date: 1992 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 2.872
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: Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir; Nataly R Espinoza Suarez; Susan Curtis; Annika T Beck; Ian Hargraves; Kevin Shaw; Susan P Y Wong; LaTonya J Hickson; Kasey R Boehmer; Brigid Amberg; Erin Dahlen; Cristina Wirtz; Robert C Albright; Ashok Kumbamu; Jon C Tilburt; Erica J Sutton Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-01-26 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Chang Seong Kim; Kyung-Do Han; Hong Sang Choi; Eun Hui Bae; Seong Kwon Ma; Soo Wan Kim Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Junhyug Noh; Kyung Don Yoo; Wonho Bae; Jong Soo Lee; Kangil Kim; Jang-Hee Cho; Hajeong Lee; Dong Ki Kim; Chun Soo Lim; Shin-Wook Kang; Yong-Lim Kim; Yon Su Kim; Gunhee Kim; Jung Pyo Lee Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-05-04 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Martin Wagner; David M Kent; Ronald L Pisoni; Damian Fogarty; Gero von Gersdorff; Christoph Wanner; Navdeep Tangri Journal: Kidney Med Date: 2022-01-25
Authors: Melissa D Hladek; Jiafeng Zhu; Deidra C Crews; Mara A McAdams-DeMarco; Brian Buta; Ravi Varadhan; Tariq Shafi; Jeremy D Walston; Karen Bandeen-Roche Journal: Kidney Int Rep Date: 2022-06-23
Authors: Carlijn G N Voorend; Hanneke Joosten; Noeleen C Berkhout-Byrne; Adry Diepenbroek; Casper F M Franssen; Willem Jan W Bos; Marjolijn Van Buren; Simon P Mooijaart Journal: Eur Geriatr Med Date: 2021-04-19 Impact factor: 1.710