Conservative vs. preservative management of chronic kidney disease: similarities and distinctions

Abstract

Purpose of review: Dialysis has been the prevailing treatment paradigm in advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) for patients ineligible for or unlikely to receive kidney transplantation. As dialysis may neither offer survival benefit nor improved quality of life in certain groups, there has been increasing interest in conservative management as an alternative approach.

Recent findings: Experts and workgroups suggest the main goals of conservative management are to optimize quality of life, treat symptoms of end-stage renal disease without dialysis or transplant, and improve survival and cardiovascular health. Given the implications of preserved kidney function on clinical outcomes, preservative management has been proposed as an integral component of conservative management. Growing evidence suggests the survival benefit of dialysis vs. conservative management without dialysis is marginal or even reversed in certain subpopulations (elderly, multimorbid, cardiovascular disease). Limited data suggest that conservative and preservative management is associated with equivalent to more favorable trajectories of health-related quality of life and symptom burden over time as opposed to dialysis.

Summary: Whereas existing data suggest conservative management is a viable patient-centered treatment strategy, further research is needed to determine the comparative effectiveness of preservative kidney management vs. dialysis or palliative management, as well as which patient subgroups will most benefit from these treatment strategies.