The Surprise Question: ‘Would I be surprised if this patient Compound Library price died in the next year?’ has been shown to assist clinicians in identifying those patients for whom palliative care referral is appropriate. In one study in dialysis patients, the odds of dying within 1 year were 3.5 times higher in the ‘no’ patient group than the ‘yes’ patient group. Population validated for: Dialysis patients Advantages: Introduces good clinical judgement Easy prognostic tool to incorporate into clinical practice Disadvantages: Weaker prognostic value than in combination with selected variables from the MCS (age, serum albumin level, dementia, peripheral vascular disease) Cohen et al. developed a
simple prognostic model to assist in determining risk
of death in dialysis patients by combining four routine variables – age, serum albumin, presence of dementia and peripheral vascular disease – together with the nephrologist’s answer to the Surprise Question. Combination of selected variables from the MCS and the Surprise Question had superior prognostic value than either tool independently. Population validated for: Dialysis patients Advantages: Simple BGB324 solubility dmso bedside tool for predicting 6-month mortality Superior to using MCS or Surprise Question in isolation A ‘Surprise Question Predictor’ calculator incorporating the above variables with the Surprise Question is available from the website http://nephron.com. It is also available (at cost) as a download for iPhones and iPads. It succinctly estimates predicted survival at 6 months, 12 months and 18 months. Disadvantages: Not yet validated in non-dialysis patients Low short-term positive predictive value versus model by Couchoud et al. Cepharanthine (see below) Couchoud et al. developed and validated a simple clinical score in elderly (>75 years) ESKD patients to determine their 6-month prognosis should they commence dialysis. Interestingly, age was not associated with early mortality. Nine risk factors were identified and allocated points. Mortality rates ranged from 8% in the lowest risk group (0 point) to 17% in the median group (2 points) to 70% in the highest group (≥9 points) (Tables 4).
This clinical score should be viewed as a tool to facilitate discussion with the patient and family as to possible prognosis. Population validated for: Non-dialysis patients Advantages: Simple bedside tool for predicting 6-month mortality if elderly ESKD patients started receiving dialysis Disadvantages: High variability in mortality within each risk group, therefore, not appropriate to be used to withhold dialysis treatment from a patient but rather to facilitate discussion with the patient and family These recommendations are based on the expert consensus opinion of the RPA Working Group who performed systematic literature reviews relating to decisions to withhold or withdraw dialysis from adult and paediatric patients with acute kidney injury (AKI), CKD and ESRD.