Perceived Life Expectancy Among Dialysis Recipients: A Scoping Review.

Rationale & Objective: Greater prognostic understanding is associated with higher quality care at the end of life. We undertook a scoping review to explore how long dialysis recipients expect to live. Study Design: Scoping Review. Setting & Study Populations: People with kidney failure over 18 years old. Search Strategy & Sources: Studies were identified by searching Medline, Embase, APA PsycINFO, HMIC, and ProQuest database for terms related to "life expectancy", "self-estimated", and "end stage kidney disease". Data Extraction: Search strategies reported 349 unique, potentially eligible studies, with 8 studies meeting the inclusion criteria after screening. Results: Significant mismatches between dialysis recipients and their health care provider's estimations of prognosis were reported, with patients predicting significantly higher life expectancies than health care professionals and almost no agreement between patient and nephrologist's estimates of 1-year survival. Documented cognitive impairment did not affect 1-year or 5-year prognosis estimates, nor did gender, age, time on dialysis, or discussing perceived life expectancy. Dialysis recipients who thought they were on the transplant list or who self-identified as African American reported higher perceived life expectancy, whereas people who were 75 years or older, or with fair or poor self-reported health status reported a lower perceived life expectancy. Those with a lower perceived life expectancy preferred care focusing on relieving pain and discomfort, whereas people who thought they had a higher chance of survival were significantly more likely to prefer life-extending care. Limitations: There is a marked paucity of research in this area, with most studies conducted in North American cohorts. Conclusions: Optimistic patient prognostic expectations persist in dialysis recipients. Given the effects of perceived life expectancy on treatment choices and subsequent quality of life, it is important that transparent discussions regarding prognosis are conducted with people receiving dialysis and their families. Plain-Language Summary: Understanding illness severity and prognosis allows people to make decisions and prioritize areas of their lives that are important to them. We undertook a scoping review to explore how long dialysis recipients expect to live. We found significant mismatches between the perceived life expectancy of people treated with dialysis and their health care providers. Perceived life expectancy influenced treatment choices; thus, those who thought they would die sooner prioritized care focusing on relieving pain and discomfort. Those who thought they had a higher chance of survival were more likely to prefer life-extending care (with potential effects on quality of life). It is important to have frank discussions about prognosis with people receiving dialysis, to empower individuals and help them make informed decisions about their care.

Frailty assessment as part of transplant listing: yes, no or maybe?

Frailty, characterized by a decreased physiological reserve and an increased vulnerability to stressors, is common among kidney transplant (KT) candidates and recipients. In this review, we present and summarize the key arguments for and against the assessment of frailty as part of KT evaluation. The key arguments for including frailty were: (i) sheer prevalence and far-reaching consequences of frailty on KT, and (ii) the ability to conduct a more holistic and objective evaluation of candidates, removing the inaccuracy associated with 'eye-ball' assessments of transplant fitness. The key argument against were: (i) lack of agreement on the definition of frailty and which tools should be used in renal populations, (ii) a lack of clarity on how, by whom and how often frailty assessments should be performed, and (iii) a poor understanding of how acute stressors affect frailty. However, it is the overwhelming opinion that the time has come for frailty assessments to be incorporated into KT listing. Although ongoing areas of uncertainty exist and further evidence development is needed, the well-established impact of frailty on clinical and experiential outcomes, the invaluable information obtained from frailty assessments, and the potential for intervention outweigh these limitations. Proactive and early identification of frailty allows for individualized and improved risk assessment, communication and optimization of candidates.

Prevalence of frailty and cognitive impairment in older transplant candidates - a preview to the Kidney Transplantation in Older People (KTOP): impact of frailty on outcomes study.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation in older people has increased, however older transplant recipients experience mixed outcomes that invariably impacts on their quality of life. The increased vulnerability of older end stage kidney disease patients to frailty and cognitive impairment, may partially explain the differences in outcomes observed. The Kidney Transplantation in Older People (KTOP): impact of frailty on clinical outcomes study is an active clinical study aiming to explore the experience of older people waiting for and undergoing transplantation. In this manuscript we present the study protocol, the study cohort, and the prevalence of frailty and cognitive impairment identified at recruitment. METHODS: The KTOP study is a single centre, prospective, mixed methods, observational study. Recruitment began in October 2019. All patients aged 60 or above either active on the deceased donor waitlist or undergoing live donor transplantation were eligible for recruitment. Recruited participants completed a series of questionnaires assessing frailty, cognition, and quality of life, which are repeated at defined time points whilst on the waitlist and post-transplant. Clinical data was concurrently collected. Any participants identified as frail or vulnerable were also eligible for enrolment into the qualitative sub-study. RESULTS: Two hundred eight participants have been recruited (age 60-78). Baseline Montreal Cognitive Assessments were available for 173 participants, with 63 (36.4%) participants identified as having scores below normal (score < 26). Edmonton Frail Scale assessments were available for 184 participants, with 29 participants (15.8%) identified as frail (score ≥ 8), and a further 37 participants (20.1%) identified as being vulnerable (score 6-7). CONCLUSION: In the KTOP study cohort we have identified a prevalence of 36.4% of participants with MoCA scores suggestive of cognitive impairment, and a prevalence of frailty of 15.8% at recruitment. A further 20.1% were vulnerable. As formal testing for cognition and frailty is not routinely incorporated into the work up of older people across many units, the presence and significance of these conditions is likely not known. Ultimately the KTOP study will report on how these parameters evolve over time and following a transplant, and describe their impact on quality of life and clinical outcomes.

Diagnostic value of pericardial aspiration in dialysis patients: Case report with management informed by a retrospective case series.

INTRODUCTION: Pericardial effusions and uremic pericarditis have been described in patients with kidney disease since 1836 [1] when they were considered a pre-terminal sign [2]. Fortunately today this pathology is less frequently encountered [3]; however, this has resulted in highly variable management. AIMS: This report aims to describe the case of a 61-year-old female presenting with a large pericardial effusion prior to kidney transplantation, and how local activity was reviewed to guide management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective service evaluation project, where 44 cases of pericardial effusion encountered at a tertiary renal center over 8 years were reviewed. Clinical data, investigation results, and outcomes were collected to identify the common clinical categories encountered and the role pericardial intervention may have had in those cases. RESULTS: A total of 44 cases of pericardial effusion were encountered, grouped into the following clinical categories; procedural (8), classical (3), uremic (15), and other etiology (18). Pericardial intervention occurred in 50% of cases due to current or impending hemodynamic compromise. Aspiration was of limited diagnostic use, providing a clinically relevant culture result in only one of the cases reviewed. No deaths were observed in the classical group, and 1-year survival was 86%, 67% and 43% in the uremic, other, and procedural groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that in patients with advanced kidney disease requiring renal replacement therapy and pericardial effusions, aspiration should largely be reserved for cases with hemodynamic compromise only, as in this series aspiration did not significantly improve diagnosis or guide subsequent treatment.

Lack of seroresponse to SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccines given early post-transplant in patients primed pre-transplantation.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are recommended pre-transplantation, however, waning immunity and evolving variants mandate booster doses. Currently there no data to inform the optimal timing of booster doses post-transplant, in patients primed pre-transplant. We investigated serial serological samples in 204 transplant recipients who received 2 or 3 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines pre-transplant. Spike protein antibody concentrations, [anti-S], were measured on the day of transplantation and following booster doses post-transplant. In infection-naïve patients, post-booster [anti-S] did not change when V3 (1st booster) was given at 116(78-150) days post-transplant, falling from 122(32-574) to 111(34-682) BAU/ml, p=0.78. Similarly, in infection-experienced patients, [anti-S] on Day-0 and post-V3 were 1090(133-3667) and 2207(650-5618) BAU/ml respectively, p=0.26. In patients remaining infection-naïve, [anti-S] increased post-V4 (as 2nd booster) when given at 226(208-295) days post-transplant, rising from 97(34-1074) to 5134(229-5680) BAU/ml, p=0.0016. Whilst in patients who had 3 vaccines pre-transplant, who received V4 (as 1st booster) at 82(49-101) days post-transplant, [anti-S] did not change, falling from 981(396-2666) to 871(242-2092) BAU/ml, p=0.62. Overall, infection pre-transplant and [anti-S] at the time of transplantation predicted post-transplant infection risk. As [Anti-S] fail to respond to SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccines given early post-transplant, passive immunity may be beneficial to protect patients during this period.

Frailty and the psychosocial components of the edmonton frail scale are most associated with patient experience in older kidney transplant candidates - a secondary analysis within the kidney transplantation in older people (KTOP) study.

Background: Older people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) are vulnerable to frailty, which impacts on clinical and experiential outcomes. With kidney transplantation in older people increasing, a better understanding of patient experiences is necessary for guiding decision making. The Kidney Transplantation in Older People (KTOP):impact of frailty on outcomes study aims to explore this. We present a secondary analysis of the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) and its relationship with patient experience scores. Methods: The KTOP study is a single centre, prospective study, which began in October 2019. All ESKD patients aged ≥60 considered for transplantation at Imperial College Renal and Transplant Centre were eligible. Frailty was assessed using the EFS and 5 questionnaires assessed patient experience and quality of life (QoL) (Short Form-12(v2), Palliative Care Outcome Scale-Symptoms Renal, Depression Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale, Renal Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire). The EFS was divided into 4 subdomains (psychosocial, physical function, medical status, and general health) and then compared with the questionnaire scores. Results: 210 patients have been recruited (aged 60-78), 186 of whom completed EFS assessments. 118 (63.4%) participants were not frail, 36 (19.4%) vulnerable, and 32 (17.2%) were frail. Worse frailty scores were associated with poorer patient experience and QoL scores across all questionnaires. Severe deficits in the EFS psychosocial subdomain showed a statistically significant association with higher depression screen scores (coefficient 4.9, 95% CI 3.22 to 6.59), lower physical (coefficient -4.35, 95% CI -7.59 to -1.12) and mental function scores (coefficient -8.33, 95% CI -11.77 to -4.88) from the Short Form-12(v2), and lower renal treatment satisfaction scores (coefficient -5.54, 95% CI -10.70 to -0.37). Deficits in the physical function and medical status EFS subdomians showed some association with patient experience scores. Conclusion: In the KTOP study cohort at recruitment vulnerable and frail candidates reported worse QoL and patient experiences. Severe deficits in the psychosocial subdomains of the EFS showed a strong association with patient experience and QoL, whilst physical function and medical status deficits showed a lesser association. This has highlighted specific EFS domains that may be suitable for targeted interventions to improve experiences and optimise outcomes.

Resuming Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation in the COVID-19 Era: What Do Patients Want?

BACKGROUND: The rapidly evolving novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic bought many kidney transplant (KT) programs to a halt. Integral to resuming KT activity is understanding the perspectives of potential transplant candidates during this highly dynamic time. METHODS: From June 1 to July 7, 2020, a telephone survey of KT candidates on the deceased donor waiting list at Imperial College Renal and Transplant Centre in West London was conducted. The survey captured ongoing COVID-19 exposure risks and patients' views on waitlist (WL) reactivation and undergoing transplantation. RESULTS: Two hundred seven responses were received. Of the respondents, 180 patients (87%) were happy to be reactivated onto the WL; with 141 patients (68%) willing to give consent to transplantation currently, while 53 patients (26%) felt unsure, and 13 patients (6%) would decline a KT. The vast majority of patients had no concerns. In the responses from those who were uncertain or who would decline a KT, concerns about COVID-19 infection and the need for reassurance from transplant units dominated. Universally patients wanted more information about COVID-19 infection risk with KT and the precautions being taken to reduce this risk. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of surveyed patients are in favor of reactivation and receiving a KT despite the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Reactivation of candidates cannot be assumed and should take an individualized approach, incorporating clinical risk with patient perspectives. Improved communication with KT candidates is highly requested.