Browsing by Author "Thadhani, Ravi I."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Mobility Impairment in Patients New to Dialysis
    (Karger, 2020) Moorthi, Ranjani N.; Fadel, William F.; Cranor, Alissa; Hindi, Judy; Avin, Keith G.; Lane, Kathleen A.; Thadhani, Ravi I.; Moe, Sharon M.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Impaired mobility is associated with functional dependence, frailty, and mortality in prevalent patients undergoing dialysis. We investigated risk factors for mobility impairment, (poor gait speed) in patients incident to dialysis, and changes in gait speed over time in a 2-year longitudinal study. Methods: One hundred eighty-three patients enrolled within 6 months of dialysis initiation were followed up 6, 12, and 24 months later. Grip strength, health-related quality of life, and comorbidities were assessed at baseline. Outcomes were (a) baseline gait speed and (b) change in gait speed over time. Gait speed was assessed by 4-meter walk. Multivariate linear regression was used to identify risk factors for low gait speed at baseline. For longitudinal analyses, linear mixed effects modeling with gait speed modeled over time was used as the outcome. Results: Participants were 54.7 ± 12.8 years old, 52.5% men, 73.9% black with mean dialysis vintage of 100.1 ± 46.9 days and median gait speed 0.78 (0.64-0.094) m/s. Lower health utility and grip strength, diabetic nephropathy, and walking aids were associated with lower baseline gait speed. Loss of 0.1 m/s gait speed occurred in 24% of subjects at 1 year. In multivariate mixed effects models, only age, walking aid use, lower health utility, and lower handgrip strength were significantly associated with gait speed loss. Conclusions: In our cohort of incident dialysis patients, overall gait speed is very low and 54.2% of the subjects continue to lose gait speed over 2 years. Older age, lower handgrip strength, and quality of life are risk factors for slowness. Patients at highest risk of poor gait speed can be identified at dialysis initiation to allow targeted implementation of therapeutic options.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Prevalence and Persistence of Uremic Symptoms in Incident Dialysis Patients
    (ASN, 2020-02-01) Rhee, Eugene P.; Guallar, Eliseo; Hwang, Seungyoung; Kim, Noori; Tonelli, Marcello; Moe, Sharon M.; Himmelfarb, Jonathan; Thadhani, Ravi I.; Powe, Neil R.; Shafi, Tariq; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background Uremic symptoms are major contributors to the poor quality of life among patients on dialysis, but whether their prevalence or intensity has changed over time is unknown. Methods We examined responses to validated questionnaires in two incident dialysis cohort studies, the Choices for Health Outcomes in Caring for ESRD (CHOICE) study (N=926, 1995–1998) and the Longitudinal United States/Canada Incident Dialysis (LUCID) study (N=428, 2011–2017). We determined the prevalence and severity of uremic symptoms—anorexia, nausea/vomiting, pruritus, sleepiness, difficulty concentrating, fatigue, and pain—in both cohorts. Results In CHOICE and LUCID, respectively, mean age of the participants was 58 and 60 years, 53% and 60% were male, and 28% and 32% were black. In both cohorts, 54% of the participants had diabetes. Median time from dialysis initiation to the symptoms questionnaires was 45 days for CHOICE and 77 days for LUCID. Uremic symptom prevalence in CHOICE did not change from baseline to 1-year follow-up and was similar across CHOICE and LUCID. Baseline symptom prevalence in CHOICE and LUCID was as follows: anorexia (44%, 44%, respectively), nausea/vomiting (36%, 43%), pruritus (72%, 63%), sleepiness (86%, 68%), difficulty concentrating (55%, 57%), fatigue (89%, 77%), and pain (82%, 79%). In both cohorts, >80% of patients had three or more symptoms and >50% had five or more symptoms. The correlation between individual symptoms was low (ρ<0.5 for all comparisons). In CHOICE, no clinical or laboratory parameter was strongly associated with multiple symptoms. Conclusions The burden of uremic symptoms among patients on dialysis is substantial and has not changed in the past 15 years. Improving quality of life will require identification of the factors that underlie the pathogenesis of uremic symptoms and better ways of removing the toxins that are responsible.