Premium
Dyspnoea Assessment In Adults With End‐Stage Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review
Author(s) -
Chilvers Maria,
Johnston Kylie,
Ferrar Katia,
Williams Marie T.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of renal care
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.381
H-Index - 27
eISSN - 1755-6686
pISSN - 1755-6678
DOI - 10.1111/jorc.12321
Subject(s) - medicine , context (archaeology) , renal replacement therapy , quality of life (healthcare) , observational study , dialysis , kidney disease , palliative care , physical therapy , end stage kidney disease , cohort , end stage renal disease , intensive care medicine , cohort study , disease , paleontology , nursing , biology
SUMMARY Background Dyspnoea is a common, disabling symptom of people living with end‐stage kidney disease (ESKD), which may persist despite optimal management. Dyspnoea assessments can be grouped according to the instruments that assess domains related to: sensory‐perception (intensity, sensory quality), affective distress (unpleasantness) and impact/burden (function, quality of life). Objectives To describe dyspnoea assessment in adults with ESKD receiving renal replacement therapy (RRT). Design Systematic review. Methods Five databases were searched. Primary studies reporting an assessment of dyspnoea in adults with ESKD receiving RRT were included. Studies were excluded where participants with ESKD had received palliative/conservative treatment (no dialysis) or renal transplant. Conference abstracts, protocols, commentaries and/or images were excluded. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted the data. Descriptive analysis summarised the (1) number and type of instruments used to assess dyspnoea; (2) which dyspnoea domains to be assessed and (3) rationale and context for dyspnoea assessment. Results From 2,234 records screened, 28 studies were eligible for inclusion (observational n = 22 and experimental n = 6). Across studies, 12 different instruments were identified (dyspnoea‐specific n = 3, subscale of a comprehensive instrument n = 9). Most instruments (n = 11, 92%) assessed a single domain (intensity n = 6, unpleasantness n = 6 and impact/burden n = 5). Studies reported a rationale for measuring dyspnoea (n = 26) as either a characteristic of the participant cohort (n = 14) or as an outcome (n = 14). Conclusions Surprisingly, a few primary studies reported assessment of dyspnoea in people with ESKD receiving RRT. When assessed, there was a predominance of unidimensional instruments. As dyspnoea is associated with adverse clinical outcomes, routine dyspnoea assessment may improve management and relieve suffering.