• Am. J. Kidney Dis. · Jul 2017

    Multicenter Study Observational Study

    Reliability and Utility of the Surprise Question in CKD Stages 4 to 5.

    • Andrei D Javier, Rocio Figueroa, Edward D Siew, Huzaifah Salat, Jennifer Morse, Thomas G Stewart, Rakesh Malhotra, Manisha Jhamb, Jane O Schell, Cesar Y Cardona, Cathy A Maxwell, T Alp Ikizler, and Khaled Abdel-Kader.
    • Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; Vanderbilt Center for Kidney Disease, Nashville, TN.
    • Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2017 Jul 1; 70 (1): 93-101.

    BackgroundPrognostic uncertainty is one barrier to engaging in goals-of-care discussions in chronic kidney disease (CKD). The surprise question ("Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?") is a tool to assist in prognostication. However, it has not been studied in non-dialysis-dependent CKD and its reliability is unknown.Study DesignObservational study.Setting & Participants388 patients at least 60 years of age with non-dialysis-dependent CKD stages 4 to 5 who were seen at an outpatient nephrology clinic.PredictorTrinary (ie, Yes, Neutral, or No) and binary (Yes or No) surprise question response.OutcomesMortality, test-retest reliability, and blinded inter-rater reliability.MeasurementsBaseline comorbid conditions, Charlson Comorbidity Index, cause of CKD, and baseline laboratory values (ie, serum creatinine/estimated glomerular filtration rate, serum albumin, and hemoglobin).ResultsMedian patient age was 71 years with median follow-up of 1.4 years, during which time 52 (13%) patients died. Using the trinary surprise question, providers responded Yes, Neutral, and No for 202 (52%), 80 (21%), and 106 (27%) patients, respectively. About 5%, 15%, and 27% of Yes, Neutral, and No patients died, respectively (P<0.001). Trinary surprise question inter-rater reliability was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.42-0.72), and test-retest reliability was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.54-0.72). The trinary surprise question No response had sensitivity and specificity of 55% and 76%, respectively (95% CIs, 38%-71% and 71%-80%, respectively). The binary surprise question had sensitivity of 66% (95% CI, 49%-80%; P=0.3 vs trinary), but lower specificity of 68% (95% CI, 63%-73%; P=0.02 vs trinary).LimitationsSingle center, small number of deaths.ConclusionsThe surprise question associates with mortality in CKD stages 4 to 5 and demonstrates moderate to good reliability. Future studies should examine how best to deploy the surprise question to facilitate advance care planning in advanced non-dialysis-dependent CKD.Copyright © 2017 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…