Pro and con arguments in using alternative dialysis regimens in the frail and elderly patients

Living with frailty and haemodialysis: a qualitative study

Background

Frailty is highly prevalent in people receiving haemodialysis (HD) and is associated with poor outcomes. Understanding the lived experiences of this group is essential to inform holistic care delivery.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews with N = 25 prevalent adults receiving HD from 3 HD units in the UK. Eligibility criteria included a Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) score of 4–7 and a history of at least one fall in the last 6 months. Sampling began guided by maximum variation sampling to ensure diversity in frailty status; subsequently theoretical sampling enabled exploration of preliminary themes. Analysis was informed by constructivist grounded theory; later we drew upon the socioecological model.

Results

Participants had a mean age of 69 ± 10 years, 13 were female, and 13 were White British. 14 participants were vulnerable or mildly frail (CFS 4–5), and 11 moderately or severely frail (CFS 6–7). Participants characterised frailty as weight loss, weakness, exhaustion, pain and sleep disturbance arising from multiple long-term conditions. Participants’ accounts revealed: the consequences of frailty (variable function and psychological ill-health at the individual level; increasing reliance upon family at the interpersonal level; burdensome health and social care interactions at the organisational level; reduced participation at the community level; challenges with financial support at the societal level); coping strategies (avoidance, vigilance, and resignation); and unmet needs (overprotection from family and healthcare professionals, transactional health and social care exchanges).

Conclusions

The implementation of a holistic needs assessment, person-centred health and social care systems, greater family support and enhancing opportunities for community participation may all improve outcomes and experience. An approach which encompasses all these strategies, together with wider public health interventions, may have a greater sustained impact.

Trial registration

ISRCTN12840463.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-022-02857-w.

No Survival Benefit in Octogenarians and Nonagenarians with Extended Hemodialysis Treatment Time

BACKGROUND

The population of elderly end-stage renal disease patients initiating dialysis is rapidly growing. Although longer treatment is supposed to benefit for hemodialysis (HD) patients through more solute clearance and slower fluid removal, it is not yet clear how treatment session length affects mortality risk in octogenarians and nonagenarians.

METHODS

In a cohort of 112,026 incident HD patients between 2007 and 2011, we examined the association of treatment session length with all-cause mortality, adjusting for demographics and comorbid conditions. We also used restricted spline functions for age to evaluate continuous changes in the association of short (< 210 min) and extended (≥240 min) HD treatment (vs. 210 to < 240 min) with all-cause mortality over continuous age.

RESULTS

During the first 91 days of dialysis, patients aged ≥80 years tended to have the lowest treatment session length (median [interquartile range] 211 [193-230] min, r > 0.5). Longer treatment was associated with better survival in patients < 65 and 65 to < 80 years but not in octogenarians/nonagenarians. The association of extended treatment (≥240 min) with better survival was attenuated across age and not significant among patients aged ≥80 years with a hazard ratio of 1.10 (95% CI 0.99-1.20). Shorter treatment sessions (< 210 min) was associated with higher mortality across all age groups.

CONCLUSION

Extended HD was not associated with lower mortality among octogenarians and nonagenarians, while it was associated with better survival among younger patients. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal treatment session length in elderly incident HD patients.

Reducing the costs of chronic kidney disease while delivering quality health care: a call to action

The treatment of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) imposes substantial societal costs. Expenditure is highest for renal replacement therapy (RRT), especially in-hospital haemodialysis. Redirection towards less expensive forms of RRT (peritoneal dialysis, home haemodialysis) or kidney transplantation should decrease financial pressure. However, costs for CKD are not limited to RRT, but also include nonrenal health-care costs, costs not related to health care, and costs for patients with CKD who are not yet receiving RRT. Even if patients with CKD or ESRD could be given the least expensive therapies, costs would decrease only marginally. We therefore propose a consistent and sustainable approach focusing on prevention. Before a preventive strategy is favoured, however, authorities should carefully analyse the cost to benefit ratio of each strategy. Primary prevention of CKD is more important than secondary prevention, as many other related chronic diseases, such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, liver disease, cancer, and pulmonary disorders could also be prevented. Primary prevention largely consists of lifestyle changes that will reduce global societal costs and, more importantly, result in a healthy, active, and long-lived population. Nephrologists need to collaborate closely with other sectors and governments, to reach these aims.