Sekkarie M A, Moss A H
Department of Internal Medicine, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, USA.
Am J Kidney Dis. 1998 Mar;31(3):464-72. doi: 10.1053/ajkd.1998.v31.pm9506683.
Withholding and withdrawing dialysis are subjects of major concern to nephrologists, because both result in a significant number of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patient deaths. The medical literature on withholding dialysis is extremely limited, and that on withdrawing dialysis consists mainly of retrospective studies from the 1980s. The present study was conducted to identify ways to improve dialysis decision making by providing a current understanding of how decisions to withhold or withdraw dialysis are being made and by examining whether some patients who might benefit from dialysis are not being referred. In 1995, 22 of 27 (82%) nephrologists practicing in West Virginia agreed to participate in a year-long prospective study in which they completed forms on each patient from whom they withheld or withdrew dialysis. Seventy-six of a random sample of 214 (36%) primary care physicians returned questionnaires describing their practice experience in 1995 with patients with advanced chronic renal failure. The nephrologists withdrew dialysis from 60 of 822 (7%) patients. Academic nephrologists who had received education in the ethics and law of stopping dialysis withdrew it from a greater percentage of patients than those in private practice (12% v 6%; P = 0.009). Patients who were withdrawn more often resided in nursing homes (37% v 2%; P < 0.0001). Twenty-one patients (37%) lacked decision-making capacity at the time the decision was made to withdraw dialysis. Advance directives were available for 13 of the 21 (62%) patients: eight of the 10 treated by academic nephrologists and five of the 11 treated by private practice nephrologists. Academic nephrologists found advance directives to be helpful in decision making to withdraw dialysis of incapacitated patients more often than nephrologists in private practice (70% v 9%; P = 0.004). Nephrologists withheld dialysis from 25 of 357 (7%) ESRD patients compared with 42 of 193 (22%) withheld by primary care physicians (P < 0.001). In deciding not to refer a patient for a dialysis evaluation, 25% of primary care physicians did not consult a nephrologist; 60% cited age as a reason not to refer. These findings suggest that dialysis decision making might be improved by educating nephrologists about the ethics and law of withdrawing dialysis and about how to implement successfully advance care planning so that advance directives will be present and helpful when decisions need to be made for incapacitated dialysis patients. Education of primary care physicians about when to refer patients with chronic renal failure for a dialysis evaluation might also result in more referrals for patients who will benefit from dialysis.
停止和撤除透析是肾脏病学家主要关注的问题,因为这两者都会导致大量终末期肾病(ESRD)患者死亡。关于停止透析的医学文献极为有限,而关于撤除透析的文献主要是20世纪80年代的回顾性研究。本研究旨在通过提供对停止或撤除透析决策方式的当前理解,并检查是否有一些可能从透析中获益的患者未被转诊,来确定改善透析决策的方法。1995年,在西弗吉尼亚州执业的27名肾脏病学家中有22名(82%)同意参与一项为期一年的前瞻性研究,他们为每位停止或撤除透析的患者填写表格。在214名初级保健医生的随机样本中,有76名(36%)返回了问卷,描述了他们在1995年对晚期慢性肾衰竭患者的诊疗经验。肾脏病学家从822名患者中的60名(7%)撤除了透析。接受过停止透析伦理和法律教育的学术性肾脏病学家比私人执业的肾脏病学家从更高比例的患者中撤除了透析(12%对6%;P = 0.009)。被撤除透析的患者更常居住在养老院(37%对2%;P < 0.0001)。在做出撤除透析决定时,21名患者(37%)缺乏决策能力。21名患者中有13名(62%)有预先指示:学术性肾脏病学家治疗的10名患者中有8名,私人执业肾脏病学家治疗的11名患者中有5名。学术性肾脏病学家比私人执业肾脏病学家更常发现预先指示有助于对无行为能力患者做出撤除透析的决策(70%对9%;P = 0.004)。肾脏病学家从357名ESRD患者中的25名(7%)停止了透析,而初级保健医生从193名患者中的42名(22%)停止了透析(P < 0.001)。在决定不将患者转诊进行透析评估时,25%的初级保健医生未咨询肾脏病学家;60%以年龄为由不转诊。这些发现表明,通过对肾脏病学家进行关于撤除透析的伦理和法律以及如何成功实施预先护理计划的教育,以便在需要为无行为能力的透析患者做出决策时能有预先指示且其有帮助,可能会改善透析决策。对初级保健医生进行关于何时将慢性肾衰竭患者转诊进行透析评估的教育,也可能会使更多将从透析中获益的患者得到转诊。