Search

Objective: Vitamin D deficiency is frequent in the general population and might be even more prevalent among populations with kidney failure. We compared serum vitamin D levels, vitamin D insufficiency/deficiency status, and vitamin D level determinants in populations without chronic kidney disease (CKD) and with CKD not requiring renal dialysis., Design and Methods: This was a cross-sectional, multicenter, population-based study conducted from 2010 to 2011. Participants were from 10 centers that represent the geographical and cultural diversity of the Swiss adult population (≥15 years old)., Intervention: CKD was defined using estimated glomerular filtration rate and 24-hour albuminuria. Serum vitamin D was measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Statistical procedures adapted for survey data were used., Main Outcome Measure: We compared 25-hydroxy-vitamin D (25(OH)D) levels and the prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency/deficiency (serum 25(OH)D < 30 ng/mL) in participants with and without CKD. We tested the interaction of CKD status with 6 a priori defined attributes (age, sex, body mass index, walking activity, serum albumin-corrected calcium, and altitude) on serum vitamin D level or insufficiency/deficiency status taking into account potential confounders., Results: Overall, 11.8% (135 of 1,145) participants had CKD. The 25(OH)D adjusted means (95% confidence interval [CI]) were 23.1 (22.6-23.7) and 23.5 (21.7-25.3) ng/mL in participants without and with CKD, respectively (P = .70). Vitamin D insufficiency or deficiency was frequent among participants without and with CKD (75.3% [95% CI 69.3-81.5] and 69.1 [95% CI 53.9-86.1], P = .054). CKD status did not interact with major determinants of vitamin D, including age, sex, BMI, walking minutes, serum albumin-corrected calcium, or altitude for its effect on vitamin D status or levels., Conclusion: Vitamin D concentration and insufficiency/deficiency status are similar in people with or without CKD not requiring renal dialysis., (Copyright © 2014 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Controversy exists about the appropriateness of using readmission as an indicator of the quality of care. A study was undertaken to measure the validity and predictive ability of readmission in this context., Methods: An evaluation study was performed in patients discharged alive with heart failure from three Swiss academic medical centres. Process quality indicators were derived from evidence based guidelines for the management and treatment of heart failure. Readmissions were calculated from hospital administrative data. The predictive ability of readmissions was evaluated using bivariate and multivariate analyses, and validity by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, using process indicators as the "gold standard"., Results: Of 1055 eligible patients discharged alive, 139 (13.2%) were readmitted within 30 days. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for absence of measurement of left ventricular function was 0.70 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.08) for readmissions. In patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, three dose categories of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor were examined using ordinal logistic regression. The adjusted OR for these categories was 1.07 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.06) for readmissions. When using process indicators as the gold standard to assess the validity of readmissions, sensitivity ranged from 0.08 to 0.17 and specificity from 0.86 to 0.93., Conclusions: Readmission did not predict and was not a valid indicator of the quality of care for patients with heart failure admitted to three Swiss university hospitals.