Browsing by Author "Blake, Peter G."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Effect of a Novel Multicomponent Intervention to Improve Patient Access to Kidney Transplant and Living Kidney Donation: The EnAKT LKD Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial
    (American Medical Association, 2023) Garg, Amit X.; Yohanna, Seychelle; Naylor, Kyla L.; McKenzie, Susan Q.; Mucsi, Istvan; Dixon, Stephanie N.; Luo, Bin; Sontrop, Jessica M.; Beaucage, Mary; Belenko, Dmitri; Coghlan, Candice; Cooper, Rebecca; Elliott, Lori; Getchell, Leah; Heale, Esti; Ki, Vincent; Nesrallah, Gihad; Patzer, Rachel E.; Presseau, Justin; Reich, Marian; Treleaven, Darin; Wang, Carol; Waterman, Amy D.; Zaltzman, Jeffrey; Blake, Peter G.; Surgery, School of Medicine
    Importance: Patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) have the best chance for a longer and healthier life if they receive a kidney transplant. However, many barriers prevent patients from receiving a transplant. Objectives: To evaluate the effect of a multicomponent intervention designed to target several barriers that prevent eligible patients from completing key steps toward receiving a kidney transplant. Design, setting, and participants: This pragmatic, 2-arm, parallel-group, open-label, registry-based, superiority, cluster randomized clinical trial included all 26 CKD programs in Ontario, Canada, from November 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. These programs provide care for patients with advanced CKD (patients approaching the need for dialysis or receiving maintenance dialysis). Interventions: Using stratified, covariate-constrained randomization, allocation of the CKD programs at a 1:1 ratio was used to compare the multicomponent intervention vs usual care for 4.2 years. The intervention had 4 main components, (1) administrative support to establish local quality improvement teams; (2) transplant educational resources; (3) an initiative for transplant recipients and living donors to share stories and experiences; and (4) program-level performance reports and oversight by administrative leaders. Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the rate of steps completed toward receiving a kidney transplant. Each patient could complete up to 4 steps: step 1, referred to a transplant center for evaluation; step 2, had a potential living donor contact a transplant center for evaluation; step 3, added to the deceased donor waitlist; and step 4, received a transplant from a living or deceased donor. Results: The 26 CKD programs (13 intervention, 13 usual care) during the trial period included 20 375 potentially transplant-eligible patients with advanced CKD (intervention group [n = 9780 patients], usual-care group [n = 10 595 patients]). Despite evidence of intervention uptake, the step completion rate did not significantly differ between the intervention vs usual-care groups: 5334 vs 5638 steps; 24.8 vs 24.1 steps per 100 patient-years; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.87-1.15). Conclusions and relevance: This novel multicomponent intervention did not significantly increase the rate of completed steps toward receiving a kidney transplant. Improving access to transplantation remains a global priority that requires substantial effort.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A Patient-Centered Approach to Hemodialysis Vascular Access in the Era of Fistula First
    (Wiley, 2016-03) Kalloo, Sean; Blake, Peter G.; Wish, Jay; Department of Medicine, IU School of Medicine
    The primary vascular access options for the hemodialysis population are arteriovenous fistulas (AVF), arteriovenous grafts, and cuffed central venous catheters (CVC). AVFs are associated with the most favorable outcomes with respect to complications, interventions required to maintain functionality and patency, and overall cost. These population-based outcomes, in conjunction with the efforts of the Fistula First Breakthrough Initiative, have propelled the prevalence of AVFs in the US hemodialysis population. While this endeavor remains steadfast in assuring the continued dominance of this policy for AVF preference, it fails to take into account a subset of the dialysis population who will fail to see the benefits of an AVF. This subset of patients may include the elderly, those with poor vasculature anatomy, those with slowly progressive CKD who are more likely to die than progress to ESRD, and those with an overall poor long-term prognosis and shortened life expectancy. Thus, in an effort to avoid numerous unnecessary surgical and interventional procedures with minimal to no gains in clinical outcomes, an individualized patient approach must be adopted. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services–instituted quality incentive program is designed to reward high AVF prevalence while also penalizing high CVC prevalence. The current model is devoid of case-based adjustment, thus penalties are disbursed to dialysis providers in accordance with a “one-size-fits-all” fistula only approach. The most suitable access for a patient remains the one that takes into account the characteristics unique to the individual patient with a primary focus on patient comfort, satisfaction, quality of life, and clinical outcomes.