Evaluating symptom burden in kidney transplant recipients: validation of the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System for kidney transplant recipients – a single‐center, cross‐sectional study

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 423-436
Author(s):  
Sumaya Dano ◽  
Martha Pokarowski ◽  
Betty Liao ◽  
Evan Tang ◽  
Oladapo Ekundayo ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 995 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuri Battaglia ◽  
Luigi Zerbinati ◽  
Giulia Piazza ◽  
Elena Martino ◽  
Michele Provenzano ◽  
...  

An average prevalence of 35% for psychiatric comorbidity has been reported in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) and an even higher prevalence of other psychosocial syndromes, as defined by the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research (DCPR), has also been found in this population. Consequently, an easy, simple, rapid psychiatric tool is needed to measure physical and psychological symptoms of distress in KTRs. Recently, the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), a pragmatic patient-centred symptom assessment tool, was validated in a single cohort of KTRs. The aims of this study were: to test the screening performances of ESAS for the International Classification of Diseases-10th Revision (ICD-10) psychiatric diagnoses in KTRs; to investigate the optimal cut-off points for ESAS physical, psychological and global subscales in detecting ICD-10 psychiatric diagnoses; and to compare ESAS scores among KTR with ICD-10 diagnosis and DCPR diagnosis. 134 KTRs were evaluated and administered the MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview 6.0 and the DCPR Interview. The ESAS and Canadian Problem Checklist (CPC) were given as self-report instruments to be filled in and were used to examine the severity of physical and psychological symptoms and daily-life problems. The physical distress sub-score (ESAS-PHYS), psychological distress sub-score (ESAS-PSY) and global distress score (ESAS-TOT) were obtained by summing up scores of six physical symptoms, four psychological symptoms and all single ESAS symptoms, respectively. Routine biochemistry, immunosuppressive agents, socio-demographic and clinical data were collected. Receiving Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to examine the ability of the ESAS emotional distress (DT) item, ESAS-TOT, ESAS-PSY and ESAS-PHYS, to detect psychiatric cases defined by using MINI6.0. The area under the ROC curve for ESAS-TOT, ESAS-PHYS, ESAS-PSY and DT item were 0.85, 0.73, 0.89, and 0.77, respectively. The DT item, ESAS-TOT and ESAS-PSY optimal cut-off points were ≥4 (sensitivity 0.74, specificity 0.73), ≥20 (sensitivity 0.85, specificity 0.74) and ≥12 (sensitivity 0.85, specificity 0.80), respectively. No valid ESAS-PHYS cut-off was found (sensitivity <0.7, specificity <0.7). Thirty-nine (84.8%) KTRs with ICD-10 diagnosis did exceed both ESAS-TOT and ESAS-PSY cut-offs. Higher scores on the ESAS symptoms (except shortness of breath and lack of appetite) and on the CPC problems were found for ICD-10 cases and DCRP cases than for ICD-10 no-cases and DCPR no-cases. This study shows that ESAS had an optimal screening performance (84.8%) to identify ICD-10 psychiatric diagnosis, evaluated with MINI; furthermore, ESAS-TOT and ESAS-PSY cut-off points could provide a guide for clinical symptom management in KTRs.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 264-271
Author(s):  
Ujjwal Dahiya ◽  
Kamli Prakesh ◽  
Sandeep Mahajan ◽  
Nand Kumar

Aim: To assess psychological symptoms, quality of life and adherence to immunosuppressive therapy in kidney transplant recipients. Design: Cross-sectional study was conducted in kidney transplant recipients. Methods: This cross-sectional study included a total of 96 consecutive patients at least 3 months after kidney transplantation from September 2019 to November 2019. Psychological symptoms (anxiety, stress and depression) were assessed using the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale. The World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument was used to assess quality of life in kidney transplant recipients. Adherence to immunosuppressive therapy was assessed by the Morisky Green Levine (MGL) adherence scale. The demographic and clinical details were assessed with a validated self-structured questionnaire. Results: The study included a young adult male population with a mean age of 38.82±10.53 years. The majority of patients reported at least some psychological abnormalities, with mild stress being the most common and presenting in 73% of patients. Importantly, 29% and 21% of patients reported anxiety and depression. Stress was significantly associated with gender, post-transplantation infection and hospitalisation. Anxiety was significantly associated with low family income and post-transplant complication of infection. Psychological symptoms significantly affected the various domains of quality of life of the patients. None of the surveyed patients had low adherence, while 56 (58.3%) had medium adherence to immunosuppressive therapy. Patients with medium adherence to immunosuppressive therapy had significantly lower scores in physical (p=0.01) and social relationship (p= 0.004) domains of quality of life. Conclusion: A significant number of young and stable kidney transplant recipients have presented with psychological symptoms (mainly depression) that affected their quality of life. The presence of psychological symptoms can not only hamper quality of life, but also affect their compliance to drugs. Impact: Psychological health is an important concern after kidney transplantation. Nurses should include assessment of psychological symptoms in their care that would further help in improving quality of life and adherence to drugs in kidney transplant recipients.


2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. i584-i585
Author(s):  
Yuri Battaglia ◽  
Giulia Piazza ◽  
Elena Martino ◽  
Sara Massarenti ◽  
Pasquale Esposito ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 394-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta Fogeda ◽  
Patricia Muñoz ◽  
Augusto Luque ◽  
Ma Dolores Morales ◽  
Emilio Bouza ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. e0204204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeong-Hoon Lim ◽  
Chan-Hyeong Lee ◽  
Kyu Yeun Kim ◽  
Hee-Yeon Jung ◽  
Ji-Young Choi ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document