8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Identifying critically important cardiovascular outcomes for trials in hemodialysis: an international survey with patients, caregivers and health professionals

      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

          Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in people on hemodialysis (HD). Cardiovascular outcomes are reported infrequently and inconsistently across trials in HD. This study aimed to identify the priorities of patients/caregivers and health professionals (HPs) for CVD outcomes to be incorporated into a core outcome set reported in all HD trials.

          Methods

          In an international online survey, participants rated the absolute importance of 10 cardiovascular outcomes (derived from a systematic review) on a 9-point Likert scale, with 7–9 being critically important. The relative importance was determined using a best–worst scale. Likert means, medians and proportions and best–worst preference scores were calculated for each outcome. Comments were thematically analyzed.

          Results

          Participants included 127 (19%) patients/caregivers and 549 (81%) HPs from 53 countries, of whom 530 (78%) completed the survey in English and 146 (22%) in Chinese. All but one cardiovascular outcome (‘valve replacement’) was rated as critically important (Likert 7–9) by all participants; ‘sudden cardiac death’, ‘heart attack’, ‘stroke’ and ‘heart failure’ were all rated at the top by patients/caregivers (median Likert score 9). Patients/caregivers ranked the same four outcomes as the most important outcomes with mean preference scores of 6.2 (95% confidence interval 4.8–7.5), 5.9 (4.6–7.2), 5.3 (4.0–6.6) and 4.9 (3.6–6.3), respectively. The same four outcomes were ranked most highly by HPs. We identified five themes underpinning the prioritization of outcomes: ‘clinical equipoise and potential for intervention’, ‘specific or attributable to HD’, ‘severity or impact on the quality of life’, ‘strengthen knowledge and education’, and ‘inextricably linked burden and risk’.

          Conclusions

          Patients and HPs believe that all cardiovascular outcomes are of critical importance but consistently identify sudden cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke and heart failure as the most important outcomes to be measured in all HD trials.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

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

          Best--worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it.

          Statements like "quality of care is more highly valued than waiting time" can neither be supported nor refuted by comparisons of utility parameters from a traditional discrete choice experiment (DCE). Best--worst scaling can overcome this problem because it asks respondents to perform a different choice task. However, whilst the nature of the best--worst task is generally understood, there are a number of issues relating to the design and analysis of a best--worst choice experiment that require further exposition. This paper illustrates how to aggregate and analyse such data and using a quality of life pilot study demonstrates how richer insights can be drawn by the use of best--worst tasks.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            US Renal Data System 2016 Annual Data Report: Epidemiology of Kidney Disease in the United States

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

              Use of evidence-based therapies in short-term outcomes of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in patients with chronic kidney disease: a report from the National Cardiovascular Data Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network registry.

              Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a risk factor for myocardial infarction (MI) and death. Our goal was to characterize the association between CKD severity and short-term outcomes and the use of in-hospital evidence-based therapies among patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation MI (NSTEMI). The study sample was drawn from the Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network registry, a nationwide sample of STEMI (n=19 029) and NSTEMI (n=30 462) patients. Estimated glomerular filtration rate was calculated with the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation in relation to use of immediate (first 24 hours) therapies and early (first 48 hours) cardiac catheterization as well as in-hospital major bleeding events and death. Overall, 30.5% and 42.9% of patients with STEMI and NSTEMI, respectively, had CKD. Regardless of MI type, patients with progressively more severe CKD had higher rates of death. For STEMI, the odds ratio for stage 3a, 3b, 4, and 5 CKD compared with patients with no CKD was 2.49, 3.72, 4.82, and 7.97, respectively (P(trend)<0.0001). For NSTEMI, the analogous odds ratios were 1.81, 2.41, 3.50, and 4.09 (P for trend <0.0001). In addition, patients with progressively more severe CKD were less likely to receive immediate evidence-based therapies including aspirin, beta-blockers, or clopidogrel, were less likely to undergo any reperfusion (STEMI) or revascularization (NSTEMI), and had higher rates of bleeding. Reports over the past decade have highlighted the importance of CKD among patients with MI. Data from this contemporary cohort suggest that patients with CKD still receive fewer evidence-based therapies and have substantially higher mortality rates.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0931-0509
                1460-2385
                October 2020
                October 01 2020
                February 10 2020
                October 2020
                October 01 2020
                February 10 2020
                : 35
                : 10
                : 1761-1769
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
                [2 ]Centre for Kidney Research, Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia
                [3 ]Department of Nephrology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
                [4 ]Australasian Kidney Trials Network, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
                [5 ]College of Medicine and Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia
                [6 ]Department of Nephrology and Clinical Immunology, Tours University, Tours, France
                [7 ]Department of Nephrology-Hypertension, Dialysis, Renal Transplantation, Tours Hospital, Tours, France
                [8 ]INSERM U1246, Tours, France
                [9 ]Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Medical Research Council Population Health Research Unit, Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Oxford, UK
                [10 ]Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Hennepin County Medical Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
                [11 ]Program in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore
                [12 ]Department of Renal Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
                [13 ]Department of Medicine, Section of Nephrology, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan
                [14 ]George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia
                [15 ]Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia
                [16 ]Department of Medicine I, Division of Nephrology, University Hospital, Würzburg, Germany
                [17 ]Division of Nephrology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
                [18 ]Department of Nephrology, Dialysis and Internal Medicine Warsaw Medical University, Warsaw, Poland
                [19 ]Wake Forest School of Medicine, Section on Nephrology, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
                [20 ]Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, University of Bari, Bari, Italy
                [21 ]Medical Scientific Office, Diaverum Sweden AB, Lund, Sweden
                [22 ]Diaverum Academy, Bari, Italy
                [23 ]Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
                [24 ]Department of Medicine, Queen Mary Hospital, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, PR China
                [25 ]Université de Lorraine, Inserm CIC 1433 and INI-CRCT, CHU, Nancy, France
                [26 ]Selzman Institute for Kidney Health, Section of Nephrology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
                [27 ]Department of Renal Medicine, University College London, London, UK
                Article
                10.1093/ndt/gfaa008
                32040154
                dc1a8e2b-0515-4c69-a2a5-a0350b0022b7
                © 2020

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article