[Low flux dialysate daily home hemodialysis: A result for the 62 first French and Belgian patients]

Impact of Hydrophilic Modification of Synthetic Dialysis Membranes on Hemocompatibility and Performance

The dialyzer is the core element in the hemodialysis treatment of patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). During hemodialysis treatment, the dialyzer replaces the function of the kidney by removing small and middle-molecular weight uremic toxins, while retaining essential proteins. Meanwhile, a dialyzer should have the best possible hemocompatibility profile as the perpetuated contact of blood with artificial surfaces triggers complement activation, coagulation and immune cell activation, and even low-level activation repeated chronically over years may lead to undesired effects. During hemodialysis, the adsorption of plasma proteins to the dialyzer membrane leads to a formation of a secondary membrane, which can compromise both the uremic toxin removal and hemocompatibility of the dialyzer. Hydrophilic modifications of novel dialysis membranes have been shown to reduce protein adsorption, leading to better hemocompatibility profile and performance stability during dialysis treatments. This review article focuses on the importance of performance and hemocompatibility of dialysis membranes for the treatment of dialysis patients and summarizes recent studies on the impact of protein adsorption and hydrophilic modifications of membranes on these two core elements of a dialyzer.

Characteristics, practices, and outcomes in a Belgian cohort of incident home hemodialysis patients: A 6-year experience

BACKGROUND

Home hemodialysis (HHD) remains underused in patients with kidney failure. Current literature on HHD mostly originates from non-European countries, making generalization difficult. The present study describes patients' profile and practice patterns from a Belgian HHD center, and assesses patient and technique survival and complications associated with HHD.

METHODS

We analyzed data from all our incident patients during a 6-year period. The patient's characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Transition to another therapeutic modality, estimated using a risk model with death and transplantation as competing events, episodes of respite cares and hospitalizations, and access complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

Eighty patients (mean age: 47 years; male: 64%) met the inclusion criteria. Fifty-one percent of patients initiated dialysis with a central venous catheter (CVC) and 96% were not assisted. Arterio-venous fistula (AVF) cannulation was performed using buttonhole technique. Standard-frequent HD (47%) and short-frequent low-flow dialysate HD (34%) were mostly used at HHD initiation. Cumulative incidences of technique failure and death were 15%, 24%, and 32% at 1, 2, and 5 years. Incidence rates for respite dialysis and hospitalizations were 2.39 and 0.54 per patient-year of HHD. In comparison with AVF, incidence rate ratios of overall access complications and access-related infections for CVC were 4.3 (95% CI: 3.1-6, p < 0.01) and 4.4 (95% CI: 2.1-10, p < 0.01), respectively. Buttonhole cannulation was complicated by 0.26 (95% CI: 0.15-0.46) infections per 1000 AVF-days.

CONCLUSIONS

This present study provides important information about patient's profile and practice patterns and safety in a cohort of 80 incident Belgian HHD patients, with encouraging techniques and patient survival.

Where Are You Going, Nephrology? Considerations on Models of Care in an Evolving Discipline

Nephrology is a complex discipline, including care of kidney disease, dialysis, and transplantation. While in Europe, about 1:10 individuals is affected by chronic kidney disease (CKD), 1:1000 lives thanks to dialysis or transplantation, whose costs are as high as 2% of all the health care budget. Nephrology has important links with surgery, bioethics, cardiovascular and internal medicine, and is, not surprisingly, in a delicate balance between specialization and comprehensiveness, development and consolidation, cost constraints, and competition with internal medicine and other specialties. This paper proposes an interpretation of the different systems of nephrology care summarising the present choices into three not mutually exclusive main models (“scientific”, “pragmatic”, “holistic”, or “comprehensive”), and hypothesizing an “ideal-utopic” prevention-based fourth one. The so-called scientific model is built around kidney transplantation and care of glomerulonephritis and immunologic diseases, which probably pose the most important challenges in our discipline, but do not mirror the most common clinical problems. Conversely, the pragmatic one is built around dialysis (the most expensive and frequent mode of renal replacement therapy) and pre-dialysis treatment, focusing attention on the most common diseases, the holistic, or comprehensive, model comprehends both, and is integrated by several subspecialties, such as interventional nephrology, obstetric nephrology, and the ideal-utopic one is based upon prevention, and early care of common diseases. Each model has strength and weakness, which are commented to enhance discussion on the crucial issue of the philosophy of care behind its practical organization. Increased reflection and research on models of nephrology care is urgently needed if we wish to rise to the challenge of providing earlier and better care for older and more complex kidney patients with acute and chronic kidney diseases, with reduced budgets.