Quality of Life in Kidney Transplantation

Quality of life in kidney transplantation

Maria Dalamagka

Chapter 1

 International Journal of Anesthesia and Relaxation. ISSN 2575-9736

The Quality of Life in Kidney Transplantation

Review Article

Maria Dalamagka 

https://www.wileysopenlibrary.com/ijar/The-Quality-of-Life-in-Kidney-Transplantation.pdf

https://www.biocorepublishinggroup.com/ijar/The-Quality-of-Life-in-Kidney-Transplantation.pdf

Tentative Speaker: 7th International Conference and Exhibition on Pain Research and Management. October 11-12, 2018. Zurich, Switzerland. https://d2cax41o7ahm5l.cloudfront.net/cs/pdfs/pain-management-2018-34893-scientific-program85478.pdf

Abstract

The health-related quality of life (HRQL) contains many aspects under patients' health as physical, psychological, social function and a general prosperity. Numerous clinical studies have established the importance of quality of life in various diseases. It is extremely popular to assess the quality of life in clinical trials as a measure of the subjective state of health of patients. The HRQL, also gradually recognized as an important measure of outcome after organ transplantation. Along with other indicators related to the improvement of patient and graft survival, quality of life has been assessed as a valid outcome measure. Investigations on the quality of life are aimed to lead to a broader view of subjective health, consider that health is a puzzle of the general welfare. Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice in end stage renal failure. Progress in renal transplantation and immunosuppressive therapies have increased significantly in recent decades, resulting in allograft survival rates at one year is now over 90%. The main goal of transplantation is to achieve maximum quality and longevity while minimizing the impact of disease and health care costs. In general, the quality of life improved after successful renal transplantation compared with patients on dialysis, and the result was more pronounced in men than in women. In these studies it seems clear that renal transplantation is not only cheaper replacement therapy over time, but also linked to lower mortality and better quality of life for patients.

M Dalamagka (2018), The Quality of Life in Kidney Transplantation. Int J Ane & Rel. 2-2, 12-18

Introduction

As already described in the 80s by Mulley [106], there are many pitfalls in assessing the quality of life. Mulley argues that defining "health" is difficult and can be affected by a large number of variables [4]. The health-related quality of life (HRQL) contains many aspects under patients' health as physical, psychological, social function and a general well-being [11-13]. Numerous clinical studies have established the importance of quality of life in various diseases, and is extremely popular to assess the quality of life in clinical trials as a measure of the subjective state of health of patients. The HRQL also gradually recognized as an important outcome measure after organ transplantation. Along with other indicators related to the improvement of patient and graft survival, quality of life has been assessed as a valid outcome measure. Investigations on the quality of life are aimed to lead to a broader view of subjective health, consider that health is a puzzle of the general welfare. The pieces of this puzzle consisting of psychological and social aspects of well-being, in addition to physical and mental health. Some of these pieces are evaluated either subjective or objective basis to some of them in two dimensions [1]. 

Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice in end stage renal failure. The transplantation may be the focus for increasing survival and to maximize quality of life (Muehrer and Becker 2005). However, there are certain factors that may affect the quality of life after transplantation, such as side effects from highly immunosuppressive drugs, the presence of common disease states and the possibility of rejection. Patients with end stage renal failure have compromised symptomatology (Davison 2006, Murphy 2009) with the most common symptoms are fatigue, sleep disturbances, loss of appetite, itching, pain and impaired well-being. Other symptoms that have been reported are cramping, abdominal pain, palpitations, edema (Murtagh 2007). Symptoms defined by the gravity of the intensity, their duration time and frequency, and the degree of discomfort (Jablonski 2007) [5].

Progress in renal transplantation and immunosuppressive therapies have increased significantly in recent decades, resulting in allograft survival rates at one year is now over 90%. The main goal of transplantation is to achieve maximum quality and longevity while minimizing the impact of disease and health care costs. Examples of such measurements are weighted on the quality of life years gained, years of life without disease, or the equivalent healthy years per unit cost of care. In renal transplantation the cost of care is not limited to the transplant procedure, and in the treatment of side effects, some of which are caused by the immunosuppressive therapy. After the first successful kidney transplant in the early 1950s, the immunosuppressive therapies significantly improved, as the most revolutionary development was the introduction of cyclosporine in early 1980. Along with better patient care and new immunosuppressive regimens, mean renal survival allografts are constantly increasing. Step by step with these advances, greater attention has been given to long-term QOL. However, so far the HRQL was evaluated only in a limited number of clinical studies, as subjective health status [1]. However, it is generally accepted that patients with a functional renal allograft have improved quality of life, compared to patients on dialysis [14], [15]. To assess the effects of the disease on quality of life, specific evaluation tools. These tools are sensitive enough to identify the disease changes, but are not suitable for comparing different diseases. Special tools to evaluate the quality of life in kidney transplant is the kidney transplant questionnaire (KTQ) [16], the quality of life in renal disease (KDQOL) [17] and the final renal failure in the transplantation center stage symptoms checklist (ESRDSC-TM ) [18]. The KTQ contains 26 questions in five areas (somatic symptoms, depression, fatigue, interpersonal relations, frustration) each of which can be rated on a scale from 1 to 7, wherein the lower score represents the lowest quality of life (QOL). For ultimately all points summarize therefore the maximum score is 182 points, and the lower 26 degrees. Also, the questionnaire should be in the mother tongue of the patient [19]. The KDQOL originally developed for patients with chronic renal failure and those undergoing dialysis. However recent documents use this tool to assess patients after transplantation, as well as to compare these patients with patients on dialysis [20]. The original KDQOL covering 11 areas with different number of elements. The symptoms / problems area includes 34 items, the effect of renal disease on daily life contains 20 items, the burden of kidney disease four elements, cognitive function 6 elements, the employment situation four elements, the quality of social interaction 4 data, sleep quality 9 items, social support 4 data and patient satisfaction two elements. The choices of answers is a Likert scale, where higher score represents better quality of life. ESRDSC-TM [1] specifically developed to assess the effects of immunosuppressive drugs on quality of life. The questions are rated on a five-point Likert scale, where again higher scores representing better quality of life (QOL). The authors [1] tested over 400 transplant patients and reviewed the retest correlation in a subset of 88 patients in one year and found sufficient validity. So far no method has proven to be ideal for measuring the quality of life in all circumstances. It has been shown that different quality of life results can be obtained in the same population, though different tools used. General tools used for comparisons between groups and studies to evaluate the effects of various diseases in the quality of life (QOL). These tools are used in research and are as follows: the profile of the effects of the disease -Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), the modified data 36 Overview of medical outcomes (36-item short-form of Medical Outcomes Survey, SF-36), and the Nottingham health profile (NHP) With more than 200 publications, the SF-36 [1] is one of the most widely used tools for evaluating the quality of life. The SF-36 questionnaire is an independent research, contains 36 elements and requires a few minutes to complete. Includes a multidimensional scale that assesses eight health areas: 1) limitations in physical activities because of health problems, 2) limitations in social activities because of physical or emotional problems, 3) limitations in usual activities due to disruption of physical health, 4) physical pain, 5) general mental health, 6) limitations in usual activities due to emotional problems, 7) vitality, 8) general perceptions of health. It has proven the validity of [28], the sensitivity to changes of therapy [29], and the suitability of patients with end stage renal failure [30].

The health-related quality of life is increasingly important outcome measures, especially in chronic diseases. The quality of life expressed as a quantitative measure of the ability of preference of the person on an outcome, which is also defined as associated with the outcome of the individual utility [4].When evaluating studies using methods based on preference (preference-based), kidney transplantation is associated with a higher quality of life than dialysis and peritoneal dialysis [81-84]. TTO index (time balancing, time trade-off) [4] originally developed by Torrance and colleagues [85] and tested for reliability and validity in patients with end stage renal failure by Churchill and his associates [81]. 

The question posed to the patient is thought to renal disease in the last 2-3 weeks and then decide between two hypothetical options: either to remain in his current state of health, with a specific life expectancy, or exchange with a number of years to live in full health. The SG method (standard risk, standard gamble) [4] from the expected utility and require the patient to take a decision involving either stay in the current mode, or can be subjected to a hypothetical treatment [86] . This therapy has two possible outcomes: 1) there is the possibility of immediate death, and 2) whether the patient will survive cured and live in full health. The EQ-5D (EuroQol-5D) [4] consists of two parts. The first part, the EQ-5D profile consists of five elements: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain / discomfort, and anxiety / depression, each with three levels of functionality: no problem, some problems and extreme problems. The second part of the questionnaire is the EQ-VAS, which ranks health from 0 (worst health state imaginable) to 100 (best health state you can imagine). The HUI (index usefulness of health) [4], the most recent version of which is HUI3, which identifies health with eight features: ambulation, dexterity, cognition, emotion, pain and discomfort, vision, hearing and speech. The general quality of life measures [5] is as follows: SF-36, SF-20, SF-12, QWB-SA, SIP. The utilitarian health measurements include the EQ-5D, the SF-6D, and the HUI. Specific measurements of quality of life in renal disease using multidimensional specific questionnaires, such as for life quality clearance Index (QLI-D), the quality of life in kidney hospital Long form (KDQOL-LF), the quality of life in kidney hospital Short form (KDQOL-SF), the questionnaire renal disease (KDQ), Questionnaire renal transplantation (KTQ), the profile of quality of life in renal disease (RQLP), Questionnaire CHOICE health experience (CHEQ) and Survey of quality of life, personalized for renal disease. Evidence response elements the SF-36 was found in a study with patients after renal transplant patients receiving other immunosuppressive drugs (Russ 2007). In measurements the SF-36 as part of KDQOL, patients with renal transplantation showed higher scores in the areas of general health and vitality compared with patients on the waiting list (Sureshkumar 2005). The SF-20 [5] assesses health in six areas, namely, body pain, general health perception, physical functioning, mental health, social functioning and functionality of the individual's role. Meers and peritoneal dialysis and renal transplantation were significantly higher rating in all areas for patients with renal transplantation. The profile of the disease impact [5] has 12 sectors, reflecting the focus of disability on quality of life with a total score ranging from 0 to 100. The physical, psychosocial and total score can be calculated. Statistically significant difference of the scores was observed before and after transplantation in 293 patients as expected (Cetingok and colleagues, 2004) Indicator D for quality of life (QLI-D) [5] developed in the USA during the 1980s as a measure of morbidity (Ferrans and Powers, 1985). A statistically significant difference was observed in patients before and after transplantation, as expected (Cetingok 2004). The renal transplant Questionnaire (KTQ) [5] was developed by Laupacis and coworkers (1993). It includes five areas: physical symptoms, fatigue, uncertainty / fear, appearance and emotions. There were significant differences in the patients' rating before and after transplantation. Scores of KTQ showed great sensitivity in a group of patients with renal transplant receiving other immunosuppressive therapy (Russ et al, 2007).

Results

In 1998 Matas [21] and his colleagues described the QOL and to evaluate used the SF-36. The authors were able to have at their disposal 446 patients evaluated once, 632 twice evaluated and 53 patients evaluated three times. The patients were referred to the time frame between the first and tenth year after transplantation. The rating of the SF-36 was not significantly changed in recent years after transplantation and were consistently lower compared to the normal population of the US. It is interesting to note that diabetic and non-diabetic patients had the same score for mental health scales, while non-diabetics had better score in physical function and general health. Matas [22] and his colleagues recently published a temporal relationship between adverse effects of immunosuppressive drugs in kidney transplant recipients and QOL. In this huge study 4247 patients were enrolled and evaluated by a QOL questionnaire. The authors conducted a multivariate analysis, which showed that emotional problems, reduced sexual interest and headache were the main factors that negatively affected the QOL in these patients. Preliminary data from the self-reported health information program entitled "Transplant Training Centre" published by Hricik [23] and his associates. The first results obtained from 3676 patients were similar to those published in the final report a year later than 4247 patients. Franke [24] and his colleagues evaluated the HRQL in patients with end stage renal failure. The study investigated the differences in quality of life in patients on the waiting list for a kidney transplant, while maintained on dialysis, and kidney transplant recipients. The result was evaluated by the SF-36 questionnaire and special tools for disease (End Stage Renal Disease Symptom Checklist-Transplantation Module). In this study, the group of 80 hemodialysis patients at the waiting list for a kidney transplant showed decreased satisfaction with social support, while 222 patients after successful renal transplantation, increased social support. Similarly, psychological distress was higher among patients maintained on dialysis, compared with transplant patients. In a similar study by Jofre [14] and his colleagues also observed improvement in 88 of 93 patients after successful renal transplantation. The authors [1] used the Karnovsky scale and the Sickness Impact Profile (in the sickness impact profile) as assessment tools. Note that although each patient after transplantation showed improved rating, particularly the male population showed significant improvement in the global rating. As expected, older patients with more comorbidities showed less improvement than younger ones.

In a randomized, open-label study in Europe, Australia and Canada, Oberbauer [25] and his colleagues investigated the outcomes of quality of life in patients after renal transplantation. In this study, 430 patients with renal transplantation, randomized three months after transplant, or continue the treatment with cyclosporin and sirolimus, or be withdrawn from the cyclosporine in a four week period. Quality of life was measured after randomisation in one and two years after the transplant, using specially tools for disease, such as KTQ and the SF-36 questionnaire. The vitality scores were higher in accordance with the SF-36 questionnaire in free ciclosporin group at two years compared to baseline, but was reduced in the combination group.

In a meta-analysis conducted by Ylian Liem [2] and his colleagues included 52 studies (Level 2b evidence according to based on the evidence the medical classification of the Oxford Centre [18]) and the quality of life was examined in 92 patient groups with renal replacement therapy, as assessed by the SF-36 [31,32,33,34-80], also the quality of life was examined in 44 groups of hemodialysis patients (30 372 patients), 20 groups of patients with peritoneal dialysis (3262 patients) and 28 groups of patients with renal transplantation (2948 patients). The majority of patients were men and so there was no statistically significant difference in the gender distribution among the three treated groups. The prevalence of diabetes was 24% in dialysis group, 17% in the PD group and 7% in the group with renal transplant patients, with a significant difference in the comparison between patients on dialysis and patients with renal transplantation. The average treatment time was 44.1 months for patients on dialysis, 24.3 months for patients on peritoneal dialysis and 63.8 months for patients with renal transplantation. Comparing all treatment groups, dialysis patients and patients with renal transplantation were significantly different average time for treatment. In addition to mental health, quality of life as assessed by the SF-36 questionnaire was higher among patients with renal transplantation compared to dialysis patients. In a meta-analysis of the emotional distress and psychological well being in hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis and after renal transplant patients, the Cameron [6] and his colleagues reported comparable differences in quality of life. Raiesifar [3] and his colleagues conducted a descriptive, analytical study, conducted in 220 renal transplant patients in clinical transplantation and nephrology two selected hospitals of Tehran city in the year 2009. A kidney transplant questionnaire (KTQ- 25) was used for data collection. The reliability KTQ-25 was set at 0.93 by Cronbach Alpha method and the questionnaire was completed by patients. The result of the study showed that the level of QOL of renal transplant patients is moderate.

The 27 studies included in the meta-analysis by Ylian Liem [4] was at least level 2b evidence in accordance with Based on the evidence medical classification Oxford center [24]. Quality of life was assessed by a single measure in most studies: three studies used the VAS (visual analogue scale) [87,91,92], eight studies the TTO index (time balancing, time tradeoff) [82,89,93 -98], a study of the SG method (standard risk, standard gamble) [104], and nine studies the EQ-5D (EuroQol-5D) [83,84,88,90,99-103]

The average utility rate of patients on hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis was significantly lower than in patients with renal transplantation, when comparing the EQ-5D index. Mean values of the index TTO patients on hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis and renal transplantation were not statistically significantly different, although the usefulness of in hemodialysis patients tended to be lower. The conclusion of a systematic review and meta-analysis of alternative forms of renal replacement therapy is that there are no statistically significant differences, although the quality of life tended to be higher for patients with renal transplantation and lower in hemodialysis patients. Cameron [105] and his colleagues reported fewer emotional disorders and greater psychological well-being for patients with renal transplantation compared with patients on hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis.

The Dylan Smith [6] and his colleagues evaluated 307 patients from a waiting list for a cadaveric transplant or kidney-pancreas transplant and 195 patients one year after a successful transplant. A subsample interviewed patients before and after transplantation. The survey included measurements of quality of life, ie a comprehensive assessment and even individual sectors, including health, work and activities. The results showed that quality of life improved after transplantation, but projections of patients before transplantation overestimated the magnitude of improvement. In addition, patients had predicted great improvements in specific areas of their lives, who have not changed. These results were confirmed by analysis perspective. Further analyzes showed that patients after renal transplantation, when asked to do recall their memory and to rate their quality of life before the transplant received lower scores compared to that were mentioned before transplantation. According to the bias effects, patients greatly overestimated the benefits of a successful kidney transplant, both in terms of the forecasts were made for their life after treatment, and memories preserved for their lives before transplantation. Shah [7] used a previously validated scale score (QLS), in which patients directly asked about their quality of life, as follows: "Considering all aspects of your life, physical, emotional, social, spiritual and economic in the last two days, the quality of your life is ... ". The QLS ranging from 0 ( "very bad") to 10 ( "excellent"). Patients came when he was free from serious medical problems. Fifty renal transplant recipients involved. Psychosocial and medical variables included the inventory index of depressed mood (Beck Depression Inventory), the effects questionnaire sickness, the Multidimensional social support scale (Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support), the time of transplantation, age, creatinine, hemoglobin and albumin levels. Of the patients 64% were African-American and 48% were women. The perception of a better quality of life is associated with lower rates of depression and minor effects of the disease and a higher perception of social support and life satisfaction. The life quality perception is not associated with age, the time of transplantation, creatinine, hemoglobin or albumin levels. The conclusion was that the QLS is a quick measurement tool for the subjective quality of life in renal transplant recipients and the correlation with psychosocial factors, interest in this patient group. The average number of patients after renal transplantation displays an improved quality of life, but this is not the case in all recipients. The purpose of the study, conducted by Bohlke [8] and his colleagues was to identify factors associated with quality of life after renal transplantation. The study population was assessed by the SF-36 were analyzed 272 renal transplant recipients operating. Hypertension, diabetes, high serum creatinine levels and low hematocrit were independently and significantly associated with a lower rating for the SF-36. The rating for the physical component was worse for women, for patients with low income, the unemployed and patients with higher serum creatinine. Among the variables studied, comorbidity and graft function were the main factors associated with the physical component, and socio-demographic variables, and graft function were the main factors that determine the mental component. Additional factors such as the personality and the environment can affect the quality of life. In the general population and in patients on dialysis, sleep disorders affect health-related quality of life. Eryilmaz [9] examined the prevalence of these sleep disorders in patients with renal transplantation, and the relationship between sleep quality and related quality of life health. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) for measuring the quality of sleep, the WHOQOL-BREF index for quality of life and the inventory ratio of depressed mood (Beck Depression Inventory) were applied to 100 patients with renal transplantation. Thirty (30%) subjects had severe sleep disorders ( "poor sleepers"). Sleep disorders are not so common in renal transplantation compared to dialysis patients, but definitely have a greater rate than the general population. Sleep disorders appear to be part of the symptomatology of depression. The severity of depression and low educational level play a major role in the quality of life of these patients, despite the quality of sleep. A controlled program live unrelated donors (LURDs) kidney transplant began in 1988 in Iran. Nejatisafa [10] examined the LURDs in order to investigate the size of the stressful situations in which they were patients before donation and their quality of life after donation. Five hundred donors participated. The study included donors, in which the donation was made at least three months before the study. The scale Paykel Life Events and the short version of the global organization quality of life (WHOQOL-Bref) used in the study. Complete data were available for 424 donors. 95% of respondents reported at least a stressful situation during the six months before the kidney donation. The three most common events in their life that trigger the stress experienced in their daily life were rising costs of living, low income and household tasks. The most stressful events were the loss of their job, financial problems and the death of a member of their family. Participants reported more stressful events with an average total score of stress double compared to the findings of a study preceding the normal population. The rating of donors in all four areas of the WHOQOL-BREF was low. The quality of life of the donors may be low and may be at risk of experiencing more stressful events in their lives. For this reason, medical supervision should be continued following the donation, with emphasis on mental health and psychosocial problems.

Conclusions

There is evidence for the use of the SF-36 [5] in patients with chronic renal failure. Yet more evidence is required before widespread use to evaluate the outcome and quality. The EQ-5D [5] is favored among the preferred measurements, as there is more evidence, but this ratio applicable to the above. Since multidimensional specific renal disease measurements in KDQOL includes most evidence. Given this overlap between the SF-36 and KDQOL, there is some benefit when used in the same survey, unlike the combination of EQ-5D and KDQOL provides additional information about the perception of patients for kidney disease. While the idea of using a short questionnaire based on severity would be very good, the main benefit would only control or recognition of symptoms. The SF-36 [5] is the only general measurement with good properties and functional characteristics. Furthermore psychometric criteria can be reproduced when administered as autonomous as possible, and when used in conjunction with KDQOL questionnaire. The EQ-5D appears to have a favorable use, since three of the four studies that used the EQ-5D were conducted in the UK. The evidence show high response rates. Although, clinical studies relating to quality of life after kidney transplantation is relatively rare, the few published studies yielded rather similar results. In general, the quality of life improved after successful renal transplantation compared with patients on dialysis, and the result was more pronounced in men than in women. In these studies it seems clear that renal transplantation is not only cheaper replacement therapy over time, associated with a lower mortality and quality of life of patients. [1, 26,27]

References

1.Wolfgang Fiebiger, Christa Mitterbauer and Rainer Oberbauer: Health-related quality of life outcomes after kidney transplantation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2004, 2:2 , http://www.hqlo.com/content/2/1/2

2.Ylian S. Liem, MD, MSc, Johanna L. Bosch, PhD, Lidia R. Arends, MSc, MA, Majanka H. Heijenbrok-Kal, PhD, M. G. Myriam Hunink, MD, PhD : Quality of Life Assessed with the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36-Item Health Survey of Patients on Renal Replacement Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Value in Health, Volume 10, Issue 5, Pages 390-397 

3.Tayebi A. , Raiesifar A. , Ebadi A. , Eynollahi B. , Rafiyan Z. , Keyvanloo F. , Review the renal transplantation patients’ quality of life by using kidney transplantation questionnaire (KTQ-25) Iranian Journal of Critical Care Nursing, 2010; 3 (3) :13-14

4. Ylian S. Liem, MD, MSc, Johanna L. Bosch, PhD, M. G. Myriam Hunink, MD, PhD: Preference-Based Quality of Life of Patients on Renal Replacement Therapy:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Value in Health,Volume 11 , Number 4 ,Pages 733-741, 2008 

5. Elizabeth Gibbons , Ray Fitzpatrick: A STRUCTURED REVIEW OF PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES FOR PEOPLE WITH CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE, 2010, Patient-reported Outcome Measurement Group , Department of Public Health , University of Oxford (http://phi.uhce.ox.ac.uk/)

6. Dylan Smith, George Loewenstein, Christopher Jepson, Aleksandra Jankovich, Harold Feldman, Peter Ubel : Mispredicting and misremembering: patients with renal failure overestimate improvements in quality of life after a kidney transplant. Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association 2008;27(5):653-8.

7. V S Shah, A Ananth, G K Sohal, W Bertges-Yost, A Eshelman, R K Parasuraman, K K Venkat : Quality of life and psychosocial factors in renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc. 2006 Jun;38(5):1283-5.

8.Bohlke M, Marini SS, Rocha M, Terhorst L, Gomes RH, Barcellos FC, Irigoyen MC, Sesso R : Factors associated with health-related quality of life after successful kidney transplantation: a population-based study. Qual Life Res. 2009 Nov;18(9):1185-93. Epub 2009 Sep 10.

9. Eryilmaz MM, Ozdemir C, Yurtman F, Cilli A, Karaman T : Quality of sleep and quality of life in renal transplantation patients. Transplant Proc. 2005 Jun;37(5):2072-6.

10. Nejatisafa AA, Mortaz-Hedjri S, Malakoutian T, Arbabi M, Hakemi MS, Haghighi AN, Mohammadi MR, Fazel I : Quality of life and life events of living unrelated kidney donors in Iran: a multicenter study . Transplantation. 2008 Oct 15;86(7):937-40.

11. Patrick DL, Chiang YP: Measurement of health outcomes in treatment effectiveness evaluations: conceptual and methodological challenges. Med Care 2000, 38:II14-25.

12. Revicki DA, Osoba D, Fairclough D, Barofsky I, Berzon R, Leidy NK, Rothman M: Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Qual Life Res 2000, 9:887-900.

13. Testa MA, Simonson DC: Assesment of quality-of-life outcomes. N Engl J Med 1996, 334:835-840.

14.Jofre R, Lopez-Gomez JM, Moreno F, Sanz-Guajardo D, Valderrabano F: Changes in quality of life after renal transplantation. Am J Kidney Dis 1998, 32:93-100.

15.Keown P: Improving quality of life--the new target for transplantation. Transplantation 2001, 72:S67-74).

16. Laupacis A, Muirhead N, Keown P, Wong C: A disease-specific questionnaire for assessing quality of life in patients on hemodialysis. Nephron 1992, 60:302-306.

17. Hays RD, Kallich JD, Mapes DL, Coons SJ, Carter WB: Development of the kidney disease quality of life (KDQOL) instrument. Qual Life Res 1994, 3:329-338.

18. Franke GH, Reimer J, Kohnle M, Luetkes P, Maehner N, Heemann U: Quality of life in end-stage renal disease patients after successful kidney transplantation: development of the ESRD symptom checklist - transplantation module. Nephron 1999, 83:31-39

19. Rebollo P, Ortega F, Ortega T, Valdes C, Garcia-Mendoza M, Gomez E: Spanish validation of the "Kidney Transplant Questionnaire": a useful instrument for assessing health related quality of life in kidney transplant patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003, 1:56.

20. Bakewell AB, Higgins RM, Edmunds ME: Does ethnicity influence perceived quality of life of patients on dialysis and following renal transplant? Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001, 16:1395-1401.

21.Matas AJ, McHugh L, Payne WD, Wrenshall LE, Dunn DL, Gruessner RW, Sutherland DE, Najarian JS: Long-term quality of life after kidney and simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation. Clin Transplant 1998, 12:233-242

22.Matas AJ, Halbert RJ, Barr ML, Helderman JH, Hricik DE, Pirsch JD, Schenkel FA, Siegal BR, Liu H, Ferguson RM: Life satisfaction and adverse effects in renal transplant recipients: a longitudinal analysis. Clin Transplant 2002, 16:113-121)

23.Hricik DE, Halbert RJ, Barr ML, Helderman JH, Matas AJ, Pirsch JD, Schenkel FA, Siegal B, Ferguson RM: Life satisfaction in renal transplant recipients: preliminary results from the transplant learning center. Am J Kidney Dis 2001, 38:580-587

24.Franke GH, Reimer J, Philipp T, Heemann U: Aspects of quality of life through end-stage renal disease. Qual Life Res 2003, 12:103-115

25.Oberbauer R, Hutchison B, Eris J, Arias M, Claesson K, Mota A, Kreis H, Kleinman L, Wang F, Chen J, Revicki DA: Health-related quality- oflife outcomes of sirolimus-treated kidney transplant patients after elimination of cyclosporine A: results of a 2- year randomized clinical trial. Transplantation 2003, 75:1277-1285)

26. Evans RW, Manninen DL, Garrison LP Jr, et al. The quality of life of patients with end-stage renal disease. N Engl J Med 1985;312:553–9.

27. Rebollo P, Ortega F. New trends on health related quality of life assessment in end-stage renal disease patients. Int Urol Nephrol 2002;33:195–202.

28. Gomez-Besteiro MI, Santiago-Perez MI, Alonso- Hernandez A, et al. Validity and reliability of the SF-36 questionnaire in patients on the waiting list for a kidney transplant and transplant patients. Am J Nephrol 2004;24:346–51. Renal Replacement Therapy Patients’ Quality of Life 395

29. Levin NW, Lazarus JM, Nissenson AR. National Cooperative rHu Erythropoietin Study in patients with chronic renal failure—an interim report. The National Cooperative rHu Erythropoietin Study Group. Am J Kidney Dis 1993;22:3–12.

30. Kurtin PS, Davies AR, Meyer KB, et al. Patient-based health status measures in outpatient dialysis. Early experiences in developing an outcomes assessment program. Med Care 1992;30:MS136–49.

31. DeOreo PB. Hemodialysis patient-assessed functional health status predicts continued survival, hospitalization, and dialysis-attendance compliance. Am J Kidney Dis 1997;30:204–12 using Short Form 36: comparison in hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2000;35:293–300.

33. Kurtin PS, Davies AR, Meyer KB, et al. Patient-based health status measures in outpatient dialysis. Early experiences in developing an outcomes assessment program. Med Care 1992;30:MS136–49.

34. Shield CF III, McGrath MM, Goss TF. Assessment of health-related quality of life in kidney transplant patients receiving tacrolimus (FK506)-based versus cyclosporine-based immunosuppression. FK506 Kidney Transplant Study Group. Transplantation1997;64:1738–43.

35. Arogundade FA, Zayed B, Daba M, Barsoum RS. Correlation between Karnofsky Performance Status Scale and Short-Form Health Survey in patients on maintenance hemodialysis. J Natl Med Assoc 2004;96:1661–7.

36. Baiardi F, Degli Esposti E, Cocchi R, et al. Effects of clinical and individual variables on quality of life in chronic renal failure patients. J Nephrol 2002;15: 61–7.

37. Bro S, Bjorner JB, Tofte-Jensen P, et al. A prospective, randomized multicenter study comparing APD and CAPD treatment. Perit Dial Int 1999;19:526– 33.

38. Buemi M, Caccamo C, Floccari F, et al. Correlation between quality of life assessment and a personality neurobiologic model in dialyzed patients. J Nephrol 2003;16:895–902.

39. Carmichael P, Popoola J, John I, et al. Assessment of quality of life in a single centre dialysis population using the KDQOL-SF questionnaire. Qual Life Res 2000;9:195–205.

40. Chang ST, Chen CL, Chen CC, et al. Enhancement of quality of life with adjustment of dry weight by echocardiographic measurement of inferior vena cava diameter in patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis. Nephron Clin Pract 2004;97:c90–7.

41. Chen YC, Hung KY, Kao TW, et al. Relationship between dialysis adequacy and quality of life in longterm peritoneal dialysis patients. Perit Dial Int 2000;20:534–40.

42. Chiang CK, Peng YS, Chiang SS, et al. Health-related quality of life of hemodialysis patients in Taiwan: a multicenter study. Blood Purif 2004;22:490–8.

43. Cleemput I, Kesteloot K, Moons P, et al. The construct and concurrent validity of the EQ-5D in a renal transplant population. Value Health 2004;7:499– 509.29 deWit GA, Merkus MP, Krediet RT, de Charro FT. A comparison of quality of life of patients on automated and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int 2001;21:306–12.

44. Franke GH, Reimer J, Kohnle M, et al. Quality of life in end-stage renal disease patients after successful kidney transplantation: development of the ESRD symptom checklist—transplantation module. Nephron 1999;83:31–9.

45. FujisawaM, Ichikawa Y, Yoshiya K, et al. Assessment of health related quality of life in renal transplant and hemodialysis patients using the SF-36 health survey. Urology 2000;56:201–6.

46. Fukuhara S, Lopes AA, Bragg-Gresham JL, et al. Health-related quality of life among dialysis patients on three continents: the Dialysis 

Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study. Kidney Int 2003;64:1903–10.

47. Goller JL, McMahon JM, Rutledge C, et al. Dialysis adequacy and self-reported health status in a group of CAPD patients. Adv Perit Dial 1997;13:128–33.

48. Groothoff JW, Grootenhuis MA, Offringa M, et al. Quality of life in adults with end-stage renal disease since childhood is only partially impaired. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2003;18:310–17.

49. Hamilton G, Locking-Cusolito H. Hemodialysis adequacy and quality of life: how do they relate? Cannt J 2003;13:24–9.

50. Hays RD, Kallich JD, Mapes DL, et al. Development of the kidney disease quality of life (KDQOL) instrument. Qual Life Res 1994;3:329–38.

51. Iliescu EA, Coo H, McMurray MH, et al. Quality of sleep and health related quality of life in haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2003;18:126– 32.

52. Juergensen PH, Zemchenkov A, Watnick S, et al. Comparison of quality-of-life assessment in Russia and the United States in chronic peritoneal dialysis patients. Adv Perit Dial 2002;18:55–7.

53. Khan IH, Garratt AM, Kumar A, et al. Patients’ perception of health on renal replacement therapy: evaluation using a new instrument. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1995;10:684–9.

54. Lee SY, Lee HJ, Kim YK, et al. Neurocognitive function and quality of life in relation to hematocrit levels in chronic hemodialysis patients. J Psychosom Res 2004;57:5–10.

55. Manns B, Johnson JA, Taub K, et al. Quality of life in patients treated with hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis: what are the important determinants? Clin Nephrol 2003;60:341–51.

56. Manu MA, Radulescu S, Harza M, et al. Quality of life assessed by SF-36 health survey in renal transplant patients. Transplant Proc 2001;33:1927–8. 396 Liem et al.

57. Matas AJ, McHugh L, Payne WD, et al. Long-term quality of life after kidney and simultaneous pancreaskidney transplantation. Clin Transplant 1998;12: 233–42.

58. Merkus MP, Jager KJ, Dekker FW, et al. Quality of life in patients on chronic dialysis: self-assessment 3 months after the start of treatment. The Necosad Study Group. Am J Kidney Dis 1997;29:584–92.

59. Molsted S, Aadahl M, Schou L, Eidemak I. Self-rated health and employment status in chronic haemodialysis patients. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2004;38:174–8.

60. Morton AR, Meers C, Singer MA, et al. Quantity of dialysis: quality of life—what is the relationship? Asaio J 1996;42:M713–17.

61. Oberbauer R, Hutchison B, Eris J, et al. Healthrelated quality-of life outcomes of sirolimus-treated kidney transplant patients after elimination of cyclosporine A: results of a 2-year randomized clinical trial. Transplantation 2003;75:1277–85.

62. Ozminkowski RJ, White AJ, Hassol A, Murphy M. General health of end stage renal disease program beneficiaries. Health Care Financ Rev 1997;19:121– 44.

63. Painter P, Carlson L, Carey S, et al. Low-functioning hemodialysis patients improve with exercise training. Am J Kidney Dis 2000;36:600–8.

64. Painter PL, Topp KS, Krasnoff JB, et al. Healthrelated fitness and quality of life following steroid withdrawal in renal transplant recipients. Kidney Int 2003;63:2309 16.

65. Paniagua R, Amato D, Vonesh E, et al. Health-related quality of life predicts outcomes but is not affected by peritoneal clearance: The ADEMEX Trial. Kidney Int 2005;67:1093–104.

66. Perneger TV, Leski M, Chopard-Stoermann C, Martin PY. Assessment of health status in chronic hemodialysis patients. J Nephrol 2003;16:252–9.

67. Pucheu S, Consoli SM, D’Auzac C, et al. Do health causal attributions and coping strategies act as moderators of quality of life in peritoneal dialysis patients? J Psychosom Res 2004;56:317–22.

68. Rebollo P, Ortega F, Baltar JM, et al. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients over 65 years. Geriatr Nephrol Urol 1998;8:85–94.

69. Sesso R, Rodrigues-Neto JF, Ferraz MB. Impact of socioeconomic status on the quality of life of ESRD patients. Am J Kidney Dis

70. Sloan RS, Kastan B, Rice SI, et al. Quality of life during and between hemodialysis treatments: role of 1-carnitine supplementation. Am J Kidney Dis 1998;32:265–72.

71. Sureshkumar KK, Mubin T, Mikhael N, et al. Assessment of quality of life after simultaneous pancreaskidney transplantation. Am J Kidney Dis 2002;39: 1300–6.

72. Taji Y, Morimoto T, Okada K, et al. Effects of intravenous ascorbic acid on erythropoiesis and quality of life in unselected hemodialysis patients. J Nephrol 2004;17:537–43.

73. Tanriverdi N, Ozcurumez G, Colak T, et al. Quality of life and mood in renal transplantation recipients, donors, and controls: preliminary report. Transplant Proc 2004;36:117–19.

74. Taskapan H, Ates F, Kaya B, et al. Psychiatric disorders and large interdialytic weight gain in patients on chronic haemodialysis. Nephrology (Carlton) 2005; 10:15–20.

75. Tawney KW, Tawney PJ, Hladik G, et al. The life readiness program: a physical rehabilitation program for patients on hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 2000;36:581–91.

76. Turk S, Guney I, Altintepe L, et al. Quality of life in male hemodialysis patients. Role of erectile dysfunction. Nephron Clin Pract 2004;96:c21–7.

63 Unruh M, Benz R, Greene T, et al. Effects of hemodialysis dose and membrane flux on health-related quality of life in the HEMO Study. Kidney Int 2004;66:355–66.

77. Vazquez I, Valderrabano F, Fort J, et al. Psychosocial factors and health-related quality of life in hemodialysis patients. Qual Life Res 2005;14:179–90.

78. Walters BA, Hays RD, Spritzer KL, et al. Healthrelated quality of life, depressive symptoms, anemia, and malnutrition at hemodialysis initiation. Am J Kidney Dis 2002;40:1185–94.

79. Wight JP, Edwards L, Brazier J, et al. The SF36 as an outcome measure of services for end stage renal failure. Qual Health Care 1998;7:209–21.

80. Wu AW, Fink NE, Marsh-Manzi JV, et al. Changes in quality of life during hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis treatment: generic and disease specific measures. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004;15:743–53

81.Churchill DN, Torrance GW, Taylor DW, et al. Measurement of quality of life in end-stage renal disease: the time trade-off approach. Clin Invest Med 1987;10:14–20.

82. Molzahn AE, Northcott HC, Dossetor JB. Quality of life of individuals with end stage renal disease. Perceptions of patients, nurses, and physicians. Anna J 1997;24:325–33; discussion 334–5.

83. Sennfalt K, Magnusson M, Carlsson P. Comparison of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis––a cost-utility analysis. Perit Dial Int 2002;22:39–47.

84. Lee AJ, Morgan CL, Conway P, Currie CJ. Characterisation and comparison of health-related quality of life for patients with renal failure. Curr Med Res Opin 2005;21:1777–83.

85.Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res 1972;7:118–33.

86.Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley, 1953.

87.Wolcott DL, Nissenson AR. Quality of life in chronic dialysis patients: a critical comparison of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) and hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 1988;11:402–12. 

88. Manns B, Johnson JA, Taub K, et al. Quality of life in patients treated with hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis: what are the important determinants? Clin Nephrol 2003;60:341–51

89. Bass EB, Wills S, Fink NE, et al. How strong are patients’ preferences in choices between dialysis modalities and doses? Am J Kidney Dis 2004;44:695–705.

90. Wasserfallen JB, Halabi G, Saudan P, et al. Quality of life on chronic dialysis: comparison between haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004;19:1594–9

91. Forsberg A, Lorenzon U, Nilsson F, Backmana L. Pain and health related quality of life after heart, kidney, and liver transplantation. Clin Transplant 1999;13: 453–60.

92. Hays RD, Kallich JD, Mapes DL, et al. Development of the kidney disease quality of life (KDQOL) instrument. Qual Life Res 1994;3:329–38.

93. Canadian Erythropoietin Study Group. Association between recombinant human erythropoietin and quality of life and exercise capacity of patients receiving haemodialysis. BMJ 1990;300:573–8

94. Churchill DN, Wallace JE, Ludwin D, et al. A comparison of evaluative indices of quality of life and cognitive function in hemodialysis patients. Control Clin Trials 1991;12(Suppl.):S159–67.

95. Harris DC, Chapman JR, Stewart JH, et al. Low dose erythropoietin in maintenance haemodialysis: improvement in quality of life and reduction in true cost of haemodialysis. Aust N Z J Med 1991;21:693–700.

96. Laupacis A, Keown P, Pus N, et al. A study of the quality of life and cost-utility of renal transplantation. Kidney Int 1996;50:235–42.

97. Sesso R, Yoshihiro MM, Ajzen H. Late diagnosis of chronic renal failure and the quality of life during dialysis treatment. Braz J Med Biol Res 1996; 29:1283–9.

98. Sesso R, Yoshihiro MM. Time of diagnosis of chronic renal failure and assessment of quality of life in haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1997; 12:2111–6.

99. Cleemput I, Kesteloot K, De Geest S, et al. Health professionals’ perceptions of health status after renal transplantation: a comparison with transplantation candidates’ expectations. Transplantation 2003;76: 176–82.

100. Greiner W, Obermann K, Graf v.d. Schulenburg J-M. Socioeconomic evaluation of kidney-transplantation in Germany. Arch Hell Med 2001;18:147–55.

101. Moons P, Vanrenterghem Y, Van Hooff JP, et al. Healthrelated quality of life and symptom experience in tacrolimus-based regimens after renal transplantation: amulticentre study. Transpl Int 2003;16:653–64.

102. Polsky D, Weinfurt KP, Kaplan B, et al. An economic and quality-of-life assessment of basiliximab vs antithymocyte globulin immunoprophylaxis in renal transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001;16: 1028–33.

103. Roderick P, Nicholson T, Armitage A, et al. An evaluation of the costs, effectiveness and quality of renal replacement therapy provision in renal satellite units in England and Wales. Health Technol Assess 2005; 9:1–178.

104.McFarlane PA, Bayoumi AM, Pierratos A, Redelmeier DA. The quality of life and cost utility of home nocturnal and conventional incenter hemodialysis. Kidney Int 2003;64:1004–11.

105.Cameron JI, Whiteside C, Katz J, Devins GM. Differences in quality of life across renal replacement therapies: a meta-analytic comparison. Am J Kidney Dis 2000;35:629–37.

____________________________________________

Chapter 2

https://www.slideshare.net/komalicarol/renal-failure-and-quality-ofllife-indicators-in-kidney-transplantation

http://acmcasereports.com/articles/ACMCR-v9-1775.pdf

Annals of Clinical and Medical Case Reports

Review Article

 ISSN 2639-8109

Ann Clin Med Case Rep. 2022; V9(2): 1-2

Renal failure and Quality of Life Indicators in Kidney Transplantation

http://acmcasereports.com/articles/ACMCR-v9-1775.pdf

Maria Dalamagka

1. Abstract

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) contains many aspects of patients' health such as physical, psychological, social functioning and a general well-being. Progress in renal transplantation and immunosuppressive therapies have increased significantly in recent decades, resulting in allograft survival rates at one year is now over 90%. Numerous clinical trials have established the importance of quality of life in a variety of diseases, and it is extremely popular to evaluate quality of life in clinical trials as a measure of patients' subjective state of health. The purpose of the study was to identify factors associated with quality of life after renal transplantation.

2. Introduction

Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice in end stage renal failure. The transplantation may be the focus for increasing survival and to maximize quality of life. However, there are certain factors that may affect the quality of life after transplantation, such as side effects from highly immunosuppressive drugs, the presence of common disease states and the possibility of rejection. The main goal of transplantation is to achieve maximum quality and longevity while minimizing the impact of disease and health care costs. HRQL is also progressively being recognized as an important outcome measure after organ transplantation. Along with other indicators related to patient improvement and graft survival, quality of life has been assessed as a valid outcome measure. Research on quality of life aims to lead to a broader view of subjective health, as they consider health to be a puzzle of general well-being. It is generally accepted that patients with a functional kidney transplant have an improved quality of life compared to patients undergoing dialysis. Specific tools in assessing the quality of life in a kidney transplant are: the kidney transplant questionnaire (KTQ), the quality of life in kidney disease (KDQOL), and the transplant unit's end-stage renal disease (ESRDSC-TM) checklist. The ESRDSC-TM was developed specifically to evaluate the effects of immunosuppressive drugs on quality of life. The authors screened more than 400 transplant patients and evaluated the re-screening correlation in a subset of 88 patients over a one-year period and found sufficient validity. General tools are used for comparisons between groups and studies and to assess the impact of different diseases on quality of life (QOL). These tools are used in research and are as follows: Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), the 36-item modified medical Outcomes Survey (SF-36), and the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP). With more than 200 publications, the SF-36 is one of the most widely used tools for assessing quality of life [1-16].

3. Results

There is evidence for the use of the SF-36 in patients with chronic renal failure. The EQ-5D is favored among the preferred measurements, as there is more evidence, but this ratio applicable to the above. Since multidimensional specific renal disease measurements in KDQOL includes most evidence. Given this overlap between the SF-36 and KDQOL, there is some benefit when used in the same survey, unlike the combination of EQ-5D and KDQOL provides additional information about the perception of patients for kidney disease. While the idea of using a short questionnaire based on severity would be very good, the main benefit would only control or recognition of symptoms. The SF-36 is the only general measurement with good properties and functional characteristics. Further more psychometric criteria can be reproduced when administered as autonomous as possible, and when used in conjunction with KDQOL questionnaire. The EQ-5D appears to have a favorable use, since three of the four studies that used the EQ-5D were conducted in the UK. The evidence show high response rates.

4. Conclusion

In general, quality of life improved after a successful kidney transplant compared with dialysis patients, and the effect was more pronounced in men than in women. These studies clearly show that kidney transplantation is not only the cheapest long-term replacement therapy, but is also associated with lower mortality and better quality of life for patients. 

References

1. Bass EB, Wills S, Fink NE. How strong are patients’ preferences in choices between dialysis modalities and doses? Am J Kidney Dis. 2004; 44: 695-705.

2. Wasserfallen JB, Halabi G, Saudan P. Quality of life on chronic dialysis: comparison between haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2004; 19: 1594-9

3. Forsberg A, Lorenzon U, Nilsson F, Backmana L. Pain and health related quality of life after heart, kidney, and liver transplantation. Clin Transplant 1999;13: 453-60.

4. Hays RD, Kallich JD, Mapes DL. Development of the kidney disease quality of life (KDQOL) instrument. Qual Life Res. 1994; 3: 329-38.

5. Canadian Erythropoietin Study Group. Association between recombinant human erythropoietin and quality of life and exercise capacity of patients receiving haemodialysis. BMJ 1990; 300: 573-8

6. Churchill DN, Wallace JE, Ludwin D. A comparison of evaluative indices of quality of life and cognitive function in hemodialysis patients. Control Clin Trials 1991; 12(Suppl.): S159-67.

7. Harris DC, Chapman JR, Stewart JH. Low dose erythropoietin in maintenance haemodialysis: improvement in quality of life and reduction in true cost of haemodialysis. Aust N Z J Med. 1991; 21: 693-700.

8. Laupacis A, Keown P, Pus N. A study of the quality of life and cost-utility of renal transplantation. Kidney Int 1996; 50: 235-42.

9. Sesso R, Yoshihiro MM, Ajzen H. Late diagnosis of chronic renal failure and the quality of life during dialysis treatment. Braz J Med Biol Res. 1996; 29: 1283-9.

10. Sesso R, Yoshihiro MM. Time of diagnosis of chronic renal failure and assessment of quality of life in haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1997; 12: 2111-6.

11. Cleemput I, Kesteloot K, De Geest S. Health professionals’ perceptions of health status after renal transplantation: a comparison with transplantation candidates’ expectations. Transplantation. 2003; 76: 176-82.

12. Greiner W, Obermann K, Graf vd. Schulenburg J-M. Socioeconomic evaluation of kidney-transplantation in Germany. Arch Hell Med. 2001; 18: 147-55.

13. Moons P, Vanrenterghem Y, Van Hooff JP. Healthrelated quality of life and symptom experience in tacrolimus-based regimens after renal transplantation: amulticentre study. Transpl Int. 2003; 16: 653-64.

14. Polsky D, Weinfurt KP, Kaplan B. An economic and quality-of-life assessment of basiliximab vs antithymocyte globulin immunoprophylaxis in renal transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2001;16: 1028-33.

15. Roderick P, Nicholson T, Armitage A. An evaluation of the costs, effectiveness and quality of renal replacement therapy provision in renal satellite units in England and Wales. Health Technol Assess. 2005; 9: 1-178.

16. McFarlane PA, Bayoumi AM, Pierratos A, Redelmeier DA. The quality of life and cost utility of home nocturnal and conventional incenter hemodialysis. Kidney Int. 2003; 64: 1004-11.

_____________________________________________

Chapter 3

Pathology associated with kidney failure and anesthesia 

Maria I. Dalamagka 

Magna Scientia Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 12(01), 106–109

Abstract

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is defined as either a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of <60 ml min−1 1.73 m−2 for 3 months or more, irrespective of cause, or kidney damage leading to a decrease in GFR, present for 3 months or more. The damage may manifest as abnormalities in the composition of blood or urine, on radiological imaging, or in histology. CKD is classified into five stages depending on GFR, ranging from Stage 1 - normal GFR to Stage 5 - established renal failure. Patients with kidney disease undergoing surgery and anesthesia are at high risk for increased adverse events that include, cardiovascular complications and mortality, and further deterioration of renal function and development of acute kidney injury (AKI) due to perioperative injuries that are caused by hemodynamic instability, hypovolemia, or drug toxicity. Special consideration should be placed on preventing further deterioration of renal function as well as protection of existing renal function in patients with moderate to severe impairment from the effects of anesthetics and pain medications. Analgesics such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can contribute to a reduction of the residual renal function in CKD and should be avoided. Renal IR injury is a risk factor for acute renal failure and delayed graft function. Pathogenic factors for renal IR include, but are not limited to, the following: oxidative stress, inflammation, cellular necrosis, and apoptosis. Further clinical studies are required to address the optimal medication regimen that can be used for postoperative pain management in the more severe stages of CKD, including hemodialysis.

____________________________________________

Chapter 4

Updates and New Trends in Medicine

PUBLICHEALTHMEET2021. INTERNATIONAL MEET ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT. NOVEMBER 04-05, 2021. Page- 43. Virtual Presentations. ALBEDO MEETINGS

https://www.albedomeetings.com/cms/pdfs/PUBLICHEALTHMEET2021_abstract_book.pdf

https://www.albedomeetings.com/2021/publichealthmeet

Maria Dalamagka

Abstract

Update medicine means progress and experimentation. Without updates and new trends in medicine, there would be no visible progress. That provides us the opportunity to attempt something new, which has the potential of shifting cultural current to form an underlying intuition. Updates can be utilized to reach specific demographics more effectively and gives the opportunity to define the current era we are living in. Healthcare is one of the essential, dynamic industries. The constant demand for innovation, improvement in its outcome, quality, accessibility, and affordability are making it one of those industries, that is full of new opportunities and innovations. There has been a shift in utilizing technology to enable prevention and primary care such as wearable devices that track patient’s data at a distance rather than using it for advanced specialty care. Technology such as Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, VR, AR, Wearables will emerge as significant tools to help healthcare providers and organizations to operate more effectively. Telehealth is extremely efficient in saving the time and stress of both the physician and the patients. Digital health is graduallyo ccupying a significant position in our daily lives, making it a worthy tool in medical device.