Advance care planning (ACP) is increasingly implemented in oncology and beyond, but a definition of ACP and recommendations concerning its use are lacking. We used a formal Delphi consensus process to help develop a definition of ACP and provide recommendations for its application. Of the 109 experts (82 from Europe, 16 from North America, and 11 from Australia) who rated the ACP definitions and its 41 recommendations, agreement for each definition or recommendation was between 68-100%. ACP was defined as the ability to enable individuals to define goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care, to discuss these goals and preferences with family and health-care providers, and to record and review these preferences if appropriate. Recommendations included the adaptation of ACP based on the readiness of the individual; targeting ACP content as the individual's health condition worsens; and, using trained non-physician facilitators to support the ACP process. We present a list of outcome measures to enable the pooling and comparison of results of ACP studies. We believe that our recommendations can provide guidance for clinical practice, ACP policy, and research.

No abstract

Objective To review the diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer testing in older patients (>50 years) with suspected venous thromboembolism, using conventional or age adjusted D-dimer cut-off values.Design Systematic review and bivariate random effects meta-analysis. Data sourcesWe searched Medline and Embase for studies published before 21 June 2012 and we contacted the authors of primary studies.Study selection Primary studies that enrolled older patients with suspected venous thromboembolism in whom D-dimer testing, using both conventional (500 µg/L) and age adjusted (age×10 µg/L) cut-off values, and reference testing were performed. For patients with a non-high clinical probability, 2×2 tables were reconstructed and stratified by age category and applied D-dimer cut-off level.Results 13 cohorts including 12 497 patients with a non-high clinical probability were included in the meta-analysis. The specificity of the conventional cut-off value decreased with increasing age, from 57.6% (95% confidence interval 51.4% to 63.6%) in patients aged 51-60 years to 39.4% (33.5% to 45.6%) in those aged 61-70, 24.5% (20.0% to 29.7% in those aged 71-80, and 14.7% (11.3% to 18.6%) in those aged >80. Age adjusted cut-off values revealed higher specificities over all age categories: 62.3% (56.2% to 68.0%), 49.5% (43.2% to 55.8%), 44.2% (38.0% to 50.5%), and 35.2% (29.4% to 41.5%), respectively. Sensitivities of the age adjusted cut-off remained above 97% in all age categories. ConclusionsThe application of age adjusted cut-off values for D-dimer tests substantially increases specificity without modifying sensitivity, thereby improving the clinical utility of D-dimer testing in patients aged 50 or more with a non-high clinical probability. IntroductionD-dimer concentrations are highly sensitive for thrombus formation. Hence D-dimer tests are often used to rule-out venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) in suspected patients with a non-high clinical probability. Patients with a high clinical probability do not require a D-dimer test. In these patients imaging examination is warranted to confirm or refute the diagnosis, irrespective of the D-dimer results ( fig 1⇓).1-3 However, D-dimer concentrations increase with age, which leads to a high proportion of older patients with D-dimer concentrations higher than conventional cut-off values (500 µg/L).4 5 This in turn leads to a low specificity (that is, more false positive results) of D-dimer testing in older patients suspected of having venous thromboembolism; the specificity is 49% to 67% for patients aged less than 50 years but in older old patients (≥80 years) between 0% and 18%.4-8 As imaging is indicated in patients suspected of having venous thromboembolism with a D-dimer concentration above the cut-off value, 9 a high proportion of older patients with a non-high clinical probability undergo unnecessary diagnosticCorrespondence to: H J Schouten h.j.schouten-3@umcutrecht.nl Extra material supplied by the author (see

No abstract

Background and objectives Outcomes of older patients with ESRD undergoing RRT or conservative management (CM) are uncertain. Adequate survival data, specifically of older patients, are needed for proper counseling. We compared survival of older renal patients choosing either CM or RRT.Design, setting, participants, & measurements A retrospective survival analysis was performed of a single-center cohort in a nonacademic teaching hospital in The Netherlands from 2004 to 2014. Patients with ESRD ages $70 years old at the time that they opted for CM or RRT were included. Patients with acute on chronic renal failure needing immediate start of dialysis were excluded. ResultsIn total, 107 patients chose CM, and 204 chose RRT. Patients choosing CM were older (mean6SD: 8364.5 versus 7664.4 years; P,0.001). The Davies comorbidity scores did not differ significantly between both groups. Median survival of those choosing RRT was higher than those choosing CM from time of modality choice (median; 75th to 25th percentiles: 3.1, 1.5-6.9 versus 1.5, 0.7-3.0 years; log-rank test: P,0.001) and all other starting points (P,0.001 in all patients). However, the survival advantage of patients choosing RRT was no longer observed in patients ages $80 years old (median; 75th to 25th percentiles: 2.1, 1.5-3.4 versus 1.4, 0.7-3.0 years; log-rank test: P=0.08). The survival advantage was also substantially reduced in patients ages $70 years old with Davies comorbidity scores of $3, particularly with cardiovascular comorbidity, although the RRT group maintained its survival advantage at the 5% significance level (median; 75th to 25th percentiles: 1.8, 0.7-4.1 versus 1.0, 0.6-1.4 years; log-rank test: P=0.02).Conclusions In this single-center observational study, there was no statistically significant survival advantage among patients ages $80 years old choosing RRT over CM. Comorbidity was associated with a lower survival advantage. This provides important information for decision making in older patients with ESRD. CM could be a reasonable alternative to RRT in selected patients.