Page 136 - Exploring the Potential of Self-Monitoring Kidney Function After Transplantation - Céline van Lint

134
Chapter 6
RESULTS
Participants
Within period of inclusion, in total 217 patients received a kidney transplant of which 155 were considered eligible for participation. The main reasons for ineligibility were insufficient mastery of the Dutch language (N=25, 40%) and no access to a computer/lack of computer skills (N=16, 26%). One hundred nineteen patients (77%) signed an informed consent. The main reason for not wanting to participate was the anticipated burden of self-monitoring (N=28, 42%). Sixty-five patients were randomized to the intervention group. After randomization, 3 patients dropped out because of graft dysfunction, death and cancellation of transplantation (none was study related). Four patients cancelled their participation before starting to self-monitor kidney function at home, because they reported having little trust in the creatinine device, experienced difficulties when logging into the SMSS, experienced business rush or had a worsened condition post-transplantation. Fifty-eight patients were supplied with a creatinine and blood pressure device of which four never performed any measurement.
To study level of adherence to requested measurement frequency, we included patients of whom measured values were available for at least one complete study phase (N=48). To study the reliability of registered data and adherence to system feedback, we included patients who performed and registered measurements during all study phases (N=43). The flow-chart in figure 2 gives a stepwise overview of the patient flow and for which selection of patients a specific analysis was performed. Patient characteristics are shown in table 1. The mean age of participants was 52 and 53 years for patients who received the monitoring devices (N=58) and patients who performed and registered measurements during all study phases (N=43), respectively. Number of patients with both a low and high educational level was slightly higher than in the average Dutch population[36]. Almost 90% of our participants had received a kidney from a living donor, while the ratio of transplantations with living vs. post-mortem kidneys was about equal in our centre during period of inclusion. This discrepancy is mainly due to a higher percentage of ineligibility among recipients of a post-mortem versus living kidney: 51% versus 16% respectively.
No differences were found between patients who received the monitoring devices and patients who performed and registered measurements during all study phases for the characteristics we measured at baseline (see table 1).