Search

BACKGROUND: This study provides a summary of the 2010 European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) Registry Annual Report (available at www.era-edta-reg.org). METHODS: This report includes data on renal replacement therapy (RRT) using data from the national and regional renal registries in 29 countries in Europe and bordering the Mediterranean Sea. Individual patient data were received from 27 registries, whereas 18 registries contributed data in aggregated form. We present incidence and prevalence of RRT, transplant rates, survival probabilities and expected remaining lifetimes. The latter two are solely based on individual patient records. RESULTS: In 2010, the overall incidence rate of RRT for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) among all registries reporting to the ERA-EDTA Registry was 123 per million population (pmp) (n = 91 798). The highest incidence rate was reported by Turkey (252pmp) and the lowest reported by Montenegro (21 pmp). The overall prevalence of RRT for ESRD at 31 December 2010 among all registries reporting to the ERA-EDTA Registry was 741 pmp (n = 551 005). The prevalence varied from 124 pmp in Ukraine to 1580 pmp in Portugal. The overall number of renal transplantations performed in 2010 among all registries was 29.2 pmp (n = 21 740). The highest overall transplant rate was reported from Spain, Cantabria (73 pmp), whereas the highest transplant rate for living donor kidneys was reported from the Netherlands (28 pmp). For patients who started RRT between 2001 and 2005, the unadjusted 5-year patient survival on RRT was 46.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 46.0-46.3], and on dialysis 38.6% (95% CI 38.5-38.8). The unadjusted 5-year patient survival after the first renal transplantation performed between 2001 and 2005 was 86.6% (95% CI 86.1-87.1) for deceased donor kidneys and 94.1% (95% CI 93.4-94.8) for living donor kidneys.

Background and objectives Despite the presence of a universal health care system, it is unclear if there is intercenter variation in access to kidney transplantation in the United Kingdom. This study aims to assess whether equity exists in access to kidney transplantation in the United Kingdom after adjustment for patient-specific factors and center practice patterns.\ud \ud Design, setting, participants, & measurements In this prospective, observational cohort study including all 71 United Kingdom kidney centers, incident RRT patients recruited between November 2011 and March 2013 as part of the Access to Transplantation and Transplant Outcome Measures study were analyzed to assess preemptive listing (n=2676) and listing within 2 years of starting dialysis (n=1970) by center.\ud \ud Results Seven hundred and six participants (26%) were listed preemptively, whereas 585 (30%) were listed within 2 years of commencing dialysis. The interquartile range across centers was 6%–33% for preemptive listing and 25%–40% for listing after starting dialysis. Patient factors, including increasing age, most comorbidities, body mass index >35 kg/m2, and lower socioeconomic status, were associated with a lower likelihood of being listed and accounted for 89% and 97% of measured intercenter variation for preemptive listing and listing within 2 years of starting dialysis, respectively. Asian (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.33 to 0.72) and Black (odds ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.71) participants were both associated with reduced access to preemptive listing; however Asian participants were associated with a higher likelihood of being listed after starting dialysis (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.12 to 1.79). As for center factors, being registered at a transplanting center (odds ratio, 3.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.36 to 4.07) and a universal approach to discussing transplantation (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.08 to 1.78) were associated with higher preemptive listing, whereas using a written protocol was associated negatively with listing within 2 years of starting dialysis (odds ratio, 0.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.9).\ud \ud Conclusions Patient case mix accounts for most of the intercenter variation seen in access to transplantation in the United Kingdom, with practice patterns also contributing some variation. Socioeconomic inequity exists despite having a universal health care system.

Background:\ud \ud Stroke is common in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) treated with hemodialysis (HD) and associated with high mortality rate. In the general population, atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major risk factor for stroke and therapeutic anticoagulation is associated with risk reduction, whereas in ESRD the relationship is less clear.\ud Objective:\ud \ud The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the influence of AF on stroke rates and probability in those on HD following competing risk analyses.\ud Design:\ud \ud A national record linkage cohort study.\ud Setting:\ud \ud All renal and stroke units in Scotland, UK.\ud Patients:\ud \ud All patients with ESRD receiving HD within Scotland from 2005 to 2013 (follow-up to 2015).\ud Measurements:\ud \ud Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were linked between the Scottish Renal Registry, Scottish Stroke Care Audit, and hospital discharge data. Stroke was defined as a fatal or nonfatal event and mortality derived from national records.\ud Methods:\ud \ud Associations for stroke were determined using competing risk models: the cause-specific hazards model and the Fine and Gray subdistribution hazards model accounting for the competing risk of death in models of all stroke, ischemic stroke, and first-ever stroke.\ud Results:\ud \ud Of 5502 patients treated with HD with 12 348.6-year follow-up, 363 (6.6%) experienced stroke. The stroke incidence rate was 26.7 per 1000 patient-years. Multivariable regression on the cause-specific hazard for stroke demonstrated age, hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) = 1.04 (1.03-1.05); AF, HR (95% CI) = 1.88 (1.25-2.83); prior stroke, HR (95% CI) = 2.29 (1.48-3.54), and diabetes, HR (95% CI) = 1.92 (1.45-2.53); serum phosphate, HR (95% CI) = 2.15 (1.56-2.99); lower body weight, HR (95% CI) = 0.99 (0.98-1.00); lower hemoglobin, HR (95% CI) = 0.88 (0.77-0.99); and systolic blood pressure (BP), HR (95% CI) = 1.01 (1.00-1.02), to be associated with an increased stroke rate. In contrast, the subdistribution HRs obtained following Fine and Gray regression demonstrated that AF, weight, and hemoglobin were not associated with stroke risk. In both models, AF was significantly associated with nonstroke death.\ud Limitations:\ud \ud Our analyses derive from retrospective data sets and thus can only describe association not causation. Data on anticoagulant use are not available.\ud Conclusions:\ud \ud The incidence of stroke in HD patients is high. The competing risk of “prestroke” mortality affects the relationship between AF and risk of future stroke. Trial designs for interventions to reduce stroke risk in HD patients, such as anticoagulation for AF, should take account of competing risks affecting associations between risk factors and outcomes.

Introduction:\ud Stroke rate and mortality are greater in people with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) than those without. We examined discrepancies in stroke-care in ESRD patients and its influence on mortality.\ud \ud Methods:\ud A national record-linkage cohort study of hospitalised stroke from 2005-2013. Presentation, measures of care quality (admission to stroke unit, swallow assessment, anti-thrombotic or thrombolysis use) and outcomes were compared in those with and without ESRD after propensity score matching (PSM). We examined the effect being admitted to a stroke unit on survival using Kaplan-Meier and Cox survival analyses.\ud \ud Results:\ud 8,757 people with ESRD and 61,367 people with stroke were identified. 486 ESRD patients experienced stroke over 34,551.9 years follow-up; incidence rates 25.3 (dialysis) and 4.5 (kidney transplant)/ 1000 patient-years. Following PSM, dialysis patients were less likely to be functionally independent (61.4 vs 77.7%, p

Supplemental digital content is available in the text., Background It is well recognized that there is significant variation between centers in access to kidney transplantation. In the absence of high-grade evidence, it is unclear whether variation is due to patient case mix, other center factors, or individual clinician decisions. This study sought consensus between UK clinicians on factors that should influence access to kidney transplantation. Methods As part of the Access to Transplantation and Transplant Outcome Measures project, consultant nephrologists and transplant surgeons in 71 centers were invited to participate in a Delphi study involving 2 rounds. During rounds 1 and 2, participants rated their agreement to 29 statements covering 8 topics regarding kidney transplantation. A stakeholder meeting was used to discuss statements of interest after the 2 rounds. Results In total, 122 nephrologists and 16 transplant surgeons from 45 units participated in rounds 1 and 2. After 2 rounds, 12 of 29 statements reached consensus. Fifty people participated in the stakeholder meeting. After the stakeholder meeting, a further 4 statements reached agreement. Of the 8 topics covered, consensus was reached in 6: use of a transplant protocol, patient age, body mass index, patient compliance with treatment, cardiac workup, and use of multidisciplinary meetings. Consensus was not reached on screening for malignancy and use of peripheral Doppler studies. Conclusions The Delphi process identified factors upon which clinicians agreed and areas where consensus could not be achieved. The findings should inform national guidelines to support decision making in the absence of high quality evidence and to guide areas that warrant future research.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of guidelines for the evaluation of candidates for renal transplantation, variation in access to transplantation exists. This national survey investigates whether center variation exists in the assessment of patients for renal transplantation in the United Kingdom. METHODS: An online survey, informed by qualitative interviews, was distributed to all UK renal centers. This survey examined center approaches to chronic kidney disease service provision, transplant recipient assessment, education provision, and waitlisting decision making processes. Center reevaluation policies for patients already listed and priorities for future development were also examined. RESULTS: All 71 renal centers responded. Of these, 83% reviewed predialysis patients in a low clearance clinic. In 26% of the centers, transplantation was not discussed as a treatment option with all patients. Fourteen centers reported having a dedicated transplant assessment clinic, whereas 28% did not have a formal assessment protocol. Age was an exclusion criterion for listing in 3 centers, all of which had a cutoff at 75 years. Eighty-three percent of the centers excluded patients with a high body mass index. Cardiac investigations were risk-stratified in 90% of centers. Surgical involvement varied with 11% of centers listing patients without formal surgical review. There was no formal protocol in place to reevaluate listed patients in 62% of centers. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in UK practice patterns for listing patients for renal transplantation, though its impact on access to transplantation is unclear. The extent to which center-specific and patient-specific factors affect access to transplantation requires further analysis in a prospective cohort of patients.

INTRODUCTION: There is significant intercentre variability in access to renal transplantation in the UK due to poorly understood factors. The overarching aims of this study are to improve equity of access to kidney and kidney-pancreas transplantation across the UK and to optimise organ allocation to maximise the benefit and cost-effectiveness of transplantation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 6844 patients aged 18-75 years starting dialysis and/or receiving a transplant together with matched patients active on the transplant list from all 72 UK renal units were recruited between November 2011 and March 2013 and will be followed for at least 3 years. The outcomes of interest include patient survival, access to the transplant list, receipt of a transplant, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including quality of life, treatment satisfaction, well-being and health status on different forms of renal replacement therapy. Sociodemographic and clinical data were prospectively collected from case notes and from interviews with patients and local clinical teams. Qualitative process exploration with clinical staff will help identify unit-specific factors that influence access to renal transplantation. A health economic analysis will explore costs and outcomes associated with alternative approaches to organ allocation. The study will deliver: (1) an understanding of patient and unit-specific factors influencing access to renal transplantation in the UK, informing potential changes to practices and policies to optimise outcomes and reduce intercentre variability; (2) a patient-survival probability model to standardise access to the renal transplant list and (3) an understanding of PROMs and health economic impact of kidney and kidney-pancreas transplantation to inform the development of a more sophisticated and fairer organ allocation algorithm. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been independently peer reviewed by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and approved by the East of England Research Ethics Committee. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences.