CJSAN Article on CKD care and 1st year survival on dialysis

The Nephrology Blog has an interesting post on early nephrology referral of CKD patients and outcome on dialysis. I pulled all the references from that paper which have looked at the subject. I’ll be adding my thouhts on these references over next few pages so that this post becomes a quasi review article or annotated reference list.

Hasegawa et al. Greater First-Year Survival on Hemodialysis in Facilities in Which Patients Are Provided Earlier and More Frequent Pre-nephrology Visits. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol (2009) 4 595-602. (PDF)

  • DOPPS I and II databases
  • 8500 new starts to dialysis
  • Pre-ESRD Nephrology contact defined as at least one visit prior to HD
  • PNV associated with adjusted odds ratio of 0.57! (half the risk of death for one visit! what a bargain!) p<0.001
  • adjusted for age, sex, race, primary cause of ESRD, 14 summary comorbidities (CAD, CHF, other cardiac disease, htn, dm, cerebroVD, PAD, cancer, HIV/AIDS, lung disease, neurologic disorders, GI bleeding, recurrent cellulitis/gangrene)
  • Facility level data is consistent with the individual patient data. DOPPS always tries to show this because it controls for some of the biases inherent in a retrospective study. From the ESRD NephSap:
  • When we choose to examine facility practice using statistical models, patients are assigned not to the individual treatment received but to the facility’s practice (e.g., percentage of patients receiving vitamin D or having phosphorus within guideline range). Patient- or facility-level outcomes can be used. The rationale for this method is fundamental to the DOPPS and merits additional emphasis here. In standard observational analyses, the true effect of a treatment of interest may be distorted analytically by the effect of the indication to receive that treatment (treatment-by-indication bias). This bias is a fundamental challenge to inferring the causal effect of a treatment from observational data. The DOPPS facility practice-based analytic approach is conceptually similar to instrumental variable analysis, a method embraced for decades in econometrics and now used more commonly in clinical studies to address treatment-by-indication bias (9,10). The approach seeks to identify natural experiments in which patients are nearly “randomly” assigned to a particular facility practice by factors independent of clinical characteristics, such as proximity to the patient’s residence. Ideally, this mimics randomized treatment assignment in a clinical trial. Recent publications discussed theoretical considerations and provided examples in clinical medicine outside nephrology (9 –17).

  • They found a dose effect of frequency of seeing a nephrologist. seeing a nephro doc 5 times had 28% lower mortality than if they saw one once or less.
  • The people with nephrology care were more likely to be diabetic and hypertensive but were less likely to have CHF, lung disease or cancer
  • Nephrology care was also linked to marriage, employment and college educated
  • The creatinine at initiation of dialysis was lower with CKD care 7.2 versus 7.6. [Of note: with creatinines that high, a change of 0.4 only represents a difference of 1 mL/min (9 mL/min with predialysis care, 8 mL/min without)]

Innes et al. Early deaths on renal replacement therapy: the need for early nephrological referral. Nephrol Dial Transplant (1992) vol. 7 (6) pp. 467-71.

Forty-four patients who commenced renal replacement therapy between January 1983 and January 1988 died within 1 year of starting treatment. To examine the factors influencing early mortality of patients on renal replacement therapy these patients (group A) were compared with a group of 44 age- and sex-matched subjects who started dialysis over the same period and who survived more than 1 year (group B). The interval between first presentation and dialysis was significantly shorter in group A (median 36 days) than group B (median 30 months) patients. Plasma urea and creatinine were significantly greater in group A than group B at the time of first presentation to a nephrologist but not at first dialysis. Patients in group A were more often treated first by hemodialysis. Systemic disease as the cause of renal failure did not appear to influence early death. Early death on renal replacement therapy appears to be associated with late referral to a nephrologist. Early referral may be beneficial because it allows for planning of dialysis and treatment of the complications of progressive uremia.

  • 44 patients who died in the first year of dialysis (group A)
  • Compared to 44 patients (age and sex matched) who survived the first year of dialysis (group B)
  • Association found with early death and late referral to a nephrologist. Average time between first visit to nephrologist and initiation of dialysis 36 days in group A and 30 months in group B.
  • no difference in BUN or Cr at initiation of dialysis

Sesso et al. Late diagnosis of chronic renal failure. Braz J Med Biol Res (1996) vol. 29 (11) pp. 1473-8.

BACKGROUND: Recent observations in our country have shown that late diagnosis of chronic renal failure (CRF) is an important cause of late referral and late commencement of maintenance dialysis. We prospectively investigated the influence of late diagnosis of CRF on patient mortality during dialysis therapy. METHODS: Among 184 consecutive patients with nondiabetic end-stage renal disease starting chronic dialysis at the Federal University Hospital in the city of São Paulo, 106 had a late diagnosis of CRF (less than 1 month before starting dialysis) and 78 had an early diagnosis. During the first 6 months of dialysis treatment, patient survival was compared in the two groups, using the Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Six-month patient survival rate was lower in the late than in the early diagnosis group (69% versus 87%, P less than 0.01). In the late diagnosis group, the hazard ratio of mortality was 2.77 (95% CI, 1.36-5.66) times that of the early diagnosis group. In a multivariate analysis, after adjusting for age, comorbid illness, and serum biochemical measurements, time of diagnosis did not remain significantly associated with mortality risk. In this analysis, age, pulmonary infection, and low serum albumin were significant predictors of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a late diagnosis have a higher mortality risk during the first 6 months of maintenance dialysis. This increased risk is related to comorbid conditions, some of which could be prevented by predialysis care. Interventions to promote early diagnosis of CRF and adequate predialysis follow-up need to be evaluated if the survival of patients with chronic renal failure is to improve.

  • 184 new dialysis patients
  • Lack of pre-ESRD CKD care defined as initiation of dialysis within 1 month of the first visit to the nephrologist
  • 6-month rather than 1 year analysis
  • raw mortality was 31% for late dx and 13% for early diagnosis
  • HR for death in the first 6 months of dialysis with late diagnosis was 2.77
  • Despite a very high hazard ratio with late diagnosis, this was not an independent association such that after controlling for age, comorbid illness and biochemical measurments the time of diagnosis was not significant.

Jungers et al. Longer duration of predialysis nephrological care is associated with improved long-term survival of dialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant (2001) vol. 16 (12) pp. 2357-64. (PDF)

  • 1057 consecutive patients
  • pre-dialysis nephrology care less than 6 months in 258 patients (193 of them initiated within a month of the first nephro encounter.)
  • 6-35 months in 267 patients
  • 36-71 months in 227 patients
  • over 71 months in 307 patients
  • mean age 54
  • only 13% diabetics (French study), little hypertension
  • half of the late presentation group had been referred earlier but had neglected or refused nephrological care
  • DM, PVD, HTN, CVD all were more prevelant with late referral
  • Cr was higher in late referral [We need to worry about systemic lead time bias]
  • Dramatic changes in the rates of catheter use and the length of hospital stay associate dwith the initiation of dialysis. Importantly the authors excluded 60 patients who had either AKI or RPGN which precluded prolonged pre-dialysis care.
  • one-year mortality was 13.6% for less than 6 months pre-dialysis nephrocare and 7.4% (6-35 mo), 7.2% (36-71 mo) and 2.5% (over 71 mo) for longer care
  • With multivariate analysis only the longest duration of care (over 71 mo) was significantly and independantly associated with survival with a RR of death of 0.56 p=0.002.
  • The two shorter periods barely missed signifigance: 6-35 mo RR=0.73, p=0.058 and 36-71 mo RR=0.71, p=0.066.
  • Age, DM and prior CVD were each significant with multivariate analysis

Kinchen et al. The timing of specialist evaluation in chronic kidney disease and mortality. Annals of Internal Medicine (2002) vol. 137 (6) pp. 479-86. (PDF)

  • 828 new on-set ESRD from 81 centers
  • time from first visit to initiation of dialysis
  • Late: less than 4 months
  • Intermediate: 4-12 months
  • Early: over 12 months
  • 213 patients were eliminated because of a lack of definitive medical records
  • Significantly associated with late referral was Black ethnicity, not attending college, not having insurance, PD, not having DM, less urine output, lower renal function, less exercise, more anemia, lower albumin, less ESA, less vascular access.
  • Late referral was associated with death
  • Notice how quickly the Late and Early curves digress. By 10 months it looks like the association is maximal and the curves are roughly parallel after that.
  • The association with timing of referral and mortality was robust and remained significant when examined with 5 recipes for controlling different factors:

  • An interesting finding was that late referral was worse for patients with diabetes and hypertension, growing segments of the ESRD population
  • Sicker patients were referred later begging the question does the sickness prevent the consultation or does lack of nephrologic care cause other co-morbid diseases to become more severe (i.e. better use of diuretics in a heart failure patient, sometimes the nephrologist is the only one still willing to use ACEi with a GFR of 18)

Roderick et al. Late referral for end-stage renal disease: a region-wide survey in the south west of England. Nephrol Dial Transplant (2002) vol. 17 (7) pp. 1252-9. (PDF)

  • 361 of 411 in England
  • Late within 4 months
  • Late’ within 1 month
  • 35% within 4 months
  • 23% within 1 month
  • Again late referrals were older, sicker, had less accesses
  • 33% Six-month mortality with less than 1 month versus 16% for longer than a month
  • A late referral occured in 60% of patients with an established diagnosis of CKD for more than year (preventing the physcian or patinet from excusing themselves by stating “I didn’t know.”)
  • Again the cr was higher at initiation (10.7 versus 9.4 mg/dl) for late referrals.
  • Time of referral was not an independent predictor of survival at 6 months in regression analysis (p=0.293)
  • The only interesting figure comes from the discussion where the authors graph the rates of Late referrals in the medical literature and make a case that it is getting better.

Kessler et al. Impact of nephrology referral on early and midterm outcomes in ESRD: EPidémiologie de l’Insuffisance REnale chronique terminale en Lorraine (EPIREL): results of a 2-year, prospective, community-based study. Am J Kidney Dis (2003) vol. 42 (3) pp. 474-85 (PDF)

Stack. Impact of timing of nephrology referral and pre-ESRD care on mortality risk among new ESRD patients in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis (2003) vol. 41 (2) pp. 310-8. (PDF)

Winkelmayer et al. A propensity analysis of late versus early nephrologist referral and mortality on dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol (2003) vol. 14 (2) pp. 486-92. (PDF)

Kazmi et al. Late nephrology referral and mortality among patients with end-stage renal disease: a propensity score analysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant (2004) vol. 19 (7) pp. 1808-14. (PDF)

Khan et al. Does predialysis nephrology care influence patient survival after initiation of dialysis?. Kidney Int (2005) vol. 67 (3) pp. 1038-46.

BACKGROUND: Early nephrology referral of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) has been suggested to reduce mortality after initiation of dialysis. This retrospective cohort study of incident dialysis patients between 1995 and 1998 was performed to address the association between frequency of nephrology care during the 24 months before initiation of dialysis and first-year mortality after initiation of dialysis. METHODS: Patient data were obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Patients who started dialysis between 1995 and 1998, and were Medicare-eligible for at least 24 months before initiation of dialysis, were included. One or more nephrology visits during a month was considered a month of nephrology care (MNC). RESULTS: Of the total 109,321 patients, only 50% had received nephrology care during the 24 months before initiation of dialysis. Overall, first-year mortality after initiation of dialysis was 36%. Cardiac disease was the major cause of mortality (46%). After adjusting for comorbidity, higher mortality was associated with increasing age (HR, 1.04 per year increase; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.04) and more frequent visits to generalists (HR, 1.009 per visit increase; 95% CI, 1.003 to 1.014) and specialists (HR, 1.012 per visit increase; 95% CI, 1.011 to 1.013). Compared to patients with >/=3 MNC in the six months before initiation of dialysis, higher mortality was observed among those with no MNC during the 24 months before initiation of dialysis (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.45 to 1.58), no MNC during the six months before initiation of dialysis (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.36), and one or two MNC during the six months before initiation of dialysis (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.29). CONCLUSION: Nephrology care before dialysis is important, and consistency of care in the immediate six months before dialysis is a predictor of mortality. Consistent nephrology care may be more important than previously thought, particularly because the frequency and severity of CKD complications increase as patients approach dialysis.

Schwenger et al. Late referral–a major cause of poor outcome in the very elderly dialysis patient. Nephrol Dial Transplant (2006) vol. 21 (4) pp. 962-7. (PDF)

Schmidt et al. Early referral and its impact on emergent first dialyses, health care costs, and outcome. Am J Kidney Dis (1998) vol. 32 (2) pp. 278-83. [negative trial] (PDF)

Roubicek et al. Timing of nephrology referral: influence on mortality and morbidity. Am J Kidney Dis (2000) vol. 36 (1) pp. 35-41. [negative trial] (PDF)

Avorn. ( )

Zhao et al. Physician access and early nephrology care in elderly patients with end-stage renal disease. Kidney Int (2008) vol. 74 (12) pp. 1596-602 (PDF)

Comment on the latest MDRD article and the state of clinical nephro research

Last Thursday in journal club we reviewed the latest data on protein restriction and progression of CKD.

The best summery of the results are provided at the end of the paper:

a very low-protein diet increased the risk of death in long-term follow-up of the MDRD Study, but had no impact on delaying the progression to kidney failure…

Imagine that the primary results had been different. Imagine for a moment that the MDRD study, rather than being one of the first of the large, NIH-sponsored, negative clinical trials in nephrology, was instead a great success. Imagine that the very-low-protein diets resulted in a delay of dialysis of 20% compared to a low protein diet and that a low-protein diet resulted in a 25% delay in progression compared to a normal-protein diet. Imagine a universe where protein restriction is the ACE inhibitors of our universe.

Now imagine if this most recent analysis came out in that universe. The above quote in this imagined universe would read something like:

a very low-protein diet increased the risk of death in long-term follow-up of the MDRD Study, despite successfully delaying the progression to kidney failure…

How would we as a nephrology community come to terms with the fact that our primary intervention that we were advocating in a thousand CKD clinics across the land, was actually killing our patients after they start dialysis. Imagine the hand wringing as we start to realize that we were able to delay dialysis from 12 months to 18 months but at the cost of a doubling of their first year mortality from 22% to 40%.

I would be horrified and stop advocating it in my clinic but lots of my patients would adopt the low protein strategy, essentially play the lottery that this radical change in diet would allow them to escape their fate.

We as the nephrology community need to demand better research. This study stands alone (nearly? or completely?) by looking at a pre-dialysis intervention but measuring the outcome in dialysis. This study goes over the wall separating chronic kidney disease research from dialysis research. We need a name for this x-ray vision of looking through the artificial barrier between CKD and dialysis. I propose transitional research.

We need to demand that our CKD research does this. This distinction is less important when looking at CKD 3 where only 1% go on to dialysis; but when looking at CKD4 patients we need to know how that intervention affects dialysis survival. In CKD 4, 18% of patients will end up on dialysis in 5 years. (D. Keith’s data, PDF)

Which of today’s avant garde treatment of CKD results in a doubling of dialysis mortality?

  • Use of active vitamin D to treat secondary hyperparathyroidism
  • Treatment of anemia with ESAs
  • Use of phos binders, calcium based or otherwise
  • Bariatric surgery
  • Aggressive control of blood sugar

None of these “standard” therapies has been examined with an eye on total mortality before and after initiation of dialysis. We need the definitive studies so at some time in the future we don’t have to tell a patient’s family that the pills we have been prescribing may actually have caused the stroke or heart attack or cancer or…

ABG questions and answers

I have been editing our consult month syllabus adding the links for the study materials as we go.

Today we fell off the syllabus. The acid-base lecture on Wednesday revealed a chasm of ignorance. We need to really pound on the basics. So today, instead of doing a Powerpoint style lecture on non-anion gap metabolic acidosis, we sat in a conference room with a couple of calculators and pounded through 23 ABG problems.

Problems
Answers

Acid Base Machine Qs

Acid Base Machine

While we were going through the questions, part of me wanted some tunes. Just saw Slum Dog last weekend.

Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? – TV Themes

MedCalc for the iPhone

I had never heard of MedCalc for the iPhone but MedCalc had been my medical calculator on the Palm Platform since 1999. I noted that this iPhone version had one of the same authors form the Palm Version, Mathias Tschopp.
So one more medical calculator review: MedCalc


For the iPhone version, Mathias has added a second partner, Pascal Pfiffner. This duo has put together a sharp and innovative medical calculator.
The program has created the best system for finding the equations you use. First off the equations are grouped into specialties. Then the program keeps a list of recently used programs and finally it allows you to generate a list of favorites. Mathias and Pascal have created a new system for marking favorites which is not modal. This makes it unconventional for the iPhone but it also makes generating a favorite list less of a chore. Whenever you are browsing through the equations and you see one you want to add to your favorites all you need to do is double tap the equation and it gets marked by a star. Neat. In addition to categories, favorites and recents, MedCalc also allows the user to search for equations.


The other innovation for the calculator is how the user interacts with the formula. The program does not have separate panels for entering data. all of the values can be seen on one page. The number pad is a panel which can be slid out of the way and is slightly transparent. The whole package is very slick. The units for the variables can be switched by selecting the appropriate unit on the right.


The other cool feature is that the program indicates required variables by shading the background pink. Optional data has a white background. MedCalc swithce from the 4 to the 5 or 6 variable formula on the fly depending on what variables the user inputs.

Additionally for the osmolar gap it includes the optional ethanol level. In terms of information supplied with the equation the program always supplies adequate data for the user to interpret the formula. Some of the references are not the ones I would have selected but overall its pretty slick. In terms of weaknesses, there’s no FE Urea. Oh well.

Nephrology calculators for the iPhone

I have three different medical calculators on my iPhone. Two of them I actually use and the third came bundled as part of a different program. I put each calculator through its paces and comment on the differences found in this generally commoditized market.

The three calculators are:

Mediquations was the first medical calculator on the iPhone platform. The author is a third-year medical student, Zack Mahdavi. I have spoken with him and he is a good guy. Since releasing the program in July 2008, he has repeatedly upgraded Mediquations at no additional charge to users. He has focused on adding new calculations to his program and Mediquations has acquired a truly stunning breadth of equations. He claims 201 equations ranging from A-a Oxygen Gradient to Winter for Metabolic Acidosis.

The program has grown large and takes awhile to get past the splash screen and into the functional calculator.

The program then displays a conventional alphabetical list of equations. You can alternatively sort them by categories. Mediquations allows you to bookmark a set of frequently used “Favorites” to easily get past the ton of equations provided.

The MDRD equation is the conventional 4-variable equation and is accurate.

Tapping on a numerical variable sends you to an easy to finger keypad.

Thoughtfully you can switch units on the fly by tapping the i above the units.

For Boolean data you just tap the variable and it gets checked.

Tapping “More Info” gives you the formula and usually a reference and sometimes some background data on how to interpret the calculation. For the MDRD, Mediquations references the Levey paper (PDF) from the Annals which describes the 6-variable, not the 4-variable formula. There is a link which takes you to the PubMed reference in Mediquation’s own web browser.

The execution of “More Info” is spotty. The fractional excretion of sodium gives the formula, a paragraph on how to use and interpret the formula, and a reference to a 1984 American Journal of Medicine article rather than the original Espinel article which introduced the formula or the Shrier paper which validated it. The FeNa info is much better than the FeUrea info which is limited to just the formula without a reference or any help interpreting the calculation. The TTKG falls in the middle with the formula, a short descriptive paragraph which correctly points out that the formula is only valid with a urine Na over 25 and urine osmolality over 300 but gives no guidance on how to interpret the results. Instead of a peer reviewed reference, Mediquations directs people to Wikipedia which, as of 3/2/09, also does not have the correct Halperin reference but does a pretty good job on guiding the reader on how to interpret the calculation.

Overall I give Mediquations three out of four stars. Mahdavi has focused on breadth (200+ formulas!) rather than making the core formulas easier to use and fully documenting those calculations with useful information.

QxMD publishes four different free calculators: Neph (iTunes link), Cards, GI, and HEME. Each calculator has the same equations but the opening screen just shows the namesake’s equations. To get to the other specialties you have to drill down to them. I like this solution to the avalanche of equations found in Mediquation.

Instead of having a favorites tab the equations you use most frequently are automatically added to the Recent list which allows you to generate the same functionality of a favorites list without the work. Nice.

The best feature of NephCalc is a feature called Question Flow. When you turn this on each variable you need to enter is prompted automatically. This significantly speeds data input. For example the data entry flow for Mediquations and the MDRD GFR is:

  1. Tap age
  2. Enter age
  3. Save age
  4. Tap cr
  5. Enter cr
  6. Save cr
  7. Tap African American
  8. Tap Female

For Nephro Calc it is:

  1. Enter age
  2. Save
  3. Enter Cr
  4. Save
  5. Enter African American
  6. Enter Female

It saves two steps and feels a lot more streamlined. Nice innovation.

The Info button leads to a page with interpretive information and a reference. QxMD choose the 2002 K/DOQI guidelines for CKD staging which is probably a great reference, since the 4-variable formula was never published in a peer reviewed journal. The K/DOQI guideline does a nice job of describing the MDRD formula.

The FeUrea information page gives good data on interpreting this calculation and references the KI article (PDF) which put FeUrea on the map rather than the Kaplan and Kohn article where the calculation was first published. I think that is appropriate. (Though it makes me a little sad to see Orly Kohn forgotten for what it is one of the coolest new things in clinical nephrology. Orly was one of my mentor’s at U of C where she runs the PD clinic and is one of the attendings that enriched my fellowship. I remember doing the KI article in journal club and she was in the room and was completely modest about us critiquing her formula.)

With the TTKG QxMD again shines with a good description of how to interpret the calculation, the equation and the correct Halperin reference but the link which promises the abstract doesn’t work.

Like Mediquations however, not every equation has informative “Info.” The osmolar gap simply states “No additional information is available for this topic.”

Overall, I think that Nephro Calc is the best clinical calculator for nephrology and its free. It is not perfect but its close enough to perfect, to be the calculator I recommend to students and fellows rotating with me.

MedMath is bundled as part of Epocrates (iTunes Link). One of the key differences with MedMath is that instead of going to individual pages for each variable all the variables are on one screen. This limits the screen space for a number pad and MedMath uses a non-standard keypad which is significantly smaller than the ones in Mediquation and Nephro Calc. I found it more difficult to tap in the correct numbers with my fingers. I wonder if this is cruft from MedMath being originally written for the PalmOS and stylus-based touch screens.

The MDRD equation pictured is the less often used 6-variable formula. Which means that unless you have the albumin and BUN you can’t calculate the GFR.

The calculated osmolality does not allow one to enter the alcohol level, an omission also found in NephCalc. Only Mediquations allows you to correct the calculated osmolality for ethanol.

For me, the MDRD equation is one of the killer features of a medical calculator so MedMath with its 6-variable silliness totally fails and is a non-starter.

On to the consult service.

My favorite month and the month I dread.
The most stimulating and just the most.

I have two medical students and one fellow. Which is a particularly difficult combination to teach. You have students at the beginning their education and a fellow almost done with her formal training.

My fellow has already told me that she wants to focus on fluids and electrolytes which suits my interests perfectly. It also dovetails nicely with what medical students typically want to get out of a fourth year nephro rotation (especially after rank lists have been submitted).

My plan for the syllabus is:

  • Mon: Ca, Phos, metabolic bone disease (PDF or Zip file for Pages), more acid-base problems
  • Tues: Collectively use mind maps to describe renal physiology Continue to teach ABGs: Anion gap metabolic acidosis with gap-gap (delta gap) and osmolar gap (PDF or Zip file for Pages)
  • Wed: Mind the gap…osmotic gap, anion gap, stool osmolar gap, urinary anion gap Busy clinic, no time for any teaching
  • Thurs: presentation of outlines/abstract of end-of-the-month presentation, non-anion gap metabolic acidosis PowerPoint presentation.
  • Fri: Vacation (for me not the students)
  • Mon: Alcohol and its protean effects on electrolytes Did this March 6th
  • Tues: first student/fellow presentation
  • Wed-Fri: NKF Spring Clinical Meeting
  • Mon: second student/fellow presentation
  • Tues: third student/fellow presentation

It’s an ambitious plan. We’ll see how it goes.

Dialysis report card

One of my 81 year old patients just recently started on dialysis. I took care of her CKD for about 3 years before she needed to start dialysis. Today, we had a care meeting and she told me that she was doing great on dialysis and her labs verified this.

Her pastor reads all the good report cards that the kids in her church bring to him. So she brought in her dialysis report card and her pastor read it on Sunday.