Background and objectives Outcomes of older patients with ESRD undergoing RRT or conservative management (CM) are uncertain. Adequate survival data, specifically of older patients, are needed for proper counseling. We compared survival of older renal patients choosing either CM or RRT. Design, setting, participants, & measurements A retrospective survival analysis was performed of a single-center cohort in a nonacademic teaching hospital in The Netherlands from 2004 to 2014. Patients with ESRD ages ≥70 years old at the time that they opted for CM or RRT were included. Patients with acute on chronic renal failure needing immediate start of dialysis were excluded. Results In total, 107 patients chose CM, and 204 chose RRT. Patients choosing CM were older (mean±SD: 83±4.5 versus 76±4.4 years; P<0.001). The Davies comorbidity scores did not differ significantly between both groups. Median survival of those choosing RRT was higher than those choosing CM from time of modality choice (median; 75th to 25th percentiles: 3.1, 1.5–6.9 versus 1.5, 0.7–3.0 years; log-rank test: P<0.001) and all other starting points (P<0.001 in all patients). However, the survival advantage of patients choosing RRT was no longer observed in patients ages ≥80 years old (median; 75th to 25th percentiles: 2.1, 1.5–3.4 versus 1.4, 0.7–3.0 years; log-rank test: P=0.08). The survival advantage was also substantially reduced in patients ages ≥70 years old with Davies comorbidity scores of ≥3, particularly with cardiovascular comorbidity, although the RRT group maintained its survival advantage at the 5% significance level (median; 75th to 25th percentiles: 1.8, 0.7–4.1 versus 1.0, 0.6–1.4 years; log-rank test: P=0.02). Conclusions In this single–center observational study, there was no statistically significant survival advantage among patients ages ≥80 years old choosing RRT over CM. Comorbidity was associated with a lower survival advantage. This provides important information for decision making in older patients with ESRD. CM could be a reasonable alternative to RRT in selected patients.

Value-based health care is increasingly promoted as a strategy for improving care quality by benchmarking outcomes that matter to patients relative to the cost of obtaining those outcomes. To support the shift toward value-based health care in chronic kidney disease (CKD), the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled an international working group of health professionals and patient representatives to develop a standardized minimum set of patient-centered outcomes targeted for clinical use. The considered outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures were generated from systematic literature reviews. Feedback was sought from patients and health professionals. Patients with very high-risk CKD (stages G3a/A3 and G3b/A2-G5, including dialysis, kidney transplantation, and conservative care) were selected as the target population. Using an online modified Delphi process, outcomes important to all patients were selected, such as survival and hospitalization, and to treatment-specific subgroups, such as vascular access survival and kidney allograft survival. Patient-reported outcome measures were included to capture domains of health-related quality of life, which were rated as the most important outcomes by patients. Demographic and clinical variables were identified to be used as case-mix adjusters. Use of these consensus recommendations could enable institutions to monitor, compare, and improve the quality of their CKD care.

Conservative care is argued to be a reasonable treatment alternative for dialysis in older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, comparisons are scarce and generally focus on survival only. Comparative data on more patient-relevant outcomes are needed to truly foster shared decision-making on an individual level, and cost comparison is needed to assess value of care. We conducted a retrospective observational single-center cohort study in 366 patients aged ≥70 years with advanced CKD, who chose dialysis (n = 240) or conservative care (n = 126) after careful counselling by a multidisciplinary team in a non-academic teaching hospital in The Netherlands. Using a value-based health care approach (value = outcomes/cost): survival, health-related quality of life—cross-sectionally assessed with the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form™—treatment burden, and treatment costs were evaluated. The overall survival benefit of patients on a dialysis pathway compared with patients on conservative care diminished or lost significance in patients aged ≥80 years or with severe comorbidity. There were no differences between patients managed conservatively and dialysis patients on physical and mental health summary scores (all P > 0.1). Patients on conservative care had 352.7 hospital free days per year versus 282.7 in patients on a dialysis pathway, calculated from treatment decision (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.09 to 1.21, P < 0.001). Annual treatment costs were lower in patients on conservative care (adjusted cost ratio: 0.43, 95% confidence interval: 0.28 to 0.67, P < 0.001). In this study, conservative care is shown to be a viable treatment option in older patients with advanced CKD, particularly in the oldest old and those with severe comorbidity. By achieving similar outcomes at lower treatment burden and treatment costs, value was generated for older patients choosing conservative care and society.

Background: Non-dialytic conservative care (CC) has been proposed as a viable alternative to maintenance dialysis for selected older patients to treat end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). This systematic review compares both treatment pathways on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptoms, which are major outcomes for patients and clinicians when deciding on preferred treatment.Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus and PsycINFO from inception to 1 October 2019 for studies comparing patient-reported HRQoL outcomes or symptoms between patients who chose either CC or dialysis for ESKD.Results: Eleven observational cohort studies were identified comprising 1718 patients overall. There were no randomized controlled trials. Studies were susceptible to selection bias and confounding. In most studies, patients who chose CC were older and had more comorbidities and worse functional status than patients who chose dialysis. Results were broadly consistent across studies, despite considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity. Patient-reported physical health outcomes and symptoms appeared to be worse in patients who chose CC compared with patients who chose dialysis but had not yet started, but similar compared with patients on dialysis. Mental health outcomes were similar between patients who chose CC or dialysis, including before and after dialysis start. In patients who chose dialysis, the burden of kidney disease and impact on daily life increased after dialysis start.Conclusions: The available data, while heterogeneous, suggest that in selected older patients, CC has the potential to achieve similar HRQoL and symptoms compared with a dialysis pathway. High-quality prospective studies are needed to confirm these provisional findings.

An increasing number of older patients have to decide on a treatment plan for advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), involving dialysis or conservative care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended as the model for decision-making in such preference-sensitive decisions. The aim of SDM is to come to decisions that are consistent with the patient’s values and preferences and made by the patient and healthcare professional working together. In clinical practice, however, SDM appears to be not yet routine and needs further implementation. A shift from a biomedical to a person-centered conception might help to make the process more shared. Shared should, therefore, be interpreted as two persons bringing two perspectives to the table, that both need to be explored during the decision-making process. Starting from the patient’s perspective will enable to determine the mutual goals of care first and, subsequently, determine the best way for achieving those goals. To perform such SDM, the healthcare professional needs to become a skilled companion, being part of the patient’s relational context, and start asking the right questions about what matters to the patient as person. In this article, we describe the need for a person-centered conception of SDM for the setting of older patients with advanced CKD.

Many older patients approaching end-stage kidney disease have to decide whether to go for dialysis or non-dialytic conservative care (CC). Shared decision-making is recommended to align the treatment plan with the patient’s preferences and values. Little is known about older patients’ experiences with shared decision-making on dialysis or CC. We performed a survey study, in collaboration with the Dutch Kidney Patients Association, in 99 patients aged ≥70 years who had chosen dialysis (n = 75) or CC (n = 24) after a shared decision-making process involving an experienced multidisciplinary team. Patients stated to be overall satisfied with the shared decision-making process (% with score 6–10 on 11-point Likert scale, dialysis versus CC: 93% vs. 91%, P = 0.06), and treatment decision (87% vs. 91%, P = 0.03). However, patients also reported negative experiences, especially those who had chosen dialysis. Such negative experiences were related to the timing, informing, and level of decision-making being shared. More patients who selected dialysis indicated to have felt forced to make a decision, mostly due to the circumstances, such as their deteriorating health or kidney function, or by their nephrologist (31% vs. 5%, P = 0.01). Also, patients who selected dialysis mentioned a perceived lack of choice as most common reason for choosing dialysis, and 55% considered their own opinion as most important rather than their nephrologists’ or relatives’ opinion compared to 90% of the patients who had chosen CC (P = 0.02). A subset of patients who had chosen dialysis still doubted their treatment decision compared to no patient who had chosen CC (17% vs. 0%, P = 0.03). Older patients reported contrasting experiences with shared decision-making on dialysis or CC. Despite high overall satisfaction, the underlying negative experiences illustrate important but modifiable barriers to an optimal shared decision-making process.