Schwenger Vedat, Morath Christian, Hofmann Alex, Hoffmann Oskar, Zeier Martin, Ritz Eberhard
Department of Internal Medicine, Ruperto Carola University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2006 Apr;21(4):962-7. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfk030. Epub 2006 Jan 5.
The population of incident dialysis patients is progressively ageing and dialysis outcome is particularly poor in the elderly. There is little documentation whether late referral is more frequent in the very elderly (> or =75 years) as compared with non-elderly patients and whether it contributes, at least in part, to their particularly poor outcome.
In a retrospective single center study we assessed all consecutive patients (n = 254) who had been admitted to haemodialysis between 1998 and 2001. Outcome in relation to the interval between the time of referral and start of dialysis was compared in very elderly and non-elderly patients. According to a previous analysis in our center major adverse outcome is seen in patients referred < or =8 weeks before the start of dialysis. For the present study this time interval was therefore operationally defined as 'late referral'.
Expectedly 1 year after start of dialysis mortality was higher (31%) in the very elderly compared with younger patients (19%). The interval between referral and first dialysis was less in patients > or =75 years (median interval 3.5 weeks) compared with patients <75 years (median 20.5 weeks; P = 0.007). The difference in 1 year mortality between timely (>8 weeks) vs late (< or =8 weeks) referral, however, was as high in the very elderly (42% vs 16%) as in the younger patients (34% vs 9%). The relative risk of death conferred by late referral was also not significantly different in the very elderly (RR 1.80) compared with the younger (RR 2.32) patient. Using multivariate analysis timing of referral proves to be an independent factor with regard to the outcome and time of survival.
We conclude that late referral is more frequent in the very elderly. Although the relative risk of death conferred by late referral is similar in the very elderly and non-elderly, due to higher frequency of late referral it accounts for a large proportion of excess mortality in the very elderly.
新进入透析治疗的患者群体正逐渐老龄化,老年人的透析治疗效果尤其不佳。目前几乎没有文献记载,与非老年患者相比,高龄(≥75岁)患者延迟转诊的情况是否更常见,以及这是否至少部分导致了他们特别差的治疗效果。
在一项回顾性单中心研究中,我们评估了1998年至2001年间所有连续接受血液透析治疗的患者(n = 254)。比较了高龄患者和非高龄患者转诊时间与开始透析时间间隔的治疗效果。根据我们中心之前的分析,在开始透析前≤8周转诊的患者会出现主要不良结局。因此,在本研究中,这个时间间隔被实际定义为“延迟转诊”。
正如预期的那样,透析开始1年后,高龄患者的死亡率(31%)高于年轻患者(19%)。≥75岁患者转诊至首次透析的间隔时间(中位间隔3.5周)比<75岁患者(中位间隔20.5周;P = 0.007)短。然而,高龄患者中及时转诊(>8周)与延迟转诊(≤8周)的1年死亡率差异(42%对16%)与年轻患者(34%对9%)一样大。延迟转诊导致的死亡相对风险在高龄患者(RR 1.80)与年轻患者(RR 2.32)中也没有显著差异。使用多变量分析,转诊时间被证明是一个与治疗效果和生存时间相关的独立因素。
我们得出结论,高龄患者延迟转诊的情况更常见。尽管延迟转诊导致的死亡相对风险在高龄患者和非高龄患者中相似,但由于延迟转诊的频率较高,它在高龄患者额外死亡中占很大比例。