No abstract

SummaryBackground and objectives Hyperuricemia is associated with hypertension, coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease. However, there are no specific data on the relationship of uric acid to cardiovascular disease in the chronic hemodialysis setting.Design, setting, participants, & measurements Data from 5827 patients on chronic hemodialysis from six countries affiliated with the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) were analyzed. All laboratory data were based upon the initial cross-section of patients in DOPPS I and II. Cox regression was used to calculate the hazard ratio (HR) of all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality with adjustments for case-mix including 14 classes of comorbidity.Results There were no clinically significant differences in baseline characteristics between those who had measured uric acid (n ϭ 4637) and those who did not (n ϭ 1190). Uric acid level was associated with lower all-cause mortality (HR: 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90 to 1.00 per 1 mg/dl higher uric acid level) and CV mortality (HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.86 to 0.99). When analyzed as a dichotomous variable, the adjusted HR at uric acid Յ8.2 mg/dl compared with Ͼ8.2 mg/dl was 1.24 (95% CI: 1.03 to 1.49) for all-cause mortality and 1.54 (95% CI: 1.15 to 2.07) for CV mortality. ConclusionsHigher uric acid levels were associated with lower risk of all-cause and CV mortality in the hemodialysis population. These results are in contrast to the association of hyperuricemia with higher cardiovascular risk in the general population and should be the subject of further research.

Differences in outcomes indeed exist among transplant programs and organ procurement organizations (OPO).A growing set of tools are available from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) to measure and assess these outcomes in the different phases of the transplant process. These tools are not intended to compare two individual programs, rather to help identify programs whose practices may need further scrutiny, to be either avoided, corrected or emulated.To understand which differences in outcomes might be due to underlying differences in populations served and which might be due to differences in treatment, it is important to compare outcomes to 'risk-adjusted' expected values. Further, it is important to recognize and assess the role that random chance may play in these outcomes by considering the p-value or confidence interval of each estimate. We present the reader with a basic explanation of these tools and their interpretation in the context of reading the SRTR ProgramSpecific Reports.We describe the intended audience of these reports, including patients, monitoring and process improvement bodies, payers and others such as the media. Use of these statistics in a way that reflects a basic understanding of these concepts and their limitations is beneficial for all audiences.

Continuous quality improvement efforts have become a central focus of leading health care organizations.The transplant community has been a pioneer in periodic review of clinical outcomes to ensure the optimal use of limited donor organs. Through data collected from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) and analyzed by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR), transplantation professionals have intermittent access to specific, accurate and clinically relevant data that provides information to improve transplantation. Statistical process control techniques, including cumulative sum charts (CUSUM), are designed to provide continuous, realtime assessment of clinical outcomes. Through the use of currently collected data, CUSUMs can be constructed that provide risk-adjusted program-specific data to inform quality improvement programs. When retrospectively compared to currently available data reporting, the CUSUM method was found to detect clinically significant changes in center performance more rapidly, which has the potential to inform center leadership and enhance quality improvement efforts.

In the past several years, emphasis on quality metrics in the field of organ transplantation has increased significantly, largely because of the new conditions of participation issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. These regulations directly associate patients' outcomes and measured performance of centers with the distribution of public funding to institutions. Moreover, insurers and marketing ventures have used publicly available outcomes data from transplant centers for business decision making and advertisement purposes. We gave a 10-question survey to attendees of the Transplant Management Forum at the 2009 meeting of the United Network for Organ Sharing to ascertain how centers have responded to the increased oversight of performance. Of 63 responses, 55% indicated a low or near low performance rating at their center in the past 3 years. Respondents from low-performing centers were significantly more likely to indicate increased selection criteria for candidates (81% vs 38%, P = .001) and donors (77% vs 31%, P < .001) as well as alterations in clinical protocols (84% vs 52%, P = .007). Among respondents indicating lost insurance contracts (31%), these differences were also highly significant. Based on respondents' perceptions, outcomes of performance evaluations are associated with significant changes in clinical practice at transplant centers. The transplant community and policy makers should practice vigilance that performance evaluations and regulatory oversight do not inadvertently lead to diminished access to care among viable candidates or decreased transplant volume.