4.7 Article

Nurse Practitioner Care Improves Renal Outcome in Patients with CKD

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2012121222

关键词

-

资金

  1. Dutch Kidney Foundation (Nierstichting Nederland) [PV01]
  2. Netherlands Heart Foundation (Nederlandse Hartstichting) [2003B261]
  3. Amgen
  4. Genzyme
  5. Pfizer
  6. Sanofi-Aventis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Treatment goals for patients with CKD are often unrealized for many reasons, but support by nurse practitioners may improve risk factor levels in these patients. Here, we analyzed renal endpoints of the Multifactorial Approach and Superior Treatment Efficacy in Renal Patients with the Aid of Nurse Practitioners (MASTERPLAN) study after extended follow-up to determine whether strict implementation of current CKD guidelines through the aid of nurse practitioners improves renal outcome. In total, 788 patients with moderate to severe CKD were randomized to receive nurse practitioner support added to physician care (intervention group) or physician care alone (control group). Median follow-up was 5.7 years. Renal outcome was a secondary endpoint of the MASTERPLAN study. We used a composite renal endpoint of death, ESRD, and 50% increase in serum creatinine. Event rates were compared with adjustment for baseline serum creatinine concentration and changes in estimated GFR were determined. During the randomized phase, there were small but significant differences between the groups in BP, proteinuria, LDL cholesterol, and use of aspirin, statins, active vitamin D, and antihypertensive medications, in favor of the intervention group. The intervention reduced the incidence of the composite renal endpoint by 20% (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.66 to 0.98; P=0.03). In the intervention group, the decrease in estimated GFR was 0.45 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) per year less than in the control group (P=0.01). In conclusion, additional support by nurse practitioners attenuated the decline of kidney function and improved renal outcome in patients with CKD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据