RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) such as the Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory in Epilepsy (NDDI-E), a 6-item epilepsy-specific PROM, is used to screen for major depressive disorder symptoms for patients with epilepsy (PWE). The validity and interpretation of PROMs can be affected by differential item functioning (DIF), which occurs when subgroups of patients with the same underlying health status respond to and interpret questions about their health status differently. This study aims to determine whether NDDI-E items exhibit DIF and to identify subgroups of PWE that exhibit DIF in NDDI-E items. METHODS: Data were from the Calgary Comprehensive Epilepsy Program database, a clinical registry of adult PWE in Calgary, Canada. A tree-based partial credit model based on recursive partitioning (PCTree) was used to identify subgroups that exhibit DIF on NDDI-E items using patients' characteristics as covariates. Differences in the identified subgroups were characterized using multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 1,576 patients in this cohort, 806 (51.1%) were female, and the median age was 38.0 years. PCTree identified four patient subgroups defined by employment status, age, and sex. Subgroup 1 were unemployed patients ≤ 26 years old, subgroup 2 were unemployed patients > 26 years, subgroup 3 were employed females, while subgroup 4 were employed male patients. The subgroups exhibited significant differences on education level, comorbidity index scores, marital status, type of epilepsy, and driving status. CONCLUSION: PWE differed in their interpretation and responses to questions about their depression symptoms, and these differences were a function of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.

Patient-reported depression screening measures are prone to differential item functioning (DIF), which occurs when patients with the same levels of depression respond to and interpret the questions on the measures differently, as a result of different socio-demographic characteristics. Heterogeneity in how epilepsy patients interpret and respond to depression measures, if not identified, could lead to measurement biases that threaten the validity of inferences from patient-reported outcome measure scores to inform clinical and healthcare decisions for epilepsy management. Using data from a clinical registry of patients with epilepsy, the tree-based item response theory model was used to examine the presence of DIF in the items comprising the patient-reported Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory in Epilepsy (NDDI-E) scale. Four subgroups of epilepsy patients were noted to exhibit DIF on NDDI-E items. These groups were defined by interactions among employment status, age and sex. These characteristics affect the interpretation of NDDI-E item scores. It is recommended that clinicians carefully scrutinize responses to individual items alongside the overall NDDI-E score in different patient groups to inform clinical decisions for epilepsy management.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Hospital- and physician-level variation for selection of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with coronary artery disease has been associated with outcome differences. However, most studies excluded patients treated medically. METHODS AND RESULTS: From 2010 to 2019, adults with 3-vessel or left main coronary artery disease at 3 hospitals (A, B, C) in Alberta, Canada, were categorized by treatment with medical therapy, percutaneous coronary intervention, or CABG. Multilevel regression models determined the proportion of variation in treatment attributable to patient, physician, and hospital factors, and survival models assessed outcomes including death and major adverse cardiovascular events over 5 years. Of 22 580 patients (mean age, 67 years; 80% men): 6677 (29%) received medical management, 9171 (41%) percutaneous coronary intervention, and 6732 (30%) CABG. Hospital factors accounted for 10.8% of treatment variation. In adjusted models (site A as reference), patients at sites B and C had 49% (95% CI, 44%-53%) and 43% (95% CI, 37%-49%) lower rates of medical therapy, respectively, and 31% (95% CI, 24%-38%) and 32% (95% CI, 24%-40%) lower rates of CABG. During 5.0 years median follow-up, 3287 (14.6%) patients died, with no intersite mortality differences. There were no between-site differences in acute coronary syndromes or stroke; patients at sites B and C had 24% lower risk (95% CI, 13%-34% and 11%-35%, respectively) of heart failure hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-level variation in selection of percutaneous coronary intervention, CABG, or medical therapy for patients with complex coronary artery disease was not associated with differences in 5-year mortality rates. Research and quality improvement initiatives comparing revascularization practices should include medically managed patients.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: High-quality clinical trials are needed to establish the efficacy and safety of novel therapies for acute kidney injury (AKI) prevention. In this consensus workshop, we identified patient and caregiver priorities for recruitment, intervention delivery, and outcomes of a clinical trial of cilastatin to prevent nephrotoxic AKI. METHODS: We included adults with lived experience of AKI, chronic kidney disease, or risk factors for AKI (e.g., critical care hospitalization), and their caregivers. Using a modified nominal group technique approach, we conducted a series of hybrid in-person/virtual discussions covering 3 clinical trial topic areas: (1) consent and recruitment; (2) intervention delivery; and (3) trial outcomes. Participants voted on their top preferences in each topic area, and discussion transcripts were analyzed inductively using conventional content analysis. RESULTS: Thirteen individuals (11 patients, 2 caregivers) participated in the workshop. For consent and recruitment, participants prioritized technology enabled pre-screening and involvement of family members in the consent process. For intervention delivery, participants prioritized measures to facilitate ease of intervention administration and return visits. For trial outcomes, participants identified kidney-related and other clinical outcomes (e.g., AKI, chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular events) as top priorities. Analysis of transcripts provided insight into care team and family involvement in trial-related decisions, implications of allocation to a placebo arm, and impact of participants' experiences of AKI and critical illness. CONCLUSION: Findings from our workshop will directly inform development of a clinical trial protocol of cilastatin for nephrotoxic AKI prevention and can assist others in patient-centered approaches to AKI trial design.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) confers increased risks of premature mortality, non-fatal morbidity, and significant impairment in functional status and health-related quality of life. Routine administration of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and its real time delivery to care providers is known to have the potential to inform routine cardiac care and to improve quality of care and patient outcomes. This study describes a user-centered development and evaluation of the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcomes Assessment (APPROACH) electronic Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement (e-PROM) system. This e-PROM system is an electronic system for the administration of PROMs to patients with CAD and the delivery of the summarized information to their care providers to facilitate patient-physician communication and shared decision-making. This electronic platform was designed to be accessible via web-based and hand-held devices. Heuristic and user acceptance evaluation were conducted with patients and attending care providers. RESULTS: The APPROACH e-PROM system was co-developed with patients and care providers, research investigators, informaticians and information technology experts. Five PROMs were selected for inclusion in the online platform after consultations with patient partners, care providers, and PROMs experts: the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, Patient Health Questionnaire, EuroQOL, and Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey, and Self-Care of Coronary Heart Disease Inventory. The heuristic evaluation was completed by four design experts who examined the usability of the prototype interfaces. User acceptance testing was completed with 13 patients and 10 cardiologists who evaluated prototype user interfaces of the e-PROM system. CONCLUSION: Both patients and physicians found the APPROACH e-PROM system to be easy to use, understandable, and acceptable. The APPROACH e-PROM system provides a user-informed electronic platform designed to incorporate PROMs into the delivery of individualized cardiac care for persons with CAD.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

SOURCE CITATION: Vazquez MA, Oliver G, Amarasingham R, et al; ICD-Pieces Study Group. Pragmatic trial of hospitalization rate in chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med. 2024;390:1196-1206. 38598574.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication among hospitalized patients with long-term implications including chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although models are available to predict the risk of advanced CKD after AKI, there is limited evidence regarding follow-up for patients with AKI after hospital discharge, resulting in variable follow-up care. A risk-stratified follow-up approach may improve appropriateness and efficiency of management for CKD among patients at risk of declining kidney function following AKI. Objective: The objective was to compare and evaluate the use of a risk-stratified approach to follow-up care vs usual care for patients with AKI after hospital discharge. Design: This study was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Setting: This study was conducted in 2 large urban hospitals in Alberta, Canada. Patients: Hospitalized patients with AKI (KDIGO stage 2 or 3) not previously under the care of a nephrologist, expected to survive greater than 90 days being discharged home. Measurements: We will evaluate whether guideline-recommended CKD care processes are initiated within 90 days, including statin use, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) use in those with proteinuria or diabetes, and nephrologist follow-up if sustained eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2. We will also assess the feasibility of recruitment and the proportion of patients completing the recommended blood and urine tests at 90 days. Methods: Patients with AKI will be enrolled and randomized near the time of hospital discharge. In the intervention group, low risk patients will receive information regarding AKI, medium risk patients will additionally receive follow-up guidance sent to their primary care physician, and high-risk patients will additionally receive follow-up with a nephrologist. Participants in the intervention and usual care group will receive a requisition for urine testing and bloodwork at 90 days following hospital discharge. Telephone follow-up will be conducted for all study participants at 90 days and 1 year after hospital discharge. Bivariate tests of association will be conducted to evaluate group differences at the follow-up time points. Limitations: We expect there may be challenges with recruitment due to the significant co-existence of comorbidity in this population. Conclusions: If the trial shows a positive effect on these processes for kidney care, it will inform larger-scale trial to determine whether this intervention reduces the incidence of long-term clinical adverse events, including CKD progression, cardiovascular events, and mortality following hospitalization with AKI.

Contexte: L'insuffisance rénale aiguë (IRA) est une complication fréquente chez les patients hospitalisés qui peut avoir des conséquences à long terme, notamment l'insuffisance rénale chronique (IRC). Bien que des modèles de prédiction du risque d'IRC avancée après un épisode d'IRA soient disponibles, peu de données existent sur le suivi des patients atteints d'IRA après leur sortie de l'hôpital, ce qui se traduit par une variabilité dans les soins de suivi. Une approche de suivi stratifiée selon le risque d'IRC peut améliorer la qualité et l'efficacité de la prise en charge de l'IRC chez les patients dont la fonction rénale risque de se détériorer après un épisode d'IRA. Objectifs: Évaluer l'utilisation d'une approche de suivi post-hospitalisation stratifiée selon le risque d'IRC chez les patients atteints d'IRA et la comparer aux soins habituels. Conception: Essai contrôlé randomisé pragmatique. Cadre: Deux grands hôpitaux urbains en Alberta (Canada). Sujets: Patients hospitalisés avec une IRA (stade KDIGO 2 ou 3) qui n'étaient pas suivis auparavant par un néphrologue et dont on prévoyait la survie au-delà de 90 jours après leur sortie de l'hôpital. Mesures: Nous évaluerons si, dans les 90 jours suivant le congé, les soins d'IRC habituels recommandés par les lignes directrices seront amorcés, c'est-à-dire l'utilisation de statines, l'utilisation d'IECA/ARA chez les patients souffrant de protéinurie ou de diabète, et le suivi avec un néphrologue pour les patients avec un DFGe inférieur à 30 ml/min/1,73 m2 de façon soutenue. Nous évaluerons également la faisabilité du recrutement et la proportion de patients qui auront effectué les analyses sanguines et urinaires recommandées à 90 jours. Méthodologie: Les patients atteints d'IRA seront recrutés et randomisés au moment de leur sortie de l'hôpital. Dans le groupe d'intervention, les patients présentant un faible risque d'évolution recevront de l'information sur l'IRA, les patients présentant un risque moyennement élevé recevront en plus des conseils de suivi envoyés à leur médecin de premier recours, et les patients présentant un risque élevé feront également l'objet d'un suivi avec un néphrologue. Les participants des groupes intervention et soins habituels recevront une requête pour des analyses de sang et d'urine 90 jours après la sortie de l'hôpital. Un suivi téléphonique sera effectué auprès de tous les participants à l'étude 90 jours et un an après la sortie de l'hôpital. Des tests d'association bivariés seront effectués pour évaluer les différences entre les groupes aux points temporels de suivi. Limites: Nous nous attendons à ce que le recrutement soit difficile, considérant l'importance des comorbidités dans cette population. Conclusion: Si l'essai montre un effet positif sur ces processus de soins rénaux, il informera un essai à plus grande échelle visant à déterminer si cette intervention réduit l'incidence des événements cliniques indésirables à long terme, notamment la progression de l'IRC, les événements cardiovasculaires et la mortalité après une hospitalisation avec épisode d'IRA.

RESUMEN

Delayed graft function (DGF) is a common post-operative complication with potential long-term sequelae for many kidney transplant recipients, and hemodynamic factors and fluid status play a role. Fixed perioperative fluid infusions are the standard of care, but more recent evidence in the non-transplant population has suggested benefit with goal-directed fluid strategies based on hemodynamic targets. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry and Google Scholar through December 2022 for randomized controlled trials comparing risk of DGF between goal-directed and conventional fluid therapy in adults receiving a living or deceased donor kidney transplant. Effect estimates were reported with odds ratios (OR) and pooled using random effects meta-analysis. We identified 4 studies (205 participants) that met the inclusion criteria. The use of goal-directed fluid therapy had no significant effect on DGF (OR 1.37 95% CI, 0.34-5.6; p = 0.52; I2 = 0.11). Subgroup analysis examining effects among deceased and living kidney donation did not reveal significant differences in the effects of fluid strategy on DGF between subgroups. Overall, the strength of the evidence for goal-directed versus conventional fluid therapy to reduce DGF was of low certainty. Our findings highlight the need for larger trials to determine the effect of goal-directed fluid therapy on this patient-centered outcome.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Our aim in this work was to 1) explore barriers and enablers to patient and health-care provider (HCP) behaviours related to sick-day medication guidance (SDMG), 2) identify theory-informed strategies to advise SDMG intervention design, and 3) obtain perspectives on an eHealth tool for this purpose. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study using qualitative conventional content analysis was undertaken. Interviews and focus groups were held with patients and HCPs from January 2021 to April 2022. Data were analyzed using the Behaviour Change Wheel and Theoretical Domains Framework to inform intervention design. RESULTS: Forty-eight people (20 patients, 13 pharmacists, 12 family physicians, and 3 nurse practitioners) participated in this study. Three interventions were designed to address the identified barriers and enablers: 1) prescriptions provided by a community-based care provider, 2) pharmacists adding a label to at-risk medications, and 3) built-in prompts for prescribing and dispensing software. Most participants accepted the concept of an eHealth tool and identified pharmacists as the ideal point-of-care provider. Challenges for an eHealth tool were raised, including credibility, privacy of data, medical liability, clinician remuneration and workload impact, and equitable access to use of the tool. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and HCPs endorsed non-technology and eHealth innovations as strategies to aid in the delivery of SDMG. These findings can guide the design of future theory-informed SDMG interventions.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: There are no consensus definitions for evaluating kidney function recovery after acute kidney injury (AKI) and acute kidney disease (AKD), nor is it clear how recovery varies across populations and clinical subsets. We present a federated analysis of four population-based cohorts from Canada, Denmark and Scotland, 2011-18. METHODS: We identified incident AKD defined by serum creatinine changes within 48 h, 7 days and 90 days based on KDIGO AKI and AKD criteria. Separately, we applied changes up to 365 days to address widely used e-alert implementations that extend beyond the KDIGO AKI and AKD timeframes. Kidney recovery was based on resolution of AKD and a subsequent creatinine measurement below 1.2× baseline. We evaluated transitions between non-recovery, recovery and death up to 1 year; within age, sex and comorbidity subgroups; between subset AKD definitions; and across cohorts. RESULTS: There were 464 868 incident cases, median age 67-75 years. At 1 year, results were consistent across cohorts, with pooled mortalities for creatinine changes within 48 h, 7 days, 90 days and 365 days (and 95% confidence interval) of 40% (34%-45%), 40% (34%-46%), 37% (31%-42%) and 22% (16%-29%) respectively, and non-recovery of kidney function of 19% (15%-23%), 30% (24%-35%), 25% (21%-29%) and 37% (30%-43%), respectively. Recovery by 14 and 90 days was frequently not sustained at 1 year. Older males and those with heart failure or cancer were more likely to die than to experience sustained non-recovery, whereas the converse was true for younger females and those with diabetes. CONCLUSION: Consistently across multiple cohorts, based on 1-year mortality and non-recovery, KDIGO AKD (up to 90 days) is at least prognostically similar to KDIGO AKI (7 days), and covers more people. Outcomes associated with AKD vary by age, sex and comorbidities such that older males are more likely to die, and younger females are less likely to recover.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Survivors of acute kidney injury (AKI) are at high risk of adverse outcomes. Monitoring of kidney function, screening for proteinuria, use of statins and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, and nephrology follow-up among survivors have not been fully characterized. We examined these processes of care after discharge in survivors of hospitalized AKI. STUDY DESIGN: Population-based retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Adults in Alberta, Canada, admitted to the hospital between 2009 and 2017, then followed from their discharge date until 2019 for a median follow-up of 2.7 years. EXPOSURE: Hospital-acquired AKI diagnostically conforming to Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) serum creatinine criteria for stage 2 or stage 3 disease, or the need for acute dialysis. OUTCOME: Outcomes after hospital discharge included the proportion of participants who had evaluation of kidney function, were seen by a specialist or general practitioner, and received postdischarge prescriptions for recommended medications for chronic kidney disease (CKD). ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Cumulative incidence curves to characterize the proportion of participants who received each process of care outcome within the first 90 days and subsequent 1-year follow-up period after hospital discharge. To avoid risks associated with multiple hypothesis testing, differences were not statistically compared across groups. RESULTS: The cohort (n=23,921) included 50.2% men (n=12,015) with a median age of 68.1 [IQR, 56.9-78.8] years. Within 90 days after discharge, 21.2% and 8.6% of patients with and without pre-existing CKD, respectively, were seen by a nephrologist; 60.1% of AKI survivors had at least 1 serum creatinine measured, but only 25.5% had an assessment for albuminuria within 90 days after discharge; 52.7% of AKI survivors with pre-existing CKD, and 51.6% with de novo CKD were prescribed a RAAS inhibitor within 4-15 months after discharge. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective data were collected as part of routine clinical care. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of patients receiving optimal care after an episode of AKI in Alberta was low and may represent a target for improving long-term outcomes for this population. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: A study in Alberta, Canada, examined the care received by patients with acute kidney disease (AKI) during hospitalization and after discharge between 2007 and 2019. The results showed that a low proportion of patients with moderate to severe AKI were seen by a kidney specialist during hospitalization or within 90 days after discharge. Fewer than 25% of AKI patients had their kidney function monitored with both blood and urine tests within 90 days of discharge. Additionally, about half of AKI survivors with chronic kidney disease (CKD) were prescribed guideline recommended medications for CKD within 15 months after discharge. There is potential to improve health care delivery to these patients both in hospital and after hospital discharge.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Unsupervised item-response theory (IRT) models such as polytomous IRT based on recursive partitioning (IRTrees) and mixture IRT (MixIRT) models can be used to assess differential item functioning (DIF) in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) when the covariates associated with DIF are unknown a priori. This study examines the consistency of results for IRTrees and MixIRT models. METHODS: Data were from 4478 individuals in the Alberta Provincial Project on Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease registry who received cardiac angiography in Alberta, Canada, and completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) depression subscale items. The partial credit model (PCM) based on recursive partitioning (PCTree) and mixture PCM (MixPCM) were used to identify covariates associated with differential response patterns to HADS depression subscale items. Model covariates included demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) age was 64.5(15.7) years, and 3522(78.5%) patients were male. The PCTree identified 4 terminal nodes (subgroups) defined by smoking status, age, and body mass index. A 3-class PCM fits the data well. The MixPCM latent classes were defined by age, disease indication, smoking status, comorbid diabetes, congestive heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. CONCLUSION: PCTree and MixPCM were not consistent in detecting covariates associated with differential interpretations of PROM items. Future research will use computer simulations to assess these models' Type I error and statistical power for identifying covariates associated with DIF.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) experience significant angina symptoms and lifestyle changes. Revascularization procedures can result in better patient-reported outcomes (PROs) than optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone. This study evaluates the impact of response shift (RS) on changes in PROs of patients with CAD across treatment strategies. METHODS: Data were from patients with CAD in the Alberta Provincial Project on Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH) registry who completed the 16-item Canadian version of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire at 2 weeks and 1 year following a coronary angiogram. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MG-CFA) was used to assess measurement invariance across treatment groups at week 2. Longitudinal MG-CFA was used to test for RS according to receipt of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone. RESULTS: Of the 3116 patients included in the analysis, 443 (14.2%) received CABG, 2049(65.8%) PCI, and the remainder OMT alone. The MG-CFA revealed a partial-strong invariance across the treatment groups at 2 weeks (CFI = 0.98, RMSEA [90% CI] = 0.05 [0.03, 0.06]). Recalibration RS was detected on the Angina Symptoms and Burden subscale and its magnitude in the OMT, PCI, and CABG groups were 0.32, 0.28, and 0.53, respectively. After adjusting for RS effects, the estimated target changes were largest in the CABG group and negligible in the OMT group. CONCLUSION: Adjusting for RS is recommended in studies that use SAQ-CAN to assess changes in patients with CAD who have received revascularization versus OMT alone.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The influence of fee-for-service reimbursement on cardiac imaging has not been compared with other payment models. Furthermore, variation in ordering practices is not well understood. METHODS AND RESULTS: This retrospective, population-based cohort study using linked administrative data from Alberta, Canada included adults with chronic heart disease (atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, and heart failure) seen by cardiac specialists for a new outpatient consultation April 2012 to December 2018. Generalized linear mixed-effects models estimated the association of payment model (including the ability to bill to interpret imaging tests) and the use of cardiac imaging and quantified variation in cardiac imaging. Among 31 685 adults seen by 308 physicians at 136 sites, patients received an observed mean of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.67-0.68) imaging tests per consultation. After adjustment, patients seeing fee-for-service physicians had 2.07 (95% CI, 1.68-2.54) and fee-for-service physicians with ability to interpret had 2.87 (95% CI, 2.16-3.81) times the rate of receiving a test than those seeing salaried physicians. Measured patient, physician, and site effects accounted for 31% of imaging variation and, following adjustment, reduced unexplained site-level variation 40% and physician-level variation 29%. CONCLUSIONS: We identified substantial variation in the use of outpatient cardiac imaging related to physician and site factors. Physician payment models have a significant association with imaging use. Our results raise concern that payment models may influence cardiac imaging practice. Similar methods could be applied to identify the source and magnitude of variation in other health care processes and outcomes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Early interventions in CKD have been shown to improve health outcomes; however, gaps in access to nephrology care remain common. Nurse practitioners can improve access to care; however, the quality and outcomes of nurse practitioner care for CKD are uncertain. METHODS: In this propensity score-matched cohort study, patients with CKD meeting criteria for nurse practitioner care were matched 1:1 on their propensity scores for ( 1 ) nurse practitioner care versus primary care alone and ( 2 ) nurse practitioner versus nephrologist care. Processes of care were measured within 1 year after cohort entry, and clinical outcomes were measured over 5 years of follow-up and compared between propensity score-matched groups. RESULTS: A total of 961 (99%) patients from the nurse practitioner clinic were matched on their propensity score to 961 (1%) patients receiving primary care only while 969 (100%) patients from the nurse practitioner clinic were matched to 969 (7%) patients receiving nephrologist care. After matching to patients receiving primary care alone, those receiving nurse practitioner care had greater use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blocker (82% versus 79%; absolute differences [ADs] 3.4% [95% confidence interval, 0.0% to 6.9%]) and statins (75% versus 66%; AD 9.7% [5.8% to 13.6%]), fewer prescriptions of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (10% versus 17%; AD -7.2% [-10.4% to -4.2%]), greater eGFR and albuminuria monitoring, and lower rates of all-cause hospitalization (34.1 versus 43.3; rate difference -9.2 [-14.7 to -3.8] per 100 person-years) and all-cause mortality (3.3 versus 6.0; rate difference -2.7 [-3.6 to -1.7] per 100 person-years). When matched to patients receiving nephrologist care, those receiving nurse practitioner care were also more likely to be prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and statins, with no difference in the risks of experiencing adverse clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse practitioner care for patients with CKD was associated with better guideline-concordant care than primary care alone or nephrologist care, with clinical outcomes that were better than or equivalent to primary care alone and similar to those with care by nephrologists. PODCAST: This article contains a podcast at https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2023_12_08_CJN0000000000000305.mp3.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Clinical guidelines define chronic kidney disease (CKD) as abnormalities of kidney structure or function for>3 months. Assessment of the duration criterion may be implemented in different ways, potentially impacting estimates of disease incidence or prevalence in the population, individual diagnosis, and treatment decisions, especially for more severe cases. We investigated differences in incidence and prognosis of CKD stage G4 identified by 1 of 4 algorithms. STUDY DESIGN: Population-based cohort study in Alberta, Canada. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Residents>18 years old with incident CKD stage G4 (eGFR 15-29mL/min/1.73m2) diagnosed between April 1, 2015, and March 31, 2018, based on administrative and laboratory data. EXPOSURE: Four outpatient eGFR-based algorithms, increasing in stringency, for defining cohorts with CKD G4 were evaluated: (1) a single test, (2) first eGFR<30mL/min/1.73m2 and a second eGFR 15-29mL/min/1.73m2 measured>90 days apart (2 tests), (3) ≥2 eGFR measurements of<30mL/min/1.73m2 sustained for>90 days (qualifying period) and the last eGFR in the qualifying period of 15-29mL/min/1.73m2 (relaxed sustained), and (4) ≥2 consecutive measurements of 15-29mL/min/1.73m2 for>90 days (rigorous sustained). OUTCOME: Time to the earliest of death, eGFR improvement (a sustained increase in eGFR to≥30mL/min/1.73m2 for>90 days and>25% increase from the index eGFR), or kidney failure. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: For each of the 4 cohorts, incidence rates and event-specific cumulative incidence functions at 1 year from cohort entry were estimated. RESULTS: The incidence rates of CKD G4 decreased as algorithms became more stringent, from 190.7 (single test) to 79.9 (rigorous sustained) per 100,000 person-years. The 2 cohorts based on sustained reductions in eGFR were of comparable size and 1-year event-specific probabilities. The 2 cohorts based on a single test and a 2-test sequence were larger and experienced higher probabilities of eGFR improvement. LIMITATIONS: A short follow-up period of 1 year and a predominantly White population. CONCLUSIONS: The use of more stringent algorithms for defining CKD G4 results in substantially lower estimates of disease incidence, the identification of a group with a lower probability of eGFR improvement, and a higher risk of kidney failure. These findings can inform implementation decisions of disease definitions in clinical reporting systems and research studies. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Although guidelines recommend>3 months to define chronic kidney disease (CKD), the methods for defining specific stages, particularly G4 (eGFR 15-29mL/min/1.73m2) when referral to nephrology services is recommended, have been implemented differently across studies and surveillance programs. We studied differences in incidence and prognosis of CKD G4 cohorts identified by 4 algorithms using administrative and outpatient laboratory databases in Alberta, Canada. We found that, compared with a single-test definition, more stringent definitions resulted in a lower disease incidence and identified a group with worse short-term kidney outcomes. These findings highlight the impact of the choice of algorithm used to define CKD G4 on disease burden estimates at the population level, on individual prognosis, and on treatment/referral decisions.

RESUMEN

Background: Updates to the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative Clinical Practice Guideline for Vascular Access emphasize the "right access, in the right patient, at the right time, for the right reasons." Although this implies a collaborative approach, little is known about how patients, their caregivers, and health care providers engage in vascular access (VA) decision-making. Objective: To explore how the perspectives of patients receiving hemodialysis, their caregivers, and hemodialysis care team align and diverge in relation to VA selection. Design: Qualitative descriptive study. Setting: Five outpatient hemodialysis centers in Calgary, Alberta. Participants: Our purposive sample included 19 patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis, 2 caregivers, and 21 health care providers (7 hemodialysis nurses, 6 VA nurses, and 8 nephrologists). Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with consenting participants. Using an inductive thematic analysis approach, we coded transcripts in duplicate and characterized themes addressing our research objective. Results: While participants across roles shared some perspectives related to VA decision-making, we identified areas where views diverged. Areas of alignment included (1) optimizing patient preparedness-acknowledging decisional readiness and timing, and (2) value placed on trusting relationships with the kidney care team-respecting decisional autonomy with guidance. Perspectives diverged in the following aspects: (1) differing VA priorities and preferences-patients' emphasis on minimizing disruptions to normalcy contrasted with providers' preferences for fistulas and optimizing biomedical parameters of dialysis; (2) influence of personal and peer experience-patients preferred pragmatic, experiential knowledge, whereas providers emphasized informational credibility; and (3) endpoints for VA review-reassessment of VA decisions was prompted by access dissatisfaction for patients and a medical imperative to achieve a functioning access for health care providers. Limitations: Participation was limited to individuals comfortable communicating in English and from urban, in-center hemodialysis units. Few informal caregivers of people receiving hemodialysis and younger patients participated in this study. Conclusions: Although patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers share perspectives on important aspects of VA decisions, conflicting priorities and preferences may impact the decisional outcome. Findings highlight opportunities to bridge knowledge and readiness gaps and integrate shared decision-making in the VA selection process.

Contexte: Les mises à jour des lignes directrices de pratiques cliniques en matière d'accès vasculaire de la KDOQI (Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative) insistent sur la création « du bon accès, à la bonne personne, au bon moment et pour les bonnes raisons ¼. Ces recommandations sous-entendent une approche collaborative, mais la façon dont les patients, leurs soignants et les prestataires de soins de santé participent à la prise de décision sur l'accès vasculaire (AV) demeure mal connue. Objectif: Explorer les accords et les divergences dans les points de vue des patients sous hémodialyse, leurs soignants et leur équipe de soins relativement à la sélection de l'AV. Conception: Étude qualitative et descriptive. Cadre: Cinq centres d'hémodialyse ambulatoire à Calgary (Alberta). Sujets: Notre échantillon choisi à dessein était composé de 19 patients sous hémodialyse d'entretien, 2 soignants et 21 prestataires de soins de santé (7 infirmières en hémodialyse, 6 infirmières en AV et 8 néphrologues). Méthodologie: Nous avons mené des entrevues semi-structurées auprès des participants consentants. Une approche d'analyse thématique inductive a été employée pour coder les transcriptions en double et caractériser les thèmes répondant à l'objectif de recherche. Résultats: Certains points de vue sur la prise de décision en matière d'AV étaient partagés par tous les participants, mais nous avons identifié quelques domaines de divergence. Les participants s'entendaient sur : 1) l'optimisation de la préparation des patients ­ reconnaître l'état de préparation et le moment de prendre la décision; et 2) la valeur accordée aux relations de confiance avec l'équipe de soins rénaux ­ respecter l'autonomie décisionnelle après conseils. Les points de vue divergeaient sur : 1) les priorités et préférences à l'égard de l'AV ­ l'accent mis par les patients sur la minimisation des perturbations de la vie courante contrastait avec les préférences des prestataires de soins pour les fistules et l'optimisation des paramètres biomédicaux de la dialyse; 2) l'influence de l'expérience personnelle et des pairs ­ les patients préféraient des connaissances pragmatiques et expérientielles, tandis que les prestataires de soins mettaient l'accent sur la crédibilité de l'information; et 3) les critères d'évaluation de l'AV ­ la réévaluation du choix de l'AV est motivée par l'insatisfaction des patients à l'égard de l'accès et, du côté des prestataires de soins, par l'impératif médical de parvenir à un accès fonctionnel. Limites: Seules les personnes fréquentant une unité d'hémodialyse en centre urbain et à l'aise de communiquer en anglais ont pu participer. Les participants comptaient peu de patients plus jeunes et de soignants informels de personnes sous hémodialyse. Conclusion: Bien que les patients, les soignants et les prestataires de soins de santé s'entendent sur certains aspects importants de la décision concernant l'AV, celle-ci pourrait être influencée par des priorités et préférences contradictoires. Nos résultats mettent en évidence des occasions d'intégrer la prise de décision partagée dans le processus de sélection d'un AV et de combler les lacunes dans les connaissances et la préparation des patients.

RESUMEN

Purpose of program: Different models exist to guide successful implementation of electronic health tools into clinical practice. The Contrast Reducing Injury Sustained by Kidneys (Contrast RISK) initiative introduced an electronic decision support tool with physician audit and feedback into all of the cardiac catheterization facilities in Alberta, Canada, with the goal of preventing contrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI) following coronary angiography and intervention. This report describes the change management approaches used by the initiative and end-user's feedback on these processes. Sources of information and methods: The Canada Health Infoway Change Management model was used to address 6 activities relevant to project implementation: governance and leadership, stakeholder engagement, communications, workflow analysis and integration, training and education, and monitoring and evaluation. Health care providers and invasive cardiologists from all sites completed preimplementation, usability, and postimplementation surveys to assess integration and change success. Key findings: Prior to implementation, 67% of health providers were less than satisfied with processes to determine appropriate contrast dye volumes, 47% were less than satisfied with processes for administering adequate intravenous fluids, and 68% were less than satisfied with processes to ensure follow-up of high-risk patients. 48% of invasive cardiologists were less than satisfied with preprocedural identification of patients at risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). Following implementation, there were significant increases among health providers in the odds of satisfaction with processes for identifying those at high risk of AKI (odds ratio [OR] 3.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36-6.66, P = .007), quantifying the appropriate level of contrast dye for each patient (OR 6.98, 95% CI 3.06-15.91, P < .001), determining the optimal amount of IV fluid for each patient (OR 1.86, 95% CI 0.88-3.91, P = .102), and following up of kidney function of high risk patients (OR 5.49, 95%CI 2.45-12.30, P < .001). There were also significant increases among physicians in the odds of satisfaction with processes for identifying those at high risk of AKI (OR 19.53, 95% CI 3.21-118.76, P = .001), quantifying the appropriate level of contrast dye for each patient (OR 26.35, 95% CI 4.28-162.27, P < .001), and for following-up kidney function of high-risk patients (OR 7.72, 95% CI 1.62-36.84.30, P = .010). Eighty-nine percent of staff perceived the initiative as being successful in changing clinical practices to reduce the risk of CA-AKI. Physicians uniformly agreed that the system was well-integrated into existing workflows, while 42% of health providers also agreed. Implications: The Canada Health Infoway Change Management model was an effective framework for guiding implementation of an electronic decision support tool and audit and feedback intervention to improve processes for AKI prevention within cardiac catheterization units.

Objectif du program: Il existe différents modèles pour guider la mise en œuvre efficace d'outils électroniques dans la pratique clinique. L'initiative Contrast RISK (Contrast Reducing Injury Sustained by Kidneys) a permis d'introduire un outil électronique d'aide à la décision avec surveillance par le médecin et rétroaction dans tous les établissements de l'Alberta (Canada) pratiquant le cathétérisme cardiaque, dans le but de prévenir les insuffisances rénales aiguës associées aux produits de contraste (IRA-PC) après une coronarographie et une intervention. Le présent rapport décrit les approches de gestion du changement utilisées dans le cadre de l'initiative, ainsi que les commentaires des utilisateurs sur ces processus. Sources de l'information et méthodologie: Le modèle de gestion du changement d'Inforoute Santé du Canada a été employé pour aborder six activités pertinentes pour la mise en œuvre de projets: gouvernance et leadership, engagement des intervenants, communications, analyze du flux de travail et intégration, formation et éducation, surveillance et évaluation. Les prestataires de soins et les cardiologues spécialisés en interventions invasives de tous les sites ont répondu à un sondage avant, pendant et après la mise en œuvre afin d'évaluer le succès de l'intégration et du changement. Principaux résultats: Avant la mise en œuvre, 67% des prestataires de soins étaient insatisfaits des processus pour déterminer les volumes appropriés des produits de contraste, 47% étaient insatisfaits des processus pour administrer l'hydratation intraveineuse et 68% étaient insatisfaits des processus de surveillance des patients présentant un risque élevé. Près de la moitié (48%) des cardiologues spécialisés en interventions invasives étaient insatisfaits du processus d'identification préalable des patients présentant un risque élevé d'IRA. Après la mise en œuvre, on a observé une augmentation significative de la satisfaction des prestataires de soins à l'égard des processus pour identifier les patients présentant un risque élevé d'IRA (rapport de cote [RC]: 3,01; IC 95%: 1,36-6,66; P = .007), quantifier le niveau approprié de produit de contraste pour chaque patient (RC: 6,98; IC 95%: 3,06-15,91; P < .001), déterminer le volume optimal d'hydratation IV pour chaque patient (RC: 1,86, IC 95%: 0,88-3,91; P = .102) et surveiller la fonction rénale chez les patients présentant un risque élevé (RC: 5,49 IC 95%: 2,45-12,30; P < .001). On a également observé une augmentation significative de la satisfaction des médecins à l'égard des processus pour identifier les patients présentant un risque élevé d'IRA (RC: 19,53; IC 95%: 3,21-118,76; P = .001), quantifier le niveau approprié de produit de contraste pour chaque patient (RC: 26,35; IC 95%: 4,28-162,27; P < .001) et surveiller la fonction rénale des patients présentant un risque élevé (RC: 7,72; IC 95%: 1,62-36,84,30; P = .010). Une grande majorité du personnel (89%) était d'avis que l'initiative avait permis de changer les pratiques cliniques visant à réduire le risque d'IRA-PC. L'ensemble des médecins s'entendait pour dire que le système était bien intégré dans les flux de travail existants; 42% des prestataires de soins étaient également de cet avis. Conclusion: Le modèle de gestion du changement d'Inforoute Santé du Canada s'est avéré un cadre efficace pour guider la mise en œuvre d'un outil électronique d'aide à la décision et d'une intervention de surveillance et de rétroaction visant à améliorer les processus de prévention de l'IRA dans les unités de cathétérisme cardiaque.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Rationale & Objective: To evaluate follow-up care of critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting & Participants: Patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with AKI in Alberta, Canada from 2005 to 2018, who survived to discharge without kidney replacement therapy or estimated glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/1.73 m2. Exposure: AKI (defined as ≥50% or ≥0.3 mg/dL serum creatinine increase). Outcomes: The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of an outpatient serum creatinine and urine protein measurement at 3 months postdischarge. Secondary outcomes included an outpatient serum creatinine or urine protein measurement or a nephrologist visit at 3 months postdischarge. Analytical Approach: Patients were followed from hospital discharge until the first of each outcome of interest, death, emigration from the province, kidney replacement therapy (maintenance dialysis or kidney transplantation), or end of study period (March 2019). We used non-parametric methods (Aalen-Johansen) to estimate the cumulative incidence functions of outcomes accounting for competing events (death and kidney replacement therapy). Results: There were 29,732 critically ill adult patients with AKI. The median age was 68 years (IQR, 57-77), 39% were female, and the median baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate was 72 mL/min/1.73 m2 (IQR, 53-90). The cumulative incidence of having an outpatient creatinine and urine protein measurement at 3 months postdischarge was 25% (95% CI, 25-26). At 3 months postdischarge, 64% (95% CI, 64-65) had an outpatient creatinine measurement, 28% (95% CI, 27-28) had a urine protein measurement, and 5% (95% CI, 4-5) had a nephrologist visit. Limitations: We lacked granular data, such as urine output. Conclusions: Many critically ill patients with AKI do not receive the recommended follow-up care. Our findings highlight a gap in the transition of care for survivors of critical illness and AKI.