National Kidney Foundation report on dialyzer reuse. Task Force on Reuse of Dialyzers, Council on Dialysis, National Kidney Foundation

Development of a framework for minimum and optimal safety and quality standards for hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis

Substantial heterogeneity in practice patterns around the world has resulted in wide variations in the quality and type of dialysis care delivered. This is particularly so in countries without universal standards of care and governmental (or other organizational) oversight. Most high-income countries have developed such oversight based on documentation of adherence to standardized, evidence-based guidelines. Many low- and lower-middle-income countries have no or only limited organized oversight systems to ensure that care is safe and effective. The implementation and oversight of basic standards of care requires sufficient infrastructure and appropriate workforce and financial resources to support the basic levels of care and safety practices. It is important to understand how these standards then can be reasonably adapted and applied in low- and lower-middle-income countries.

Choosing a dialyzer: What clinicians need to know

The objectives of hemodialysis have moved from the diffusive clearance of small molecular weight uremic toxins and achieving dialyzer urea adequacy targets to emphasis on improving clinical outcomes in end stage renal failure patients by increasing larger sized uremic toxin clearance. Clinical emphasis in the last few decades has focused on increasing middle molecule weight toxin clearance by hemodiafiltration. Although long-term data is still lacking, short-term outcomes appear promising. Advancements in nanotechnology have now introduction a new generation of medium cut-off membrane dialyzers which allow diffusive clearance of similar middle molecular weight uremia toxin clearance as hemodiafiltration, without increased albumin losses. As these dialyzers have only recently been introduced into clinical practice, no long-term outcomes are available to determine the relative benefits or advantages of this approach. As dialyzers are now designed to maximize diffusive or convective clearance, or provide a combination, then clinicians can now choose dialyzers tailored to the individual patient needs depending on clinical circumstances. We review the key important features in choosing a dialyzer for patients with end stage renal failure and acute kidney injury.

Dialyzer reuse and mortality risk in patients with end-stage renal disease: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Robust evidence about dialyzer reuse effects on mortality is not available. Our aim was to summarize the evidence for the effectiveness of dialyzer reuse compared to single use in patients with end-stage renal disease.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SciELO, LILACS, USRDS ADR, universities' theses databases and annals of congress from major nephrology societies. Reviewers performed the study selection and data extraction independently. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. Mortality was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 1,190 studies were retrieved, and 14 were included in the review (n = 956,807 patients). The disinfectants used on dialyzer reprocessing were hypochlorite, formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, and peracetic acid. The evidence available from the studies was of very low quality. Most studies found no differences between groups. In studies with statistically significant differences, these differences were not observed in all groups and they varied by the type of disinfectant, time of observation and treatment unit.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences were identified for the superiority or inferiority of dialyzer reuse versus single use when assessing the mortality of patients with end-stage renal disease. Studies of higher quality, including randomized clinical trials, are required to provide conclusive evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of dialyzer reuse.

Renal replacement therapy review: past, present and future

Support of renal function in modern times encompasses a wide array of methods and clinical scenarios, from the ambulatory patient to the critically ill. The ability to safely and routinely deliver ongoing organ support in the outpatient setting has until recently separated renal replacement therapy from other organ support. Renal replacement therapy (RRT) can be applied intermittently or continuously using extracorporeal (hemodialysis) or paracorporeal (peritoneal dialysis) methods. The purpose of this article is to familiarize the reader with the history, physiology, mode, dose, equipment and future of renal replacement therapy and not to detail the technical methods employed for blood purification.

Abandoning peracetic acid-based dialyzer reuse is associated with improved survival

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Higher mortality risk reported with reuse versus single use of dialyzers is potentially related to reuse reagents that modify membrane surface characteristics and the blood-membrane interface. A key mechanism may involve stimulation of an inflammatory response.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

In a prospective crossover design, laboratory markers and mortality from 23 hemodialysis facilities abandoning reuse with peracetic acid mixture were tracked. C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cell (WBC) count, albumin, and prealbumin were measured for 2 consecutive months before abandoning reuse and subsequently within 3 and 6 months on single use. Survival models were utilized to compare the 6-month period before abandoning reuse (baseline) and the 6-month period on single use of dialyzers after a 3-month "washout period."

RESULTS

Patients from baseline and single-use periods had a mean age of approximately 63 years; 44% were female, 54% were diabetic, 60% were white, and the mean vintage was approximately 3.2 years. The unadjusted hazard ratio for death was 0.70 and after case-mix adjustment was 0.74 for single use compared with reuse. Patients with CRP≥5 mg/L during reuse (mean CRP=26.6 mg/ml in April) declined on single use to 20.2 mg/L by August and 20.4 mg/L by November. WBC count declined slightly during single use, but nutritional markers were unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

Abandonment of peracetic-acid-based reuse was associated with improved survival and lower levels of inflammatory but not nutritional markers. Further study is needed to evaluate a potential link between dialyzer reuse, inflammation, and mortality.

A quality and cost-benefit analysis of dialyzer reuse in hemodialysis patients

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the benefits of dialyzer reuse for hemodialysis (HD) patients, including the cost of HD treatment and patient's survival, a comparison was made regarding the standard practice of single-use dialysis.

METHODS

From January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2005, a total of 128,232 successive HD treatments in 822 patients in Chang Gung Memorial Hospital-Kaohsiung Medical Center were included in this study.

RESULTS

Approximately 54.25% (446/822) of patients reused dialyzers. The average times of dialyzer reuse was 2.54. The annual hollow fiber cost is reduced by $241,054.08 U.S. dollars (NT $7,834,257.60). The annual cost of hollow fiber was reduced by $540.48 U.S. dollars (NT $17,565.60) in one patient with dialyzer reuse. The mortality rates in dialyzer reuse and single use groups were 3.1% and 10.9% within one year (p < 0.0001). Multiple logistic regressions showed that single use compared with reuse was associated with higher mortality after adjusting co-morbid conditions including age, diabetes mellitus, etc. CONCLUSIONS. We concluded that the benefits of dialyzer reuse included safety in our center and reduction in cost during a 12-month period. Dialyzer reuse may be a safe alternative.

Oxidation of proteins adsorbed on hemodialysis membranes and model materials

The cleaning of cellulosic hemodialysis membrane Cuprophan and model materials (glass; polystyrene and polypropylene, as such and surface-oxidized), conditioned by adsorption of blood plasma proteins (HSA, fibrinogen, IgG) was investigated in vitro. Sodium hypochlorite (NaClO) and Renalin, a product containing hydrogen peroxide and peroxyacetic acid, were used as cleaning reagents. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and the use of radiolabeled fibrinogen demonstrated the presence of varying amounts of a polypeptidic residue, with sulfur brought to a high oxidation stage (sulfonate-like). The trends were the same for the three proteins regarding the effectiveness of the oxidizer and the influence of the surface properties. NaClO was much more effective than Renalin to remove the adsorbed proteins. The proteins adsorbed on Cuprophan were more sensitive to the oxidizers, when compared with proteins adsorbed on other materials. This may be due to both the lower protein-surface affinity, as indicated by radiochemical measurements, and the sensitivity of the material itself to the oxidizer, as revealed by weight loss measurements. These results support the attribution of hemocompatibility improvement after regeneration of Cuprophan with Renalin to the masking of the activating surface by a residue from previously adsorbed proteins.

Dialyzer Reuse-Part II: Advantages and Disadvantages

Although single dialyzer use and reuse by chemical reprocessing are both associated with some complications, there is no definitive advantage to either in this respect. Some complications occur mainly at the first use of a dialyzer: a new cellophane or cuprophane membrane may activate the complement system, or a noxious agent may be introduced to the dialyzer during production or generated during storage. These agents may not be completely removed during the routine rinsing procedure. The reuse of dialyzers is associated with environmental contamination, allergic reactions, residual chemical infusion (rebound release), inadequate concentration of disinfectants, and pyrogen reactions. Bleach used during reprocessing causes a progressive increase in dialyzer permeability to larger molecules, including albumin. Reprocessing methods without the use of bleach are associated with progressive decreases in membrane permeability, particularly to larger molecules. Most comparative studies have not shown differences in mortality between centers reusing and those not reusing dialyzers, however, the largest cluster of dialysis-related deaths occurred with single-use dialyzers due to the presence of perfluorohydrocarbon introduced during the manufacturing process and not completely removed during preparation of the dialyzers before the dialysis procedure. The cost savings associated with reuse is substantial, especially with more expensive, high-flux synthetic membrane dialyzers. With reuse, some dialysis centers can afford to utilize more efficient dialyzers that are more expensive; consequently they provide a higher dose of dialysis and reduce mortality. Some studies have shown minimally higher morbidity with chemical reuse, depending on the method. Waste disposal is definitely decreased with the reuse of dialyzers, thus environmental impacts are lessened, particularly if reprocessing is done by heat disinfection. It is safe to predict that dialyzer reuse in dialysis centers will continue because it also saves money for the providers. Saving both time for the patient and money for the provider were the main motivations to design a new machine for daily home hemodialysis. The machine, developed in the 1990s, cleans and heat disinfects the dialyzer and lines in situ so they do not need to be changed for a month. In contrast, reuse of dialyzers in home hemodialysis patients treated with other hemodialysis machines is becoming less popular and is almost extinct.

UNRESOLVED ISSUES IN DIALYSIS: Dialyzer Best Practice: Single Use or Reuse?

Outcome studies have shown either no additional risk or a small additional risk for hospitalization and mortality associated with reprocessing dialyzers. Although the risks from reprocessing dialyzers have yet to be fully elucidated, reuse can be done safely if it is performed in full compliance with the standards of Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI). Like most industrial processes, however, complete control of the reuse process in a clinical environment and full compliance with regulations at all times is difficult. Potential errors and breakdowns in the reuse process are continuing concerns. The quality controls for reprocessing of dialyzers are not equal to the rigor of the manufacturing process under the purview of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Therefore, if one were to determine "best practice," single use is preferable to reuse of dialyzers based on medical criteria and risk assessment. The long-term and cumulative effects of exposure to reuse reagents are unknown and there is no compelling medical indication for reprocessing of dialyzers. The major impediment when deciding to convert from reuse to single use of dialyzers is economic. The experience in Fresenius Medical Care-North America (FMCNA) facilities demonstrates that converting from a practice of reuse to single use is achievable. However, the overall economic impact of conversion to single use is provider specific. The dominance of reuse has been negated of late by a major shift in practice toward single use. Physicians and patients should be well informed in making decisions regarding the practice of single use versus reuse of dialyzers.

Dialyzer reuse and patient outcomes: what do we know now?

Although some hemodialysis (HD) providers in the United States have recently embarked on programs to discontinue dialyzer reprocessing, the practice of dialyzer reuse is still much more common in the United States than in many other countries. Continuation of reprocessing programs has been justified chiefly as an effort to deliver HD with biocompatible and often expensive higher flux dialysis membranes. However, this rationale is considerably less compelling with the decrease in cost for most types of HD membranes and with ongoing debates about the relative effectiveness of HD membranes according to flux and other characteristics. While it is highly likely that mandated quality control standards have limited catastrophic events, such as outbreaks of blood-borne bacterial infections that can occur due to poor dialyzer reprocessing techniques, hemodialyzer reprocessing remains vulnerable to poor implementation. Reprocessing is no longer indicated in order to improve blood-membrane biocompatibility, due to the marked decrease in first-use syndrome since the widespread adoption of synthetic dialysis membranes. Rather, the possibility exists that certain chronic inflammatory responses observed with dialyzer reuse may be deleterious, although these relationships remain speculative. While observational studies have not consistently demonstrated a large excess mortality attributable to reuse, the association of reuse to mortality remains uncertain. Evaluation of the safety of particular reprocessing techniques, germicides, and cleaners has been even harder to examine. Given the widespread availability of inexpensive biocompatible HD membranes and persistent uncertainties about the safety of dialyzer reprocessing, it is time for providers to reexamine their rationale for continuing hemodialyzer reprocessing programs.

Impact of anemia on outcome in critically ill patients with severe acute renal failure

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prognostic value of hemoglobin levels in critically ill patients with acute renal failure (ARF) requiring dialysis.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A prospective observational cohort study in two adult medical ICUs.

PATIENTS

206 consecutive patients with ARF who required dialysis. Overall 28-day mortality was 48%.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

At ICU admission mean hemoglobin level was 9.1+/-2.1 g/dl. By ROC curve analysis the threshold value of hemoglobin with the highest sensibility/specificity was 9 g/dl. At baseline 63% of patients had anemia, defined as initial hemoglobin below 9 g/dl. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that these patients had lower survival rate than those with hemoglobin above 9 g/dl. By multivariable analysis three factors were independently associated with 28-day death: hemoglobin lower than 9 g/dl (adjusted odds ratio 2.4, 95% CI 1.1-5.2), age, and SOFA score. Based on age and SOFA a matched cohort analysis of 67 pairs of ARF patients with or without anemia found similar results regarding the negative impact of anemia on outcome. Finally, a multivariable logistic regression analysis on matched cohort identified hemoglobin level below 9 g/dl (adjusted odds ratio 1.32, 95%CI 1.15-1.46), continuous renal replacement therapy, and vasoactive therapy as independent predictors of 28-day death.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that initial hemoglobin level could be helpful in identifying patients with ARF requiring dialysis at high risk of death.

Status of dialyser reuse in Korea

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Dialyser reuse treatments in Korea were first practised at a facility in 1985. Until 1999, there was only one facility practising dialyser reuse treatments, but the reuse practice has gradually increased since 1999. The purpose of this study was to gather and analyse the current (April 2002) dialyser reuse treatment data in Korea.

METHOD AND RESULTS

Data was collected via a questionnaire sent to the each hospital that reuses the dialyser, and we received a response from 26 out of 29 facilities (89.7%). Twenty-nine facilities comprised 7.7% (29 of 376) of the total nationwide haemodialysis facilities in Korea. The percentage of patients on dialyser reuse treatments was 6.2% (1234 of 20,010). All facilities used an automated reuse processing technique for dialyser reuse and 22 facilities used a peracetic acid mixture (PAM) without hypochlorite. There was one facility that used the heated citric acid method. Eighty per cent of facilities used only high flux membranes (Kuf > or = 20 mL/h per mmHg) and 12% of the facilities used both high and low flux membranes. The average number of the reuse treatments was 15-fold (range 10-22) and the average of the maximum number of reuse treatments was 20-fold (range 10-50).

CONCLUSION

Although dialyser reuse treatments are not a common practice in Korea, the reuse programs are steadily increasing. Strict quality control and further regulations regarding the reuse program should be promptly enacted to provide a better quality of haemodialysis treatment for patients in Korea.

Extended Reuse of Polysulfone Hemodialysis Membranes Using Citric Acid and Heat

The concomitant use of citric acid and prolonged exposure to heat (CAH) is an increasingly common alternative to purely chemical means of reusing dialyzers. However, there are no data on the effects of reprocessing dialyzers with CAH beyond 15 uses. Increasing the number of reuses with CAH cannot be systematically undertaken unless its safety is documented. We hypothesized that discarding polysulfone dialyzers after the 25th rather than the 15th use would result in increased clearance of beta2-microglobulin (beta2MG) without clinically significant changes in small solute clearance or albumin loss. We studied 15 Fresenius F80B polysulfone dialyzers in five chronic hemodialysis patients. Dialyzers were reprocessed using 1.5% citric acid solution heated to 95 degrees C. Representative fractional collection and 10 minute timed collections of dialysate were performed at baseline and during uses 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 for each dialyzer. Dialysate-side urea, creatinine, and beta2MG clearances were calculated, and total albumin was measured in dialysate. We used a mixed model to adjust for repeated measures (both within a given dialyzer and for the multiple dialyzers per patient). Of the 15 dialyzers studied, 3 (20%) failed before the 25th use. There was no significant change in urea or creatinine clearance with additional reuse (overall p values 0.20 and 0.60, respectively). A sustained increase in beta2MG clearance was observed after the fifth treatment compared with the first use (p < 0.001). Fractional collection showed that dialysate albumin loss increased significantly with additional reuses (p < 0.001) but did not increase significantly above baseline until treatment 25. Reprocessing of polysulfone dialyzers with CAH 25 times significantly increased albumin loss and beta2MG clearance but did not appear to affect urea or creatinine clearance. Increasing the maximum number of uses to 20 may permit cost savings compared with current practice without additional risk.

Human immunodeficiency virus infection in end-stage renal disease patients

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) offers many diagnostic and therapeutic challenges to nephrologists. Renal failure may be a direct consequence of viral infection (HIV-associated nephropathy), or intrinsic renal diseases may occur in previously infected individuals. Patients receiving renal replacement therapy (RRT) may acquire HIV infection from blood transfusions, renal allografts, sexual contacts, or needle sharing by drug addicts. In the early 1980s, the overall prognosis of patients with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) was very poor, and survival of those with ESRD was dismal. Consequently many even questioned the value of providing maintenance dialysis to patients with AIDS. With advances in diagnostic techniques in serologic and viral markers of disease, and deployment of highly effective antiretroviral agents, the prognosis of HIV-infected patients has dramatically improved. Over the past two decades, experiences in the management of HIV patients with ESRD is accumulating. Both peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis are effective modes of therapy and many centers are now beginning to perform renal transplantation in HIV-infected patients. This article deals with various aspects of HIV infection in patients with ESRD.

An outbreak of bloodstream infections in an outpatient hemodialysis center

OBJECTIVES

Investigate and control an increase in bloodstream infections (BSIs) in an outpatient hemodialysis center.

PATIENTS AND DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study was conducted for patients receiving dialysis at the center from February 2000 to April 2001. A case-control study compared microbiological data for all BSIs that occurred during the study period with those for BSIs that occurred during a baseline period January 1999 to January 2000). BSI rates before and after a 1-month intervention (May 2001) were assessed. A case was defined as a new BSI during the study period.

RESULTS

The outbreak was polymicrobial, with approximately 30 species. The baseline BSI rate was 0.7 per 100 patient-months. From February 2000 to April 2001, the BSI rate increased to 4.2 per 100 patient-months. Overall, 75% of the BSIs were associated with central venous catheters (CVCs), but CVC use did not fully explain the increase in BSIs. In January 2000, when the center changed ownership, prepackaged CVC dressing kits and biweekly infection control monitoring were discontinued. Beginning in May 2001, staff were educated on CVC care, chlorhexidine replaced povidone-iodine for cutaneous antisepsis, gauze replaced transparent dressings, antimicrobial ointments containing polyethylene glycol at CVC exit sites were discontinued, and patients with CVCs were educated on cutaneous hygiene. After the intervention period, by October 2001, rates decreased to less than 1 BSI per 100 patient-months.

CONCLUSIONS

Proper cutaneous antisepsis and access site care is crucial in preventing BSIs in patients receiving hemodialysis. Infection control programs, staff and patient education, and use of optimal antisepsis agents or prepackaged kits are useful toward this end.

Savings in dialysis treatment?

The steadily increasing number of dialysis patients prompts considerations on possibilities for budget reductions with maintenance of treatment quality. A literature survey is presented concerning trends of population increase, individual treatment costs, rationing of patient intake, and consequences of delayed progress of renal insufficiency as well as of savings during both the initial and the later phases of regular dialysis therapy. Cost reduction in one area may well induce rising total budgets and influence clinical outcome. A multidisciplinary approach is suggested to obtain answers to several questions: Can the economic burden of the changing patient demography be counterbalanced by a reorganized staff structure? Will early referral, good predialysis control, and incremental dialysis start imply longer survival? Will increased dialysis doses be economically neutralized by less staff requirements, drug consumption, and patient morbidity? Should dialyzer reuse be abandoned? Can pretransplant dialysis periods be reduced or omitted by improved planning?

Characteristics and treatment of patients not reusing dialyzers in reuse units

Dialyzer reuse is practiced in more than 75% of the patients and dialysis units in the United States. However, reuse is not practiced in a small fraction of patients treated in reuse units (RUUs). This study evaluates both patient and facility characteristics associated with nonreuse in RUUs. The data source is from the Dialysis Mortality and Morbidity Study, Waves 1, 3, and 4, of the US Renal Data System. Only facilities that practiced dialyzer reuse were included in the analysis. A total of 12,094 patients from 1,095 reuse facilities were studied. Patients undergoing hemodialysis as of December 31, 1993, were selected. Of all patients treated in RUUs, 8% did not reuse dialyzers. Nonreuse was significantly (P < 0.02) more common, based on adjusted odds ratios (ORs), among patients who were younger (OR = 1.16 per 10 years younger), had primary glomerulonephritis (OR = 1.26 versus diabetes), had lower serum albumin level (OR = 1.72 per 1 g/dL lower), had more years on dialysis, and had higher level of education. Nonreuse patients were more likely to be treated with low-flux dialyzers (OR = 7.35; P < 0. 0001) and have a lower dialysis dose. No reuse was more likely in larger units and in not-for-profit and hospital-based units. Patient refusal accounted for one fourth of nonreuse in RUUs and was associated with the same factors, as well as with fewer comorbid conditions and non-Hispanic ethnicity. Significant geographic variations (up to eightfold) were documented. Nonreuse patients are treated with smaller, low-flux dialyzers and, on average, receive a lower Kt/V than reuse patients in the same units.

Effects of dialyzer reuse on the permeability of low-flux membranes

Little attention has been given to the effects of reuse on the permeability of low-flux membranes, especially regarding middle molecules. We studied two different types of low-flux membranes at reuses 0, 6, and 12 in five patients undergoing hemodialysis with the following combinations of membrane and sterilant: cellulose diacetate membrane and formaldehyde, polysulfone membrane and formaldehyde, cellulose diacetate membrane and peracetic acid, and polysulfone and peracetic acid. The permeability of the membranes was assessed through the hydraulic ultrafiltration coefficient (K(UF)), sieving coefficient for beta(2)-microglobulin (B2M), and vitamin B(12) and albumin concentrations in ultrafiltrate. After 12 reuses, total cell volume (TCV) tended to be reduced in both cellulose diacetate and polysulfone dialyzers irrespective of the sterilant used, but significance was only found for the first set of dialyzers. Cellulose diacetate dialyzers reprocessed with either formaldehyde or peracetic acid showed an important reduction in K(UF) (31% [P < 0.05] and 23% [P < 0.05], respectively). A significant elevation in K(UF) was found in polysulfone membranes reprocessed with peracetic acid (41%; P < 0.05), but no alterations in K(UF) were found in polysulfone membranes reprocessed with formaldehyde. Cellulose diacetate membranes were intrinsically more permeable to B2M than polysulfone membranes (sieving coefficient, 6. 85 +/- 2.53 versus 0.04 +/- 0.02 x 10(-2); P < 0.001), which was not modified by any of the sterilants. Vitamin B(12) levels in ultrafiltrate decreased to an undetectable level in four of five samples collected after 12 reuses in polysulfone membranes reprocessed with peracetic acid (90 +/- 71 to 3 +/- 8 pg/mL; P < 0. 05 versus reuse 0). Albumin leakage occurred in two of five samples after the 12th reuse, but only in polysulfone membranes reprocessed with peracetic acid. Our findings suggest that reuse of low-flux polysulfone dialyzers reprocessed with peracetic acid is associated with structural damage of the membrane and a reduced permeability to middle molecules.

Outbreaks of infection and/or pyrogenic reactions in dialysis patients

These dialysis-related outbreaks demonstrate the ongoing potential for infection-related morbidity and mortality among dialysis patients. Many of these outbreaks could have been prevented by adequate water treatment, proper disinfection of water systems and dialysis machines, adherence to recommended reprocessing protocols in centers reusing dialyzers, and more stringent quality control monitoring. Finally, these outbreaks highlight the importance of active surveillance for adverse events among dialysis patients. The incidence of gram-negative bacteremia, pyrogenic reactions, and peritonitis should be monitored over time and any increase in incidence investigated.

Medicare's end-stage renal disease program: current status and future prospects

The twenty-five years of the end-stage renal disease (ESRD) program have been characterized by remarkable clinical achievements, which have prolonged and improved the quality of life for thousands of patients. As the program enters the next millennium, it faces considerable challenges: As the number and acuity of patients increase, the availability of trained nephrologists will decrease, and total costs will continue to rise. Policymakers will need to work closely with the renal professional and patient communities to develop creative approaches to delivering and financing ESRD care that is of the highest quality, yet is affordable.