Department of Internal Medicine, St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands,
Department of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands,
Blood Purif. 2020;49(4):479-489. doi: 10.1159/000505569. Epub 2020 Jan 10.
Nondialytic conservative care has been recognized as a viable alternative to chronic dialysis in older patients with end-stage kidney disease, but little is known about its consequences on hospital utilization and costs.
We performed a retrospective cohort study to compare outpatient and inpatient hospital utilization, place of death, and hospital costs in patients aged ≥70 years old who chose conservative care (n = 100) or dialysis (n = 162) after shared decision making in a nonacademic teaching hospital between 2008 and 2016.
Patients who chose conservative care were older than patients who chose dialysis (82.5 vs. 76.3 years). Comorbidity did not differ between the 2 patient groups. The incidence rates of outpatient visits per year were 7.1 in patients who chose conservative care and 10.7 in patients who chose dialysis (incidence rate ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.81). The incidence rates of in-hospital days per year were, respectively, 6.0 and 9.8 (incidence rate ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.29-0.88). Also in the final month of life, patients on conservative care had less outpatient visits, were less frequently hospitalized, and died less frequently in hospital than the dialysis patient group. The cost rates per year, measured from original treatment decision, were EUR 5,859 in conservative care patients and EUR 28,354 in patients who chose dialysis comprising both the predialysis and dialysis period (cost rate ratio 0.42, 95% CI 0.27-0.65). Patients who chose dialysis had higher costs on dialysis sessions, outpatient care, inpatient care, laboratory tests, and medical imaging.
Patients who decided to forego dialysis and chose conservative care had less outpatient and inpatient hospital utilization than patients who chose dialysis, including less intensive hospital utilization near the end of life. Both overall and nondialysis-related costs were lower in patients on a conservative care pathway.
在患有终末期肾病的老年患者中,非透析保守治疗已被认为是慢性透析的可行替代方案,但对于其对医院利用和成本的影响知之甚少。
我们进行了一项回顾性队列研究,比较了在 2008 年至 2016 年期间,在一家非学术教学医院中,通过共同决策选择保守治疗(n=100)或透析(n=162)的年龄≥70 岁的患者的门诊和住院医院利用情况、死亡地点和医院费用。
选择保守治疗的患者比选择透析的患者年龄更大(82.5 岁 vs. 76.3 岁)。两组患者的合并症无差异。选择保守治疗的患者每年门诊就诊次数的发生率为 7.1 次,选择透析的患者为 10.7 次(发病率比 0.67,95%可信区间 0.55-0.81)。每年住院天数的发生率分别为 6.0 和 9.8(发病率比 0.50,95%可信区间 0.29-0.88)。在生命的最后一个月,接受保守治疗的患者门诊就诊次数较少,住院次数较少,在医院死亡的频率也低于透析患者组。从初始治疗决策开始,每年的费用率,在保守治疗患者中为 5859 欧元,在选择透析的患者中为 28354 欧元,包括透析前和透析期间的费用(费用率比 0.42,95%可信区间 0.27-0.65)。选择透析的患者在透析治疗、门诊护理、住院护理、实验室检查和医学影像方面的费用更高。
选择放弃透析并选择保守治疗的患者的门诊和住院医院利用情况低于选择透析的患者,包括生命末期的利用情况。选择保守治疗方案的患者的总费用和非透析相关费用均较低。