Wei Han Takagi1, Kiyomi Osako1, Shinji Machida1, Kenichiro Koitabashi1, Yugo Shibagaki1, Tsutomu Sakurada2. 1. Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 2-16-1 Sugao, Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, 216-8511, Japan. 2. Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 2-16-1 Sugao, Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, 216-8511, Japan. sakurada@marianna-u.ac.jp.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inpatient educational programs (IEPs) for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) decrease CKD progression. However, patients with end-stage kidney disease who started dialysis during the observation period were excluded from previous studies. METHODS: After adjusting for age, sex, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate, hemoglobin level, and the presence of diabetes mellitus using 1:1 propensity score matching (caliper width of 0.008) in the groups that did and did not receive an IEP, we compared the time period from the beginning of CKD stage G5 to the start of dialysis and patient characteristics at the start of dialysis. RESULTS: Prior to matching, 41 patients received an IEP and 260 did not. After propensity score matching, the 41 patients who received an IEP had a longer period from the beginning of stage G5 to the start of dialysis (344 vs. 257 days, P = 0.011), shorter hospitalization period upon the start of dialysis (14 vs. 18 days, P = 0.015) compared with the 41 patients who did not receive an IEP. In addition, the proportion of patients with a planned start of dialysis tended to be higher in the IEP group (95.1 vs. 83.0%, P = 0.077). CONCLUSION: An IEP may delay the start of dialysis in patients with end-stage kidney disease, contribute to better preparation of vascular access placement and the smoother start of dialysis.
BACKGROUND: Inpatient educational programs (IEPs) for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) decrease CKD progression. However, patients with end-stage kidney disease who started dialysis during the observation period were excluded from previous studies. METHODS: After adjusting for age, sex, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate, hemoglobin level, and the presence of diabetes mellitus using 1:1 propensity score matching (caliper width of 0.008) in the groups that did and did not receive an IEP, we compared the time period from the beginning of CKD stage G5 to the start of dialysis and patient characteristics at the start of dialysis. RESULTS: Prior to matching, 41 patients received an IEP and 260 did not. After propensity score matching, the 41 patients who received an IEP had a longer period from the beginning of stage G5 to the start of dialysis (344 vs. 257 days, P = 0.011), shorter hospitalization period upon the start of dialysis (14 vs. 18 days, P = 0.015) compared with the 41 patients who did not receive an IEP. In addition, the proportion of patients with a planned start of dialysis tended to be higher in the IEP group (95.1 vs. 83.0%, P = 0.077). CONCLUSION: An IEP may delay the start of dialysis in patients with end-stage kidney disease, contribute to better preparation of vascular access placement and the smoother start of dialysis.