PubMed · 11626663
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J Dupaquier. 1976. [Not Available].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11626663/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Relatively little work of a detailed geographical nature has been undertaken on the distribution of place of death. In particular, given evidence that most cancer patients would prefer to die at home there is a need to examine the extent to which this preference is met differentially from place to place. METHODS: Using data on cancer deaths for a single Health Authority in North West England we conducted both small area and individual analyses of place of death, using binomial and binary logistic regression models, respectively. RESULTS: Results from the small area analysis show that in more deprived areas cancer patients are more likely to die in hospital or hospice, and less likely to die at home, but that the effect disappears for home and hospice deaths once other factors are controlled for. At the individual level, the probability of death at home decreases among those living in deprived areas, whereas the probability of death in hospital increases as area deprivation increases. Age, gender, type of cancer, and proximity to hospital or hospice all have some effect on the probability of dying in a particular setting. CONCLUSION: There is significant place-to-place variation in place of death among cancer patients in part of North West England. However, studies of place of death among cancer patients need to consider the full range of settings and, if examining the impact of deprivation or social class, need to adjust for other factors, including proximity to different settings.
BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence that inorganic phosphorus (iP) accumulation in tissues (dTiP/dt) is a risk factor for cardiac death in hemodialysis therapy (HD). The factors controlling iP mass balance in HD are dietary intake (GiP), removal by binders (JbiP) and removal by dialysis (JdiP). If iP accumulation is to be minimized, it will be necessary to regularly monitor and optimize GiP, JbiP and JdiP in individual patients. We have developed a kinetic model (iPKM) designed to monitor these three parameters of iP mass balance in individual patients and report here preliminary evaluation of the model in 23 HD patients. METHODS: GiP was calculated from PCR measured with urea kinetics; JdiP was calculated from the product of dialyzer plasma water clearance (K(pwiP)) and time average plasma iP concentration (TACiP) and treatment time (t); a new iP concentration parameter (nTAC(iP), the TACiP normalized to predialysis CoiP) was devised and shown to be a highly predictable function of the form nTAC(iP) = 1 - alpha(1 - exp[-betaK(pwiP). t/ViP]), where the coefficients alpha and beta are calculated for each patient from 2 measure values for nTAC(iP), K(pwiP).t/ViP early and late in dialysis; we measured 8-10 serial values for nTAC(iP), K(pwiP). t/ViP over a single dialysis in 23 patients; the expression derived for iP mass balance is DeltaTiP = 12(PCR) - [K(pwiP)(t) (N/7)][CoiP(1 - alpha(1 - exp[-beta(Kt/ViP)]))] - k(b).Nb. RESULTS: Calculated nTAC(iP) = 1.01(measured nTAC(iP)), r = 0.98, n = 213; calculated JdiP = 0.66(measured total dialysate iP) + 358, n = 23, r = 0.88, p < 0.001. Evaluation of 10 daily HD patients (DD) and 13 3 times weekly patients with the model predicted the number of binders required very well and showed that the much higher binder requirement observed in these DD patients was due to much higher NPCR (1.3 vs. 0.96). CONCLUSION: These results are very encouraging that it may be possible to monitor the individual effects of diet, dialysis and binders in HD and thus optimize these parameters of iP mass balance and reduce phosphate accumulation in tissues.