Morton Rachael L, Webster Angela C, McGeechan Kevin, Howard Kirsten, Murtagh Fliss E M, Gray Nicholas A, Kerr Peter G, Germain Michael J, Snelling Paul
National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, Sydney Medical School and.
Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016 Dec 7;11(12):2195-2203. doi: 10.2215/CJN.11861115. Epub 2016 Oct 3.
We aimed to determine the proportion of patients who switched to dialysis after confirmed plans for conservative care and compare survival and end-of-life care among patients choosing conservative care with those initiating RRT.
DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A cohort study of 721 patients on incident dialysis, patients receiving transplants, and conservatively managed patients from 66 Australian renal units entered into the Patient Information about Options for Treatment Study from July 1 to September 30, 2009 were followed for 3 years. A two-sided binomial test assessed the proportion of patients who switched from conservative care to RRT. Cox regression, stratified by center and adjusted for patient and treatment characteristics, estimated factors associated with 3-year survival.
In total, 102 of 721 patients planned for conservative care, and median age was 80 years old. Of these, 8% (95% confidence interval, 3% to 13%), switched to dialysis, predominantly for symptom management. Of 94 patients remaining on a conservative pathway, 18% were alive at 3 years. Of the total 721 patients, 247 (34%) died by study end. In multivariable analysis, factors associated with all-cause mortality included older age (hazard ratio, 1.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.36 to 1.77), baseline serum albumin <3.0 versus 3.7-5.4 g/dl (hazard ratio, 4.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.72 to 6.81), and management with conservative care compared with RRT (hazard ratio, 2.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.39 to 3.40). Of 247 deaths, patients managed with RRT were less likely to receive specialist palliative care (26% versus 57%; P<0.001), more likely to die in the hospital (66% versus 42%; P<0.001) than home or hospice, and more likely to receive palliative care only within the last week of life (42% versus 15%; P<0.001) than those managed conservatively.
Survival after 3 years of conservative management is common, with relatively few patients switching to dialysis. Specialist palliative care services are used more frequently and at an earlier time point for conservatively managed patients, a practice associated with better symptom management and quality of life.
我们旨在确定在确定采取保守治疗方案后转而接受透析治疗的患者比例,并比较选择保守治疗的患者与开始接受肾脏替代治疗(RRT)的患者的生存率及临终关怀情况。
设计、地点、参与者及测量指标:一项队列研究,对721例新接受透析治疗的患者、接受移植手术的患者以及来自66个澳大利亚肾脏治疗单位的接受保守治疗的患者进行研究。这些患者于2009年7月1日至9月30日纳入“治疗选择患者信息研究”,随访3年。采用双侧二项式检验评估从保守治疗转为RRT的患者比例。Cox回归分析按中心分层,并根据患者和治疗特征进行调整,以估计与3年生存率相关的因素。
721例计划接受保守治疗的患者中,共有102例,中位年龄为80岁。其中,8%(95%置信区间为3%至13%)转而接受透析治疗,主要是为了缓解症状。在94例继续采取保守治疗方案的患者中,18%在3年后仍存活。在全部721例患者中,247例(34%)在研究结束时死亡。多变量分析显示,与全因死亡率相关的因素包括年龄较大(风险比为1.55;95%置信区间为1.36至1.77)、基线血清白蛋白<3.0与3.7 - 5.4 g/dl相比(风险比为4.31;95%置信区间为2.72至6.81),以及与RRT相比采取保守治疗(风险比为2.18;95%置信区间为1.39至3.40)。在247例死亡患者中,接受RRT治疗的患者比接受保守治疗的患者更不可能接受专科姑息治疗(26%对57%;P<0.001),更有可能在医院死亡(66%对42%;P<0.001)而非在家中或临终关怀机构,并且更有可能仅在生命的最后一周接受姑息治疗(42%对15%;P<0.001)。
保守治疗3年后仍存活的情况较为常见,转为透析治疗的患者相对较少。对于接受保守治疗的患者,专科姑息治疗服务的使用更为频繁且时间更早,这种做法与更好的症状管理和生活质量相关。