Factors Associated With Withdrawal From Dialysis Therapy in Incident Hemodialysis Patients Aged 80 Years or Older

Nutritional and Dietary Management of Chronic Kidney Disease Under Conservative and Preservative Kidney Care Without Dialysis

While dialysis has been the prevailing treatment paradigm for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), emphasis on conservative and preservative management in which dietary interventions are a major cornerstone have emerged. Based on high-quality evidence, international guidelines support the utilization of low-protein diets as an intervention to reduce CKD progression and mortality risk, although the precise thresholds (if any) for dietary protein intake vary across recommendations. There is also increasing evidence demonstrating that plant-dominant low-protein diets reduce the risk of developing incident CKD, CKD progression, and its related complications including cardiometabolic disease, metabolic acidosis, mineral and bone disorders, and uremic toxin generation. In this review, we discuss the premise for conservative and preservative dietary interventions, specific dietary approaches used in conservative and preservative care, potential benefits of a plant-dominant low-protein diet, and practical implementation of these nutritional strategies without dialysis.

Prevalence and Correlates of Preference-Concordant Care Among Hospitalized People Receiving Maintenance Dialysis

Key Points

A large proportion of hospitalized patients receiving dialysis report not receiving preference-concordant care. Hospitalized patients on dialysis desiring a comfort-oriented medical plan were likely to report receiving preference-concordant care.

Background

Preference-concordant care is a cornerstone of high-quality medical decision-making, yet the prevalence and correlates of preference-concordant care have not been well-studied in patients receiving dialysis. We surveyed hospitalized people receiving maintenance dialysis to estimate the prevalence and correlates of preference-concordant care among this population.

Methods

We assessed preference concordance by asking participants (223/380, 59% response rate), “How strongly do you agree or disagree that your current treatment plan meets your preference?” We assessed treatment plan preference by asking whether patients preferred a plan that focused on (1 ) extending life or (2 ) relieving pain and discomfort. We assessed shared dialysis decision-making using the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire. We examined the differences between those reporting lack of preference-concordant care and those reporting receipt of preference-concordant care using chi-squared analyses. We also studied whether patients' treatment plan preferences or shared dialysis decision-making scores were correlated with their likelihood of receiving preference-concordant care.

Results

Of the 213 respondents who provided data on preference concordance, 90 (42.3%) reported that they were not receiving preference-concordant care. Patients who preferred pain and discomfort relief over life extension were less likely (odds ratio, 0.15 [95% confidence interval, 0.08 to 0.28] P = <0.0001) to report receiving preference-concordant care; patients with higher shared decision-making scores were more likely (odds ratio, 1.02 [95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.03], P = 0.02) to report preference-concordant care.

Conclusions

A substantial proportion of this sample of hospitalized people receiving maintenance dialysis reported not receiving preference-concordant care. Efforts to improve symptom management and enhance patient engagement in dialysis decision-making may improve the patients' perceptions of receiving preference-concordant care.

Impact of haemodialysis hours on outcomes in older patients

AIM

Previous studies report an association between longer haemodialysis treatment sessions and improved survival. Worldwide, there is a trend to increasing age among prevalent patients receiving haemodialysis. This analysis aimed to determine whether the mortality benefit of longer haemodialysis treatment sessions diminishes with increasing age.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of people who first commenced thrice-weekly haemodialysis aged ≥65 years, reported to the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry from 2005 to 2015, included from 90 days after dialysis start. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Cox regression analysis was performed with haemodialysis session duration the exposure of interest.

RESULTS

Of 8224 people who commenced haemodialysis as their first treatment for kidney failure aged ≥65 years during this period, 4727 patients died. Longer dialysis hours per session was associated with a decreased risk of death in unadjusted analyses [hazard ratio, HR, for ≥5 h versus 4 to <4.5 h: 0.81 (0.75-0.88, p < .001)]. Patients having longer dialysis sessions were younger but had greater co-morbidity. In an adjusted model including age and other variables, the survival benefit of longer hours was only partially attenuated [HR for previous comparison: 0.75 (0.69-0.82, p < .001)], and no interaction between age and hours was demonstrated (p = .89).

CONCLUSION

The apparent survival benefit associated with longer haemodialysis session length appears to be preserved in patients 65 years or older. In practice, the benefit of longer dialysis hours should be carefully weighed against other factors in this patient group.

Parameters affecting prognosis after hemodialysis withdrawal: experience from a single center

INTRODUCTION

Withdrawal from maintenance hemodialysis is unavoidable in some patients due to their poor general condition; however, their survival days vary depending on their health status. The factors associated with life prognosis in the terminal phase in patients undergoing hemodialysis remain unclear.

METHODS

Patients who died after withdrawal from hemodialysis between 2011 and 2021 at Nagasaki Renal Center were included. Patient background data were collected, and the association between the patients' clinical features and survival duration was analyzed.

RESULTS

The withdrawal group included 174 patients (79.8 ± 10.8 years old; 50.6% male; median dialysis vintage, 3.6 years). The most common reason for withdrawal (95%) was that hemodialysis was more harmful than beneficial because of the patient's poor general condition. The median time from withdrawal to death was 4 days (interquartile range, 3-10 days). Multivariable Cox proportional regression analysis showed that oral nutrition (hazard ratio (HR), 1.98; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12-3.50; P = 0.03), hypoxemia (HR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.55-3.47; P < 0.01), ventilator use (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.11-0.58; P < 0.01), and pleural effusion (HR, 1.54; CI, 1.01-2.37; P = 0.04) were associated with increased survival duration. In contrast, antibiotics and vasopressor administration were not associated with the survival duration.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we explored the parameters affecting the survival of patients who withdrew from hemodialysis. Physicians could use our results to establish more accurate predictions, which may help the patient and their family to emotionally accept and implement the desired care plan.

Effect of intradialytic exercise on geriatric issues in older patients undergoing hemodialysis: a single-center non-randomized controlled study

PURPOSE

This study investigated the effect of 1 year of intradialytic exercise on older hemodialysis patients with geriatric issues.

METHODS

Forty-six patients aged ≥ 70 years were non-randomly assigned to two groups (exercise group: 27, control group: 19). Intradialytic exercise consisted of 30 min of aerobic exercise using a cycle ergometer, and resistance training comprising four exercises using an elastic tube three times per week for 1 year. Handgrip strength, leg extremity muscle strength, 10-m walk speed, short physical performance battery, serum albumin, Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI), geriatric depression scale, frailty, and mobility were each assessed before and after the intervention.

RESULTS

The control group exhibited a significant reduction in handgrip strength, 10-m walking speed, serum albumin, and GNRI after intervention compared to baseline (p < 0.05). Conversely, no significant reductions were observed in the exercise group. The ΔGNRI (effect size, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]  - 5.21, - 0.1; p < 0.05) and Δserum albumin (effect size, 0.72; 95% CI - 0.31, - 0.02; p < 0.05) before and after the intervention declined significantly less in the exercise group than in the control group. Other between-group values were not significantly different. The number of frail patients and patients requiring walking assistance exhibited no significant intra-group or between-group differences before and after the intervention.

CONCLUSION

Intradialytic exercise prevented the worsening of nutritional status and physical function in the exercise group compared to the control group. Exercise therapy during dialysis is an important aspect of patient care that helps prevent functional decline in older patients.

Comparative Analysis of Efficacy and Prognosis of Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis for End-Stage Renal Disease: A Meta-analysis

Objective

This meta-analysis is aimed at systematically assessing the efficacy and prognosis of hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) in the treatment of end-stage renal disease (ESRD).

Methods

China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, SinoMed, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies to evaluate the two different dialysis methods for ESRD. The search time was set from 2010 to 2021. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata16.0. The treatment group received PD, while the control group was given HD.

Results

Out of 317 articles initially retrieved, 14 studies were finally included in our meta-analysis. The analysis results showed that there was no marked difference in the 1-year survival rate between the two groups (RR = 1.05; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.10; P > 0.05), but the incidence rate of adverse reactions in the treatment group was significantly lower than that in the control group (RR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.37, 0.70; P < 0.05). In addition, PD and HD treatments caused significant decreases in serum creatinine levels (PD, SMD = −2.91; 95% CI: -3.79, -2.04; P < 0.05; HD, SMD = −3.09; 95% CI: -4.01, -2.16; P < 0.05) and blood urea nitrogen levels (PD, SMD = −2.54, 95% CI: -3.37, -1.72, P < 0.05; HD, SMD = −2.62, 95% CI: -3.47, -1.77, P < 0.05); however, there was no significant statistical difference in posttreatment levels of serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen between the two groups. Compared with the control group, the hemoglobin (SMD = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.07, 1.06; P < 0.05) and serum albumin (SMD = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.46, 1.76, P < 0.05) levels were significantly increased in the treatment group after treatment.

Conclusion

In summary, both PD and HD can improve renal function in uremic patients, but PD is superior to HD in reducing the incidence of adverse reactions, improving the nutritional status, and therefore improving the quality of life of patients.

Changing landscape of dialysis withdrawal in patients with kidney failure: Implications for clinical practice

Dialysis withdrawal has become an accepted treatment option for patients with kidney failure and is one of the leading causes of death in patients receiving dialysis in high-income countries. Despite its increasing acceptance, dialysis withdrawal currently lacks a clear, consistent definition. The processes and outcomes of dialysis withdrawal have wide temporal and geographical variability, attributed to dialysis patient selection, influence from cultural, religious and spiritual beliefs, and availability of kidney replacement therapy and conservative kidney management. As a complex, evolving process, dialysis withdrawal poses an enormous challenge for clinicians and healthcare teams with various limitations precluding a peaceful and smooth transition between active dialysis and end-of-life care. In this review, we examine the current definitions of dialysis withdrawal, the temporal and geographical patterns of dialysis withdrawal, international barriers in the decision-making process (including dialysis withdrawal during the COVID-19 pandemic), and gaps in the current dialysis withdrawal recommendations for clinical consideration and future studies.

Dialysis withdrawal in The Netherlands between 2000 and 2019: time trends, risk factors and centre variation

BACKGROUND

Dialysis withdrawal is a common cause of death in dialysis-dependent patients. This study aims to describe dialysis withdrawal practice in The Netherlands, focussing on time trends, risk factors and centre variation.

METHODS

Data were retrieved from the Dutch registry of kidney replacement therapy patients. All patients who started maintenance dialysis and died in the period 2000-2019 were included. The main outcome was death after dialysis withdrawal; all other causes of death were used for comparison. Time trends were analysed as unadjusted data (proportion per year) and the year of death was included in a multivariable logistic model. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify factors associated with withdrawal. Centre variation was compared using funnel plots.

RESULTS

A total of 34 692 patients started dialysis and 18 412 patients died while on dialysis. Dialysis withdrawal was an increasingly common cause of death, increasing from 18.3% in 2000-2004 to 26.8% in 2015-2019. Of all patients withdrawing, 26.1% discontinued treatment within their first year. In multivariable analysis, increasing age, female sex, haemodialysis as a treatment modality and year of death were independent factors associated with death after dialysis withdrawal. Centre variation was large (80.7 and 57.4% within 95% control limits of the funnel plots for 2000-2009 and 2010-2019, respectively), even after adjustment for confounding factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment withdrawal has become the main cause of death among dialysis-dependent patients in The Netherlands, with large variations between centres. These findings emphasize the need for timely advance care planning and improving the shared decision-making process on choosing dialysis or conservative care.