Visual Impairment in Hemodialyzed Patients—An IVIS Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- van Haalen, H.; Jackson, J.; Spinowitz, B.; Milligan, G.; Moon, R. Impact of chronic kidney disease and anemia on health-related quality of life and work productivity: Analysis of multinational real-world data. BMC Nephrol. 2020, 21, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jesus, N.M.; Souza, G.F.; Mendes-Rodrigues, C.; Almeida Neto, O.P.; Rodrigues, D.D.M.; Cunha, C.M. Quality of life of individuals with chronic kidney disease on dialysis. J. Bras. Nefrol. 2019, 41, 364–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ginieri-Coccossis, M.; Theofilou, P.; Synodinou, C.; Tomaras, V.; Soldatos, C. Quality of life, mental health and health beliefs in haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients: Investigating differences in early and later years of current treatment. BMC Nephrol. 2008, 9, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mazur, J.; Szkultecka-Dębek, M.; Dzielska, A.; Drozd, M.; Małkowska-Szkutnik, A. What does the Cantril Ladder measure in adolescence? Arch. Med. Sci. 2018, 14, 182–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Puvill, T.; Kusumastuti, S.; Lund, R.; Mortensen, E.L.; Slaets, J.; Lindenberg, J.; Westendorp, R.G.J. Do psychosocial factors modify the negative association between disability and life satisfaction in old age? PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0224421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiu, E.; Markowitz, S.N.; Cook, W.L.; Jassal, S.V. Visual impairment in elderly patients receiving long-term hemodialysis. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2008, 52, 1131–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elsman, E.B.M.; van Rens, G.H.M.B.; van Nispen, R.M.A. Impact of visual impairment on the lives of young adults in the Netherlands: A concept-mapping approach. Disabil. Rehabil. 2017, 39, 2607–2618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nusinovici, S.; Sabanayagam, C.; Teo, B.W.; Tan, G.S.W.; Wong, T.Y. Vision Impairment in CKD Patients: Epidemiology, Mechanisms, Differential Diagnoses, and Prevention. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2019, 73, 846–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, Y.A.; Kim, S.Y.; Kim, S.-H.; Kim, Y.O.; Jin, D.C.; Song, H.C.; Choi, E.J.; Kim, Y.-L.; Kim, Y.-S.; Kang, S.-W.; et al. The Association of Visual Impairment with Clinical Outcomes in Hemodialysis Patients. Medicine 2016, 95, e3591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bourne, R.R.A.; Flaxman, S.R.; Braithwaite, T.; Cicinelli, M.V.; Das, A.; Jonas, J.B.; Keeffe, J.; Kempen, J.H.; Leasher, J.; Limburg, H.; et al. Magnitude, temporal trends, and projections of the global prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob. Health 2017, 5, e888–e897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muller, A.E.; Skurtveit, S.; Clausen, T. Performance of the WHOQOL-BREF among Norwegian substance use disorder patients. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2019, 19, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kušleikaitė, N.; Bumblytė, I.A.; Kuzminskis, V.; Vaičiūnienė, R. The association between health-related quality of life and mortality among hemodialysis patients. Medicina 2010, 46, 531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rodrigues, F.; Jacinto, M.; Couto, N.; Monteiro, D.; Monteiro, A.M.; Forte, P.; Antunes, R. Motivational Correlates, Satisfaction with Life, and Physical Activity in Older Adults: A Structural Equation Analysis. Medicina 2023, 59, 599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zaborskis, A.; Kavaliauskienė, A.; Dimitrova, E.; Eriksson, C. Pathways of Adolescent Life Satisfaction Association with Family Support, Structure and Affluence: A Cross-National Comparative Analysis. Medicina 2022, 58, 970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cianci, S.; Tarascio, M.; Arcieri, M.; La Verde, M.; Martinelli, C.; Capozzi, V.A.; Palmara, V.; Gulino, F.; Gueli Alletti, S.; Caruso, G.; et al. Post Treatment Sexual Function and Quality of Life of Patients Affected by Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review. Medicina 2023, 59, 704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Edwards, D.; Manera, K. Life participation: When there is more to life than dialysis. Perit. Dial. Int. 2022, 42, 552–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chahin, S.; Balcer, L.J.; Miller, D.M.; Zhang, A.; Galetta, S.L. Vision in a phase 3 trial of natalizumab for multiple sclerosis: Relation to disability and quality of life. J. Neuroophthalmol. 2015, 35, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric properties. Soc. Sci. Med. 1998, 46, 1569–1585. [CrossRef]
- The WHOQOL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol. Med. 1998, 28, 551–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sułkowski, L.; Matyja, M.; Pasternak, A.; Matyja, A. WHOQOL-BREF survey of quality of life among dialyzed end-stage renal disease patients. Arch. Med. Sci.—Civiliz. Dis. 2018, 3, 112–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skevington, S.M.; Lotfy, M.; O’Connell, K.A.; WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: Psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL group. Qual. Life Res. 2004, 13, 299–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sułkowski, L.; Matyja, M.; Walocha, J.A.; Pasternak, A. Satisfaction with Life among Dialyzed Patients: A Cantril Ladder Survey. MGM J. Med. Sci. 2018, 5, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urbonas, G.; Raila, G.; Serapinas, D.; Valius, L.; Veličkienė, D.; Plisienė, J.; Vencevičienė, L.; Jurevičienė, E.; Liseckienė, I. Evaluation of Satisfaction with Healthcare Services in Multimorbid Patients Using PACIC+ Questionnaire: A Cross-Sectional Study. Medicina 2023, 59, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nardelli, L.; Scalamogna, A.; Messa, P.; Gallieni, M.; Cacciola, R.; Tripodi, F.; Castellano, G.; Favi, E. Peritoneal Dialysis for Potential Kidney Transplant Recipients: Pride or Prejudice? Medicina 2022, 58, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerogianni, G.; Polikandrioti, M.; Babatsikou, F.; Zyga, S.; Alikari, V.; Vasilopoulos, G.; Gerogianni, S.; Grapsa, E. Anxiety–Depression of Dialysis Patients and Their Caregivers. Medicina 2019, 55, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Covic, A.; Jackson, J.; Hadfield, A.; Pike, J.; Siriopol, D. Real-World Impact of Cardiovascular Disease and Anemia on Quality of Life and Productivity in Patients with Non-Dialysis-Dependent Chronic Kidney Disease. Adv. Ther. 2017, 34, 1662–1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, G.; Park, S.-G.; Won, Y.; Ju, H.; Jang, S.W.; Kim, H.D.; Jang, H.-S.; Kim, H.-C.; Leem, J.-H. The relationship between precarious employment and subjective well-being in Korean wage workers through the Cantril ladder Scale. Ann. Occup. Environ. Med. 2020, 32, e11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bass, E.B.; Marsh, M.J.; Mangione, C.M.; Bressler, N.M.; Childs, A.L.; Dong, L.M.; Hawkins, B.S.; Jaffee, H.A.; Miskala, P.; Submacular Surgery Trials Research Group. Patients’ perceptions of the value of current vision: Assessment of preference values among patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization—The Submacular Surgery Trials Vision Preference Value Scale: SST Report No. 6. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2004, 122, 1856–1867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
IVIS Score | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 pts | 1 pt−15 pts | 1 pt−4 pts | 5 pts−15 pts | |||||||||||
n (%) M [Range] (SD) | n (%) M [Range] (SD) | Vs. Population p-Value | Vs. Sample p-Value | n (%) M [Range] (SD) | Vs. Population p-Value | Vs. Sample p-Value | n (%) M [Range] (SD) | Vs. Population p-Value | Vs. Sample p-Value | n (%) M [Range] (SD) | Vs. Population p-Value | Vs. Sample p-Value | ||
70 (100) | 32 (45.7) | 38 (54.3) | 18 (25.7) | 20 (28.6) | ||||||||||
Sex | Male | 46 (65.7) | 21 (65.6) | N/S | N/S | 25 (65.8) | N/S | N/S | 12 (66.7) | N/S | N/S | 13 (65.0) | N/S | N/S |
Female | 24 (34.3) | 11 (34.4) | N/S | N/S | 13 (34.2) | N/S | N/S | 6 (33.3) | N/S | N/S | 7 (35.0) | N/S | N/S | |
Age (yrs) | 62.8 [28–84] (12.4) | 59.1 [28–78] (12.1) | ↓ <0.02 | ↓ <0.02 vs. “1 pt–15 pts” ↓ <0.002 vs. “5 pts–15 pts” | 66.0 [40–84] (12.0) | ↑ <0.03 | ↑ <0.02 vs. “0 pts” | 61.1 [40–81] (13.0) | N/S | ↓ <0.02 vs. “1 pt–4 pts” | 7.4 [54–84] (9.2) | ↑ <0.0004 | ↑ <0.002 vs. “0 pts” ↑ <0.02 vs. “1 pt–4 pts” | |
Marital status | Married | 48 (69.6) | 20 (64.5) | N/S | N/S | 28 (73.7) | N/S | N/S | 14 (77.8) | N/S | N/S | 14 (70.0) | N/S | N/S |
Not-married | 21 (30.4) | 11 (35.5) | N/S | N/S | 10 (26.3) | N/S | N/S | 4 (22.2) | N/S | N/S | 6 (30.0) | N/S | N/S | |
Education level | Primary school | 38 (55.1) | 14 (45.2) | N/S | N/S | 24 (63.2) | N/S | N/S | 10 (55.6) | N/S | N/S | 14 (70.0) | N/S | N/S |
Secondary school | 19 (27.5) | 11 (35.5) | N/S | N/S | 8 (21.0) | N/S | N/S | 4 (22.2) | N/S | N/S | 4 (20.0) | N/S | N/S | |
Higher education | 12 (17.4) | 6 (19.3) | N/S | N/S | 6 (15.8) | N/S | N/S | 4 (22.2) | N/S | N/S | 2 (10.0) | N/S | N/S |
IVIS Score | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 pts | 1 pt−15 pts | 1 pt−4 pts | 5 pts−15 pts | ||||||||||||
n (%) M [Range] (SD) | n (%) M [Range] (SD) | Vs. Population p-Value | Vs. Sample p-Value | n (%) M [Range] (SD) | Vs. Population p-Value | Vs. Sample p-Value | n (%) M [Range] (SD) | Vs. Population p-Value | Vs. Sample p-Value | n (%) M [Range] (SD) | Vs. Population p-Value | Vs. Sample p-Value | |||
Vascular access | AVF | 60 (87.0) | 30 (96.8) | N/S | ↑ <0.05 vs. “1 pt–15 pts” ↑ <0.04 vs. “1 pt–4 pts” | 30 (81.1) | N/S | ↓ <0.05 vs. “0 pts” | 14 (77.8) | N/S | ↓ <0.04 vs. “0 pts” | 16 (84.2) | N/S | N/S | |
CVC | 8 (13.0) | 1 (3.2) | N/S | ↓ <0.05 vs. “1 pt–15 pts” ↓ <0.04 vs. “1 pt–4 pts” | 7 (18.9) | N/S | ↑ <0.05 vs. “0 pts” | 4 (22.2) | N/S | ↑ <0.04 vs. “0 pts” | 3 (15.8) | N/S | N/S | ||
Months on HD | 46.2 [1–317] (61.1) | 53.0 [1–317] (78.6) | N/S | N/S | 4.6 [1–204] (41.8) | N/S | N/S | 51.0 [2–204] (48.8) | N/S | N/S | 3.1 [1–108] (31.3) | ↓ <0.02 | N/S | ||
Length of HD session (hrs) | 3.94 (0.34) | 3.93 (0.33) | N/S | N/S | 3.94 (0.36) | N/S | N/S | 4.02 (0.40) | N/S | N/S | 3.87 (0.32) | N/S | N/S | ||
Kidney transplant in the past | Yes | 5 (7.0) | 3 (9.4) | N/S | N/S | 2 (5.3) | N/S | N/S | 2 (11.1) | N/S | N/S | 0 (0) | N/S | N/S | |
No | 65 (93.0) | 29 (90.6) | N/S | N/S | 36 (94.7) | N/S | N/S | 16 (88.9) | N/S | N/S | 20 (100.0) | N/S | N/S | ||
Desire to receive kidney transplant | Yes | 35 (52.2) | 21 (67.7) | N/S | ↑ <0.03 vs. “1 pt–15 pts” ↑ <0.02 vs. “5 pts–15 pts” | 14 (38.9) | N/S | ↓ <0.03 vs. “0 pts” | 8 (47.1) | N/S | N/S | 6 (31.6) | N/S | ↓ <0.02 vs. “0 pts” | |
No | 32 (47.8) | 10 (32.3) | N/S | ↓ <0.03 vs. “1 pt–15 pts” ↓ >0.02 vs. “5 pts–15 pts” | 22 (61.1) | N/S | ↑ <0.03 vs. “0 pts” | 9 (52.9) | N/S | N/S | 13 (68.4) | N/S | ↑ <0.02 vs. “0 pts” | ||
Fulfillment of medical recommendations | Yes | 44 (67.7) | 22 (71.0) | N/S | N/S | 22 (66.7) | N/S | N/S | 10 (62.5) | N/S | N/S | 12 (70.6) | N/S | N/S | |
No | 20 (33.3) | 9 (29.0) | N/S | N/S | 11 (33.3) | N/S | N/S | 6 (37.5) | N/S | N/S | 5 (29.4) | N/S | N/S | ||
Kt/V | 1.30 [0.82–3.11] (0.33) | 1.31 [0.84–1.88] (0.22) | N/S | N/S | 1.29 [0.82–3.11] (0.40) | N/S | N/S | 1.43 [0.90–3.11] (0.51) | N/S | ↑ <0.04 vs. “5 pts–15 pts” | 1.18 [0.82–1.63] (0.22) | ↓ <0.01 | ↓ <0.04 vs. “1 pt–4 pts” | ||
URR | 0.660 [0.51–0.90] (0.074) | 0.669 [0.53–0.80] (0.062) | N/S | ↑ <0.05 vs. “5 pts–15 pts” | 0.652 [0.51–0.90] (0.084) | N/S | N/S | 0.682 [0.55–0.90] (0.092) | N/S | ↑ <0.03 vs. “5 pts–15 pts” | 0.625 [0.51–0.74] (0.067) | ↓ <0.02 | ↓ <0.05 vs. “0 pts” ↓ <0.03 vs. “1 pt–4 pts” | ||
UF (mL) | 2293 [300–4200] (911) | 2216 [500–3500] (905) | N/S | N/S | 2361 [300–4200] (924) | N/S | N/S | 2253 [300–4200] (1206) | N/S | N/S | 2458 [1500–3600] (589) | N/S | N/S | ||
Urea concentration before HD | 127.3 (30.9) | 121.7 (28.3) | N/S | N/S | 132.3 (32.7) | N/S | N/S | 134.1 (28.6) | N/S | N/S | 13.8 (36.7) | N/S | N/S | ||
Urea concentration after HD | 43.1 (13.8) | 4.4 (12.7) | N/S | N/S | 45.4 (14.6) | N/S | N/S | 42.3 (15.2) | N/S | N/S | 48.3 (13.8) | N/S | N/S |
IVIS Score | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 pts | 1 pt–15 pts | 1 pt–4 pts | 5 pts–15 pts | |||||||||||
n (%) M [Range] (SD) | n (%) M [Range] (SD) | Vs. Population p-Value | Vs. Sample p-Value | n (%) M [Range] (SD) | Vs. Population p-Value | Vs. Sample p-Value | n (%) M [Range] (SD) | Vs. Population p-Value | Vs. Sample p-Value | n (%) M [Range] (SD) | Vs. Population p-Value | Vs. Sample p-Value | ||
IVIS | 3.17 [0–15] (4.24) | 0 (0) | 5.84 [1–15] (4.18) | 2.50 [1–4] (1.15) | 8.85 [5–15] (3.56) | |||||||||
WHOQOL-BREF | Physical health | 11.84 (1.75) | 12.46 (1.56) | ↑ <0.005 | ↑ <0.006 vs. “1 pt–15 pts” ↑ <0.006 vs. “5 pts–15 pts” | 11.31 (1.74) | ↓ <0.009 | ↓ <0.006 vs. “0 pts” | 11.59 (1.97) | N/S | N/S | 11.06 (1.51) | ↓ <0.02 | ↓ <0.006 vs. “0 pts” |
Psychological health | 12.55 (2.18) | 13.17 (2.21) | ↑ <0.05 | ↑ <0.03 vs. “1 pt–15 pts” | 12.03 (2.04) | ↓ <0.03 | ↓ <0.03 vs. “0 pts” | 12.10 (1.86) | N/S | N/S | 11.97 (2.23) | N/S | N/S | |
Social relationships | 13.28 (3.20) | 14.46 (2.75) | ↑ <0.003 | ↑ <0.005 vs. “1 pt–15 pts” ↑ 0.0398 vs. “1 pt–4 pts” ↑ <0.01 vs. “5 pts–15 pts” | 12.28 (3.24) | ↓ <0.009 | ↓ <0.005 vs. “0 pts” | 12.52 (2.94) | N/S | ↓ <0.04 vs. “0 pts” | 12.07 (3.55) | ↓ <0.0893 | ↓ <0.01 vs. “0 pts” | |
Environment | 13.3 (2.37) | 14.45 (2.03) | ↑ <0.0002 | ↑ <0.0001 vs. “1 pt–15 pts” ↑ <0.0001 vs. “5 pts–15 pts” | 12.38 (2.25) | ↓ <0.0005 | ↓ <0.0001 vs. “0 pts” | 13.28 (1.79) | N/S | ↑ <0.02 vs. “5 pts–15 pts” | 11.58 (2.35) | ↓ <0.0009 | ↓ <0.0001 vs. “0 pts” ↓ <0.02 vs. “1 pt–4 pts” | |
Self-perception of QOL | 3.3 [2–4] (0.7) | 3.6 [2–4] (0.6) | ↑ <0.0006 | ↑ <0.02 vs. “1 pt–15 pts” ↑ <0.02 vs. “1 pt–4 pts” ↑ <0.03 vs. “5 pts–15 pts” | 3.2 [2–4] (0.7) | N/S | ↓ <0.02 vs. “0 pts” | 3.1 [2–4] (0.8) | ↓ <0.02 vs. “0 pts” | 3.2 [2–4] (0.6) | ↓ <0.03 vs. “0 pts” | |||
Self-perception of health | 2.3 [1–5] (1.0) | 2.3 [1–4] (0.9) | N/S | N/S | 2.3 [1–5] (1.1) | N/S | N/S | 2.4 [1–5] (1.1) | N/S | N/S | 2.1 [1–5] (1.1) | N/S | N/S | |
Cantril Ladder | CL 0 | 6.10 (2.15) | 6.82 (1.98) | ↑ <0.01 | ↑ <0.008 vs. “1 pt–15 pts” ↑ <0.0008 vs. “5 pts–15 pts” | 5.47 (2.13) | ↓ <0.02 | ↓ <0.008 vs. “0 pts” | 6.12 (1.93) | N/S | ↑ <0.05 vs. “5 pts–15 pts” | 4.73 (2.15) | ↓ <0.004 | ↓ <0.0008 vs. “0 pts” ↓ <0.05 vs. “1 pt–4 pts” |
CL 5 | 4.75 (2.71) | 5.96 (2.54) | ↑ <0.001 | ↑ <0.0005 vs. “1 pt–15 pts” ↑ <0.05 vs. “1 pt–4 pts” ↑ <0.0001 vs. “5 pts–15 pts” | 3.79 (2.47) | ↓ <0.002 | ↓ <0.0005 vs. “0 pts” | 4.47 (2.72) | N/S | ↓ <0.05 vs. “0 pts” | 3.06 (2.02) | ↓ <0.0003 | ↓ <0.0001 vs. “0 pts” |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sułkowski, L.; Rubinkiewicz, M.; Matyja, A.; Matyja, M. Visual Impairment in Hemodialyzed Patients—An IVIS Study. Medicina 2023, 59, 1106. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59061106
Sułkowski L, Rubinkiewicz M, Matyja A, Matyja M. Visual Impairment in Hemodialyzed Patients—An IVIS Study. Medicina. 2023; 59(6):1106. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59061106
Chicago/Turabian StyleSułkowski, Leszek, Mateusz Rubinkiewicz, Andrzej Matyja, and Maciej Matyja. 2023. "Visual Impairment in Hemodialyzed Patients—An IVIS Study" Medicina 59, no. 6: 1106. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59061106