Skip Navigation


NDT Advance Access originally published online on August 28, 2008
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2009 24(2):555-561; doi:10.1093/ndt/gfn484
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
24/2/555    most recent
gfn484v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mendelssohn, D. C.
Right arrow Articles by Finkelstein, F. O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mendelssohn, D. C.
Right arrow Articles by Finkelstein, F. O.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2008]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org



A prospective evaluation of renal replacement therapy modality eligibility

David C. Mendelssohn1, Salim K. Mujais2, Steven D. Soroka3, John Brouillette4, Tomoko Takano5, Paul E. Barre5, Bharati V. Mittal6, Ajay Singh6, Catherine Firanek7, Ken Story7 and Fredric O. Finkelstein8

1 Humber River Regional Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada 2 Astellas Pharma US, Deerfield, IL, USA 3 Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada 4 Nephrology Associates, Birmingham, AL, USA 5 McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada 6 Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 7 Baxter Healthcare Corporation, McGaw Park, IL 8 Hospital of St. Raphael, New Haven, CT, USA

Correspondence and offprint requests to: David C. Mendelssohn, Division of Nephrology and Medical Director of Dialysis, Humber River Regional Hospital, University of Toronto, 200 Church St. Room 2024, Weston, Ontario, M9N 1N8, Canada. Tel: +1-416-243-4368; Fax: +1-416-243-4421; E-mail: dmendelssohn{at}hrrh.on.ca



  Abstract

Background. Patient eligibility for renal replacement therapy (RRT) modalities is frequently debated, but little prospective data are available from large patient cohorts.

Methods. We prospectively evaluated medical and psychosocial eligibility for the three RRT modalities in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages III–V who were enrolled in an ongoing prospective cohort study conducted at seven North American nephrology practices.

Results. Ninety-eight percent of patients were considered medically eligible for haemodialysis (HD), 87% of patients were assessed as medically eligible for peritoneal dialysis (PD) and 54% of patients were judged medically eligible for transplant. Age was the leading cause of non-eligibility for both PD and transplant. Anatomical concerns (adhesions, hernias) were the second most frequent concern for PD eligibility followed by weight. Weight was also a concern for transplant eligibility. The proportion of patients medically eligible for RRT did not vary by CKD stage. There was, however, significant inter-centre variation in the proportion of patients medically eligible for PD and transplant. Ninety-five percent of patients were considered psychosocially eligible for HD, 83% of patients were assessed as psychosocially eligible for PD and 71% of patients were judged psychosocially eligible for transplant. The percentage of patients who were assessed as having neither medical nor psychosocial contraindications for RRT was 95% for HD, 78% for PD and 53% for transplant.

Conclusions. Most CKD patients are considered by their medical care providers to be suitable for PD. Enhanced patient education, promotion of home dialysis for suitable patients and empowerment of patient choice are expected to augment growth of home dialysis modalities.

Keywords: eligibility; haemodialysis; peritoneal dialysis; transplantation

Received for publication: 22. 1.08
Accepted in revised form: 5. 8.08


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
pdiHome page
D. C. Mendelssohn
INCREASING PD UTILIZATION: SHOULD SUITABLE PATIENTS BE FORCED?
Perit. Dial. Int., March 1, 2009; 29(2): 144 - 146.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.