42
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Short-term and long-term survival in patients with prevalent haemodialysis—an integrated prognostic model: external validation

      research-article
      ,
      BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care
      BMJ Publishing Group
      Prognosis, Survivorship, Renal failure

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          Prognostic tools with evidence for external validity in routine clinical practice are needed to align care with patients’ preferences and deliver timely supportive services. Current models have limited, if any, evidence for external validity and none have been implemented and evaluated in clinical practice on a large scale. This study sought to provide evidence for external validity in a real life setting of the Cohen prognostic model that integrates actuarial factors with the ‘Surprise Question’ to assess 6-month, 12-month and 18-month survival of prevalent haemodialysis patients.

          Methods

          Cross-sectional study of 1372 patients in a Canadian university-based programme between 2010 and 2019. Survival probabilities were compared with observed survival. Discrimination and calibration were assessed through predicted risk-stratified observed survival, cumulative AUC, Somer’s Dxy and a calibration slope estimate.

          Results

          Discrimination performance was moderate with a C statistic of 0.71–0.72 for all three time points. The model overpredicted mortality risk with the best predictive accuracy for 6- month survival. The differences between observed and mean predicted survival at 6 months, 12 months and 18 months were 3.2%, 8.8% and 12.9%, respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves stratified by Cox-based risk group showed good discrimination between high-risk and low-risk patients with HR estimates (95% CI): C2 vs C1 3.07 (1.57–5.99), C3 vs C1 5.85 (3.06–11.17), C4 vs C1 13.24 (6.91–25.34)).

          Conclusions

          The Cohen prognostic model can be incorporated easily into routine dialysis care to identify patients at high risk for death over 6 months, 12 months and 18 months and help target vulnerable patients for timely supportive care interventions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          External validation of a Cox prognostic model: principles and methods

          Background A prognostic model should not enter clinical practice unless it has been demonstrated that it performs a useful role. External validation denotes evaluation of model performance in a sample independent of that used to develop the model. Unlike for logistic regression models, external validation of Cox models is sparsely treated in the literature. Successful validation of a model means achieving satisfactory discrimination and calibration (prediction accuracy) in the validation sample. Validating Cox models is not straightforward because event probabilities are estimated relative to an unspecified baseline function. Methods We describe statistical approaches to external validation of a published Cox model according to the level of published information, specifically (1) the prognostic index only, (2) the prognostic index together with Kaplan-Meier curves for risk groups, and (3) the first two plus the baseline survival curve (the estimated survival function at the mean prognostic index across the sample). The most challenging task, requiring level 3 information, is assessing calibration, for which we suggest a method of approximating the baseline survival function. Results We apply the methods to two comparable datasets in primary breast cancer, treating one as derivation and the other as validation sample. Results are presented for discrimination and calibration. We demonstrate plots of survival probabilities that can assist model evaluation. Conclusions Our validation methods are applicable to a wide range of prognostic studies and provide researchers with a toolkit for external validation of a published Cox model.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Executive summary of the KDIGO Controversies Conference on Supportive Care in Chronic Kidney Disease: developing a roadmap to improving quality care.

            Patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) have a high burden of physical and psychosocial symptoms, poor outcomes, and high costs of care. Current paradigms of care for this highly vulnerable population are variable, prognostic and assessment tools are limited, and quality of care, particularly regarding conservative and palliative care, is suboptimal. The KDIGO Controversies Conference on Supportive Care in CKD reviewed the current state of knowledge in order to define a roadmap to guide clinical and research activities focused on improving the outcomes of people living with advanced CKD, including those on dialysis. An international group of multidisciplinary experts in CKD, palliative care, methodology, economics, and education identified the key issues related to palliative care in this population. The conference led to a working plan to address outstanding issues in this arena, and this executive summary serves as an output to guide future work, including the development of globally applicable guidelines.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              End-of-life care preferences and needs: perceptions of patients with chronic kidney disease.

              Despite high mortality rates, surprisingly little research has been done to study chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients' preferences for end-of-life care. The objective of this study was to evaluate end-of-life care preferences of CKD patients to help identify gaps between current end-of-life care practice and patients' preferences and to help prioritize and guide future innovation in end-of-life care policy. A total of 584 stage 4 and stage 5 CKD patients were surveyed as they presented to dialysis, transplantation, or predialysis clinics in a Canadian, university-based renal program between January and April 2008. Participants reported relying on the nephrology staff for extensive end-of- life care needs not currently systematically integrated into their renal care, such as pain and symptom management, advance care planning, and psychosocial and spiritual support. Participants also had poor self-reported knowledge of palliative care options and of their illness trajectory. A total of 61% of patients regretted their decision to start dialysis. More patients wanted to die at home (36.1%) or in an inpatient hospice (28.8%) compared with in a hospital (27.4%). Less than 10% of patients reported having had a discussion about end-of-life care issues with their nephrologist in the past 12 months. Current end-of-life clinical practices do not meet the needs of patients with advanced CKD.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Support Palliat Care
                BMJ Support Palliat Care
                bmjspcare
                bmjspcare
                BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2045-435X
                2045-4368
                June 2024
                3 January 2023
                : 14
                : 2
                : 222-229
                Affiliations
                [1] departmentDepartment of Medicine , University of Alberta , Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Sara N Davison, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R3, Canada; sara.davison@ 123456ualberta.ca
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4513-6449
                Article
                spcare-2022-003916
                10.1136/spcare-2022-003916
                11103293
                36596667
                ce09d398-4d57-41a0-bebb-8a05cf79633a
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 10 August 2022
                : 06 December 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: The Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR);
                Award ID: 201209MOP-286394-PLC-CBAA-117151
                Categories
                Original Research
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                prognosis,survivorship,renal failure
                prognosis, survivorship, renal failure

                Comments

                Comment on this article