+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Chronic Kidney Disease Management: Comparison between Renal Transplant Recipients and Nontransplant Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Background/Aim: Renal transplant recipients (RTR) and patients with native chronic kidney disease (CKD) have similar complications. It is not known how the management of CKD in RTR differs from that of patients with native CKD. This study compares the management of complications related to CKD between RTR and patients with native CKD. Methods: Cross-sectional study of all RTR with stage 4 or 5 CKD (n = 72). The control group consisted of 72 native CKD patients matched by glomerular filtration rate (within 2 ml/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup>). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to account for potential confounding variables. Results: Multivariate analysis revealed RTR to more likely have uncontrolled hypertension (adjusted odds ratio AOR 3.8; 95% confidence interval CI 1.3–10.7), less likely to be on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (AOR 0.11; 95% CI 0.04–0.32), more likely to be anemic and not be on erythropoietin (AOR 6.4; 95% CI 0.99–41.9), and more likely to have dyslipidemia and not be on statin (AOR 4.3; 95% CI 1.4–13.4). Conclusions: This study suggests that the management of non-RTR in a multidisciplinary CKD clinic differs significantly from the CKD management in a traditional transplant clinic. A disease management approach like a multidisciplinary clinic may be an appropriate model for the future.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Longer duration of predialysis nephrological care is associated with improved long-term survival of dialysis patients.

           C Robino,  P Jungers,  M Touam (2001)
          Late nephrological referral of chronic renal failure patients has been shown to be associated with high morbidity and short-term mortality on dialysis. However, the impact of predialysis nephrological care duration (PNCD) on the long-term survival of dialysis patients had not been evaluated. We studied data from all 1057 consecutive patients who started dialysis treatment at the Necker Hospital from 1989 to 1998 (mean age at start of dialysis 53.8+/-17.2 years (range 18-91 years), excluding from analysis patients who presented with acute renal failure (n=60) or advanced malignancy (n=35). We evaluated the effects of PNCD and clinical risk factors on all-cause mortality after long-term follow-up on dialysis. Among the 1057 patients analysed (13.2% diabetics), PNCD was or=72 months in 307 patients. Cardiovascular (CV) morbidity, namely a history of myocardial or cerebral infarction, peripheral arteriopathy, and/or cardiac failure, before starting dialysis was 39.6% and 37.4%, respectively, in patients followed for or=72 months (P or=72 months (77.1+/-3.7 and 73.3+/-3.6%, respectively, P<0.001), but similar to those followed for 6-35 months (65.3+/-3.9%, NS). By Cox proportional hazard analysis, PNCD <6 months, age, diabetes and prior CV disease were independent predictive factors of all-cause death on dialysis. This study provides suggestive evidence that longer duration of regular nephrological care in the predialysis period, at least for several years prior to the start of dialysis, is associated with a better long-term survival on dialysis. Such data strongly support the argument for early referral and regular nephrological care of chronic renal failure patients.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The short- and long-term impact of multi-disciplinary clinics in addition to standard nephrology care on patient outcomes.

            This two country case control study of incident dialysis patients evaluates the outcomes of patients exposed to formalized multi-disciplinary clinic (MDC) programmes vs standard nephrologist care. Patients commencing dialysis in two centres (Vancouver, Canada and Cremona, Italy) were evaluated at and after dialysis start, as a function of MDC exposure vs nephrologist care alone. Only chronic kidney disease patients, with longer than 3 months of exposure to nephrology care, who had not previously received kidney replacement therapy were included. Study outcomes included laboratory parameters and survival. The MDC was similar in both countries and average exposure was 6-8 h per patient-year, as compared to 2-4 h for standard care. All patients had equal access to resources prior to dialysis and with respect to dialysis start, as all had been referred to the same local nephrology practices. During the evaluation period 288 patients commenced dialysis after receiving more than 3 months nephrology care prior to dialysis. There were no major demographic differences between the cohorts. Mean duration of nephrology care prior to dialysis was 42 months, and dialysis was initiated at similar low glomerular filtration rate (GFR), though statistically significantly different (7.0 and 8.4 ml/min/m2, P = 0.001). The MDC patients had higher haemoglobin (102 vs 90 g/l, P<0.0001), albumin (37.0 vs 34.8 g/l, P = 0.002) and calcium levels (2.29 vs 2.16 mmol/l, P<0.0001) at dialysis start. Survival was significantly better in the MDC group demonstrated by Kaplan-Meier analysis (P = 0.01). Cox proportional hazards analysis demonstrated standard nephrology clinic vs MDC attendance was a statistically significant independent predictor of death (hazards ratio = 2.17, 95% confidence interval 1.11-4.28) after adjusting for other variables known to impact outcomes. This analysis of outcomes in two different countries suggests that despite equal and long exposure to nephrology care prior to dialysis, there appears to be an association of survival advantage for those patients exposed to formalized clinic care in addition to standard nephrologist follow-up. While other known predictors of survival such as adequacy of dialysis and severity of illness measures were not included in the model, those parameters require time on dialysis to be accumulated. Thus, the data do suggest that knowledge of patient status at the time of dialysis start is important. Further research is needed to determine which specific components of care both prior to dialysis and after its commencement are most important with respect to outcomes.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Multidisciplinary predialysis programs: quantification and limitations of their impact on patient outcomes in two Canadian settings.

              A 1993 National Institutes of Health Consensus statement stressed the importance of early medical intervention in predialysis populations. Given the need for evidence-based practice, we report the outcomes of predialysis programs in two major Canadian cities. The purpose of this report was to determine whether the institution of a multidisciplinary predialysis program is of benefit to patients, and to analyze those factors that are important in actualizing those benefits. Data from two different studies is presented: (1) a prospective, nonrandomized cohort study comparing patients who were or were not exposed to an ongoing multidisciplinary predialysis team (St Paul's Hospital) and (2) a retrospective review of outcomes before and after the institution of a predialysis program (The Toronto Hospital). Although created independently in major academic centers in Canada, the programs both aimed to reduce urgent dialysis starts, improve preparedness for dialysis, and improve resource utilization. The Vancouver study was able to demonstrate significantly fewer urgent dialysis starts (13% v 35%; P < 0.05), more outpatient training (76% v 43%; P < 0.05), and less hospital days in the first month of dialysis (6.5 days v 13.5 days; P < 0.05). Cost savings of the program patients in 1993 are conservatively estimated to be $173,000 (Canadian dollars) or over $4,000 per patient. The Toronto study demonstrated success in predialysis access creation (86.3% of patients), but could not realize any benefit in terms of elective dialysis initiation due to well-documented hemodialysis resource constraints. We conclude that an approach to predialysis patients involving a multidisciplinary team can have a positive impact on quantitative outcomes, but essential elements for success include (1) early referral to a nephrology center, (2) adequate resources for dedicated predialysis program staff and infrastructure, and (3) available resources for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (dialysis stations). In times of economic constraints, objective data are necessary to justify resource-intensive proactive programs for patients with ESRD. Future studies should confirm and extend our observations so that optimum and cost-effective care for patients approaching ESRD is uniformly available.

                Author and article information

                Nephron Clin Pract
                Nephron Clinical Practice
                S. Karger AG
                September 2007
                05 July 2007
                : 107
                : 1
                : c7-c13
                aDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, and bKidney Research Centre and cClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Health Research Institute, Ottawa, Ont., Canada
                105138 Nephron Clin Pract 2007;107:c7–c13
                © 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                Page count
                Tables: 7, References: 16, Pages: 1
                Original Paper


                Comment on this article