Blog
About

1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Assessment and Clinical Aspects of Health-Related Quality of Life in Dialysis Patients and Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          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.

          Abstract

          Background/Aims: It is relevant to investigate health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in dialysis and chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients in order to optimise treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate HRQOL in dialysis and CKD patients, to compare results from patients treated with hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) and to investigate the prediction of dialysis quality control parameters (blood hemoglobin, plasma albumin, and Kt/V) and tobacco smoking in disease-specific HRQOL. Methods: Seventy-one HD, 59 PD, and 63 CKD patients participated in the study. Dialysis quality control parameters were measured and the patients completed the questionnaire Kidney Disease Quality Of Life. Results: PD patients rated Dialysis Staff Encouragement and Patient Satisfaction better than HD patients (p≤ 0.05). Dialysis patients scored significant lower than the general population in all generic HRQOL scales (p ≤ 0.01), whereas CKD patients scored lower than the general population in 5 of 8 scales (p ≤ 0.05). The dialysis quality parameters did not predict dialysis patients’ disease specific HRQOL, but tobacco consumption was independently associated with low scores on a number of HRQOL scales. Conclusion: Based on the results, it is suggested to include elements of HRQOL as a supplement to standard quality control parameters. It is also suggested routinely to include information of the beneficial effects of physical activity already in the predialysis program, and to focus on smoking as a very important risk factor.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 13

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

          Quality of life in chronic kidney disease (CKD): a cross-sectional analysis in the Renal Research Institute-CKD study.

          Health-related quality of life (QOL) is an important measure of how disease affects patients' lives. Dialysis patients have decreased QOL relative to healthy controls. Little is known about QOL in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) before renal replacement therapy. The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36), a standard QOL instrument, was used to evaluate 634 patients (mean glomerular filtration rate [GFR], 23.6 +/- 9.6 mL/min/1.73 m2 [0.39 +/- 0.16 mL/s/1.73 m2]) enrolled in a 4-center, prospective, observational study of CKD. SF-36 scores in these patients were compared with those in a prevalent cohort of hemodialysis (HD) patients and healthy controls (both from historical data). QOL data also were analyzed for correlations with GFR and albumin and hemoglobin levels in multivariable analyses. Patients with CKD had higher SF-36 scores than a large cohort of HD patients (P < 0.0001 for 8 scales and 2 summary scales), but lower scores than those reported for the US adult population (P < 0.0001 for 7 of 8 scales and 1 of 2 summary scales). Patients with CKD stage 4 had lower QOL scores than patients with CKD stage 5, although differences were not significant. Hemoglobin level was associated positively with higher mental and physical QOL scores (P < 0.05) in all individual and component scales except Pain. SF-36 scores were higher in this CKD cohort compared with HD patients, but lower than in healthy controls. GFR was not significantly associated with QOL. Hemoglobin level predicted both physical and mental domains of the SF-36. Longitudinal studies are needed to define at-risk periods for decreases in QOL during progression of CKD.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Patient ratings of dialysis care with peritoneal dialysis vs hemodialysis.

            In light of conflicting evidence of differential effects of dialysis modality on survival, patient experience becomes a more important consideration in choosing between hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. To compare patient satisfaction with hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis in a cohort of patients who have recently begun dialysis. Cross-sectional survey at enrollment in a prospective inception cohort study of patients who recently started dialysis at 37 dialysis centers participating in the Choices for Healthy Outcomes in Caring for End-stage Renal Disease (CHOICE) study, a national multicenter study of dialysis outcomes, from October 1995 to June 1998. Of 736 enrolled incident dialysis patients, 656 (89%) returned a satisfaction questionnaire after an average of 7 weeks of dialysis. Data collected from a patient-administered questionnaire including 3 overall ratings and 20 items rating specific aspects of dialysis care. Patients receiving peritoneal dialysis were much more likely than those receiving hemodialysis to give excellent ratings of dialysis care overall (85% vs 56%, respectively; relative probability, 1.46 [95% confidence interval, 1.31-1.57]) and significantly more likely to give excellent ratings for each specific aspect of care rated. The 3 items with the greatest differences were in the domain of information provided (average of information items: peritoneal dialysis [69% excellent] vs hemodialysis [30% excellent]). The smallest differences were in ratings of accuracy of information from the nephrologist, response to pain, amount of fluid removed, and staff availability in an emergency. Adjustment for patient age, race, education, health status, marital status, employment status, distance from the center, and time since starting dialysis did not reduce the differences between peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis patients. After several weeks of initiating dialysis, patients receiving peritoneal dialysis rated their care higher than those receiving hemodialysis. These findings indicate that clinicians should give patients more information about the option of peritoneal dialysis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effects of hemodialysis dose and membrane flux on health-related quality of life in the HEMO Study.

              It has been widely supposed that high dose and high flux hemodialysis would affect the quality as well as the length of life of patients treated by maintenance hemodialysis. The HEMO Study examined changes in health-related quality of life as a secondary study outcome. Specific hypotheses were that study interventions would affect physical functioning, vitality, Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36) physical and mental component summary scores, symptoms and problems associated with kidney disease, and sleep quality. At baseline and annually, subjects responded to both the Index of Well-Being and the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-Long Form questionnaires. The interventions were assessed on the basis of their average effects over 3 years. At baseline, the SF-36 physical component summary score was lower than in healthy populations, but the mental component score was nearly normal. Over 3-year follow-up, physical health continued to decline; mental health and kidney disease-targeted scores remained relatively stable. The high dose hemodialysis intervention was associated with significantly less pain (4.49 points, P < 0.001) and higher physical component scores (1.23 points P= 0.007), but these effects were small compared to the natural variability in scores. High flux membranes were not associated with statistically significant differences in health-related quality of life. The HEMO Study results demonstrate the marked burden of chronic kidney failure and hemodialysis treatment on daily life. In this trial among patients undergoing maintenance three times a week hemodialysis, the SF-36 physical component summary score and pain scale showed significant but very small clinical effects favoring the higher dialysis dose. No clinically meaningful benefits or either the dose or flux interventions were observed for other indices of health-related quality of life.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                NEC
                Nephron Clin Pract
                10.1159/issn.1660-2110
                Nephron Clinical Practice
                S. Karger AG
                1660-2110
                2007
                May 2007
                12 April 2007
                : 106
                : 1
                : c24-c33
                Affiliations
                Departments of Nephrology, aHilleroed Hospital, Hilleroed, and bHerlev University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
                Article
                101481 Nephron Clin Pract 2007;106:c24–c33
                10.1159/000101481
                17409766
                © 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
                Figures: 2, Tables: 5, References: 22, Pages: 1
                Categories
                Original Paper

                Comments

                Comment on this article