Home hemodialysis: survival, quality of life, and rehabilitation

What are the factors that determine treatment choices in patients with kidney failure: a retrospective cohort study using data linkage of routinely collected data in Wales

OBJECTIVES

To identify the factors that determine treatment choices following pre-dialysis education.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using data linkage with univariate and multivariate analyses using linked data.

SETTING

Secondary care National Health Service Wales healthcare system.

PARTICIPANTS

All people in Wales over 18 years diagnosed with established kidney disease, who received pre-dialysis education between 1 January 2016 and 12 December 2018.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient choice of dialysis modality and any kidney replacement therapy started.

RESULTS

Mean age was 67 years; n=1207 (60%) were male, n=878 (53%) had ≥3 comorbidities, n=805 (66%) had mobility problems, n=700 (57%) had pain symptoms, n=641 (52%) had anxiety or were depressed, n=1052 (61.6%) lived less than 30 min from their treatment centre, n=619 (50%) were on a spectrum of frail to extremely vulnerable. n=424 (25%) chose home dialysis, n=552 (32%) chose hospital-based dialysis, n=109 (6%) chose transplantation, n=231 (14%) chose maximum conservative management and n=391 (23%) were 'undecided'. Main reasons for not choosing home dialysis were lack of motivation/low confidence in capacity to self-administer treatment, lack of home support and unsuitable housing. Patients who choose home dialysis were younger, had lower comorbidities, lower frailty and higher quality of life scores. Multivariate analysis found that age and frailty were predictors of choice, but we did not find any other demographic associations. Of patients who initially chose home dialysis, only n=150 (54%) started on home dialysis.

CONCLUSION

There is room for improvement in current pre-dialysis treatment pathways. Many patients remain undecided about dialysis choice, and others who may have chosen home dialysis are still likely to start on unit haemodialysis.

The NightLife study - the clinical and cost-effectiveness of thrice-weekly, extended, in-centre nocturnal haemodialysis versus daytime haemodialysis using a mixed methods approach: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In-centre nocturnal haemodialysis (INHD) offers extended-hours haemodialysis, 6 to 8 h thrice-weekly overnight, with the support of dialysis specialist nurses. There is increasing observational data demonstrating potential benefits of INHD on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There is a lack of randomised controlled trial (RCT) data to confirm these benefits and assess safety.

METHODS

The NightLife study is a pragmatic, two-arm, multicentre RCT comparing the impact of 6 months INHD to conventional haemodialysis (thrice-weekly daytime in-centre haemodialysis, 3.5-5 h per session). The primary outcome is the total score from the Kidney Disease Quality of Life tool at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include sleep and cognitive function, measures of safety, adherence to dialysis and impact on clinical parameters. There is an embedded Process Evaluation to assess implementation, health economic modelling and a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention to understand factors that influence recruitment and retention. Adults (≥ 18 years old) who have been established on haemodialysis for > 3 months are eligible to participate.

DISCUSSION

There are 68,000 adults in the UK that need kidney replacement therapy (KRT), with in-centre haemodialysis the treatment modality for over a third of cases. HRQoL is an independent predictor of hospitalisation and mortality in individuals on maintenance dialysis. Haemodialysis is associated with poor HRQoL in comparison to the general population. INHD has the potential to improve HRQoL. Vigorous RCT evidence of effectiveness is lacking. The NightLife study is an essential step in the understanding of dialysis therapies and will guide patient-centred decisions regarding KRT in the future.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration number: ISRCTN87042063. Registered: 14/07/2020.

Low-Volume Home Haemodialysis and In-Centre Haemodialysis: Comparison of Dialysis Adequacy in Obese Individuals

Background Although frequent low-flow, low-volume haemodialysis using the NxStage System One is now well-established as an option for home therapy of end-stage chronic kidney disease, its ability to deliver adequate dialysis in people with high BMI remains questionable. This doubt may lead to obese individuals being denied the potential benefits of this modality. To establish if this doubt is justified, we compared dialysis adequacy in two groups of obese individuals; one receiving standard thrice-weekly in-centre haemodialysis and the other receiving frequent haemodialysis at home using the NxStage System One. Methods This is a retrospective observational cohort study of 105 adult dialysis patients with obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). All had been on dialysis for at least six months. Fifty-five patients receiving in-centre haemodialysis were compared with 50 patients receiving home haemodialysis using NxStage System One. Dialysis adequacy (standard Kt/V calculated by the Daugirdas equation) was compared between the two groups. The clinical characteristics, laboratory test results, and treatment regimens of each group were also compared. Results The in-centre haemodialysis group was older (63.6 ± 12.8 years vs. 58.5 ± 10.9 years, p=0.033) and had a higher Charlson comorbidity score (5.9 ± 2.1 vs. 4.5 ± 2.5, p=0.003). Standard Kt/V was significantly higher in the home haemodialysis group (2.4 ± 0.5) than in the in-centre haemodialysis group (2.2 ± 0.2) (p = 0.006). The mean serum inorganic phosphate was significantly lower in the home haemodialysis group than in the in-centre haemodialysis group (1.6 ± 0.4 mmol/l vs. 1.8 ± 0.5 mmol/l, p = 0.010). There were no statistically significant differences in the usage of antihypertensives, phosphate binders, or erythropoiesis-stimulating agents between the two groups. Conclusions In this study, dialysis adequacy (expressed as standard Kt/V) was superior to that of standard thrice-weekly in-center haemodialysis delivered by frequent low-volume home haemodialysis using the NxStage System One. Hesitancy about recommending frequent low-volume home haemodialysis to obese individuals is therefore unjustified.

Expanding Utilization of Home Dialysis: An Action Agenda From the First International Home Dialysis Roundtable

In a groundbreaking meeting, leading global kidney disease organizations came together in the fall of 2020 as an International Home Dialysis Roundtable (IHDR) to address strategies to increase access to and uptake of home dialysis, both peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis. This challenge has become urgent in the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, during which patients with advanced kidney disease, who are more susceptible to viral infections and severe complications, must be able to safely physically distance at home. To boost access to home dialysis on a global scale, IHDR members committed to collaborate, through the COVID-19 public health emergency and beyond, to promote uptake of home dialysis on a broad scale. Their commitments included increasing the reach and influence of key stakeholders with policy makers, building a cooperative of advocates and champions for home dialysis, working together to increase patient engagement and empowerment, and sharing intelligence about policy, education, and other programs so that such efforts can be operationalized globally. In the spirit of international cooperation, IHDR members agreed to document, amplify, and replicate established efforts shown to improve access to home dialysis and support new policies that facilitate access through procedures, innovation, and reimbursement.

Which factors determine treatment choices in patients with advanced kidney failure? a protocol for a co-productive, mixed methods study

INTRODUCTION

Kidney disease is common, affecting up to 1 in 10 of the adult population, and the numbers are expected to rise over the next decade. There are three main treatments that are available to patients with kidney disease: transplantation, dialysis and supportive care without dialysis. Dialysis can occur in a dialysis unit or in a person's home, but unit-based dialysis remains the most common initial treatment for patients in Wales. This is a cause for concern as most studies suggest that it is associated with the lowest quality of life and the highest mortality, and is a more expensive treatment option.This study aims to identify the factors that lead to patients choosing unit-based haemodialysis rather than home-based dialysis with a view to informing future changes in patient education and service commissioning in Wales. A secondary aim is to determine if the co-production of research leads to more sustainable services.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This mixed-method study taking place between October 2018 and September 2020 will use a sequential explanatory design whereby the descriptive quantitative cross-sectional analysis of linked health and administrative data sets inform qualitative data collection from patients, carers and health and care professionals. Qualitative findings will be used to interpret or explain quantitative descriptive results. Additional strands to the study include a review of materials and education provided to patients and an economic review of treatment modalities.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki. It has full approval from Health and Care Research Wales Research Ethics Committee #5. As a co-productive study involving patients, clinicians, third sector partners and academics, findings from this study will be shared on a continual basis. Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences.

How to overcome barriers and establish a successful home HD program

Home hemodialysis (HD) is an underused dialysis modality in the United States, even though it provides an efficient and probably cost-effective way to provide more frequent or longer dialysis. With the advent of newer home HD systems that are easier for patients to learn, use, and maintain, patient and provider interest in home HD is increasing. Although barriers for providers are similar to those for peritoneal dialysis, home HD requires more extensive patient training, nursing education, and infrastructure support in order to maintain a successful program. In addition, because many physicians and patients do not have experience with home HD, reluctance to start home HD programs is widespread. This in-depth review describes barriers to home HD, focusing on patients, individual physicians and practices, and dialysis facilities, and offers suggestions for how to overcome these barriers and establish a successful home HD program.

Exercise training for adults with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a worldwide public health problem. In the National Kidney Foundation Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative guidelines it is stressed that lifestyle issues such as physical activity should be seen as cornerstones of the therapy. The physical fitness in adults with CKD is so reduced that it impinges on ability and capacity to perform activities in everyday life and occupational tasks. An increasing number of studies have been published regarding health effects of various regular exercise programmes in adults with CKD and in renal transplant patients.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to: 1) assess the effects of regular exercise in adults with CKD and kidney transplant patients; and 2) determine how the exercise programme should be designed (e.g. type, duration, intensity, frequency of exercise) to be able to affect physical fitness and functioning, level of physical activity, cardiovascular dimensions, nutrition, lipids, glucose metabolism, systemic inflammation, muscle morphology and morphometrics, dropout rates, compliance, adverse events and mortality.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Biosis, Pedro, Amed, AgeLine, PsycINFO and KoreaMed. We also handsearched reference lists of review articles and included studies, conference proceeding's abstracts. There were no language restrictions.Date of last search: May 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included any randomised controlled trial (RCT) enrolling adults with CKD or kidney transplant recipients undergoing any type of physical exercise intervention undertaken for eight weeks or more. Studies using less than eight weeks exercise, those only recommending an increase in physical activity, and studies in which co-interventions are not applied or given to both groups were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and assessment of study and data quality were performed independently by the two authors. Continuous outcome data are presented as standardised mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-five studies, randomising 1863 participants were included in this review. Thirty two studies presented data that could be meta-analysed. Types of exercise training included cardiovascular training, mixed cardiovascular and resistance training, resistance-only training and yoga. Some studies used supervised exercise interventions and others used unsupervised interventions. Exercise intensity was classed as 'high' or 'low', duration of individual exercise sessions ranged from 20 minutes/session to 110 minutes/session, and study duration was from two to 18 months. Seventeen per cent of studies were classed as having an overall low risk of bias, 33% as moderate, and 49% as having a high risk of bias.The results shows that regular exercise significantly improved: 1) physical fitness (aerobic capacity, 24 studies, 847 participants: SMD -0.56, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.42; walking capacity, 7 studies, 191 participants: SMD -0.36, 95% CI-0.65 to -0.06); 2) cardiovascular dimensions (resting diastolic blood pressure, 11 studies, 419 participants: MD 2.32 mm Hg, 95% CI 0.59 to 4.05; resting systolic blood pressure, 9 studies, 347 participants: MD 6.08 mm Hg, 95% CI 2.15 to 10.12; heart rate, 11 studies, 229 participants: MD 6 bpm, 95% CI 10 to 2); 3) some nutritional parameters (albumin, 3 studies, 111 participants: MD -2.28 g/L, 95% CI -4.25 to -0.32; pre-albumin, 3 studies, 111 participants: MD - 44.02 mg/L, 95% CI -71.52 to -16.53; energy intake, 4 studies, 97 participants: SMD -0.47, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.05); and 4) health-related quality of life. Results also showed how exercise should be designed in order to optimise the effect. Other outcomes had insufficient evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence for significant beneficial effects of regular exercise on physical fitness, walking capacity, cardiovascular dimensions (e.g. blood pressure and heart rate), health-related quality of life and some nutritional parameters in adults with CKD. Other outcomes had insufficient evidence due to the lack of data from RCTs. The design of the exercise intervention causes difference in effect size and should be considered when prescribing exercise with the aim of affecting a certain outcome. Future RCTs should focus more on the effects of resistance training interventions or mixed cardiovascular- and resistance training as these exercise types have not been studied as much as cardiovascular exercise.

Dialysis facility and patient characteristics associated with utilization of home dialysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Nonmedical factors influencing utilization of home dialysis at the facility level are poorly quantified. Home dialysis is comparably effective and safe but less expensive to society and Medicare than in-center hemodialysis. Elimination of modifiable practice variation unrelated to medical factors could contribute to improvements in patient outcomes and use of scarce resources.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Prevalent dialysis patient data by facility were collected from the 2007 ESRD Network's annual reports. Facility characteristic data were collected from Medicare's Dialysis Facility Compare file. A multivariate regression model was used to evaluate associations between the use of home dialysis and facility characteristics.

RESULTS

The utilization of home dialysis was positively associated with facility size, percent patients employed full- or part-time, younger population, and years a facility was Medicare certified. Variables negatively associated include an increased number of hemodialysis patients per hemodialysis station, chain association, rural location, more densely populated zip code, a late dialysis work shift, and greater percent of black patients within a zip code.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved understanding of factors affecting the frequency of use of home dialysis may help explain practice variations across the United States that result in an imbalanced use of medical resources within the ESRD population. In turn, this may improve the delivery of healthcare and extend the ability of an increasingly overburdened medical financing system to survive.

Novel Trends in Haemodialysis: Where Are We Heading?

The mortality and morbidity of end-stage renal failure patients undergoing conventional thrice weekly in-centre haemodialysis remain alarmingly high despite continuing advances in haemodialysis technologies and improvements in clinical care. Home haemodialysis continues to be under-utilised in many parts of the world despite the reported benefits. Alternative haemodialysis regimens including longer and/or more frequent dialysis (e.g. nocturnal haemodialysis and short daily haemodialysis), haemodiafiltration and the use of high flux dialysers have become more widespread in recent years as nephrologists struggle to improve the dismal survival figures. Whilst most of the encouraging data have come from observational studies, many randomised controlled trials which will provide more robust data are already underway. This review aims to provide a concise update of the recent and novel trends in haemodialysis. Key words: Haemodiafiltration, High flux dialysis, Home haemodialysis, Nocturnal haemodialysis, Short daily haemodialysis

The organization and financing of dialysis and kidney transplantation services in New Zealand

In New Zealand, patients receive treatment for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) within the tax-funded health system. All hospital and specialist outpatient services are free, while general practitioner consultations and pharmaceuticals prescribed outside of hospitals incur copayments. Total ESRD prevalence is 0.07%, half the U.S. rate, and the prevalence of home-based and self-care dialysis is the highest in the world. Medical staff are not subject to direct financial incentives that could affect treatment choice. Estimated total expenditure per ESRD patient is relatively low. Funding constraints encourage physicians and patients to consider the probable benefit of dialysis for a patient before treatment is prescribed.

Should the medicare ESRD program pay for daily dialysis? An ethical analysis

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is a growing problem in the United States and has now reached epidemic proportions. The mortality rate and other complications related to conventional dialysis remain unacceptably high necessitating improvements in dialytic therapies. One strategy has been to increase dialysis frequency through daily dialysis since the Hemodialysis study showed that clinical outcomes are not improved by simply increasing delivered dialysis dose per session. Most studies of daily dialysis are observational and limited by small sample size, variable dialysis techniques, high patient dropout, and lack of adequate control group. These studies have shown consistent improvements in blood pressure and solute clearance, but improvements in patient survival, anemia, and health-related quality of life are less clear. The costs of providing daily dialysis on a large scale are likely to be substantial. However, if there are significant improvements in the outcome measures outlined earlier as well as decreased hospitalization rates, daily dialysis may prove cost-effective or budget neutral from a global standpoint. A scientific basis is needed to justify a change in the Medicare ESRD Program to fund daily dialysis. Decisions regarding the allocation of limited medical resources such as the Medicare budget should consider ethically appropriate criteria including likelihood of benefit, urgency of need, change in quality of life, duration of benefit, patient selection, equitable distribution, and the amount of resources required. In examining the evidence base on daily dialysis according to these ethical criteria, we find that there are not yet sufficient grounds to recommend funding of daily dialysis by the Medicare ESRD Program. Randomized controlled trials comparing conventional hemodialysis to short daily and long nocturnal hemodialysis are much needed.

Home haemodialysis—international trends and variation

BACKGROUND

Home haemodialysis (HD) has the best patient outcomes and is the most cost-effective of any dialysis modality, but its use has been declining in many countries.

METHODS

Point prevalence rates of different dialysis modalities and transplantation were obtained from national and regional registries for the most recent available year (2001-03) for 21 high-income and 12 middle-income countries. Relationships with median age and prevalence of diabetic nephropathy, healthcare expenditure and population density were assessed. Long-term trends in the use of home HD during the last two to four decades were obtained for seven countries.

RESULTS

The prevalence of home HD varies from 0 to 58.4 per million population, and varies between countries, more than any other renal replacement therapy (RRT) modality. There is a positive association between the use of peritoneal dialysis and home HD (Spearman's rho = 0.531, P = 0.013), but no correlation with transplantation prevalence. There is a negative correlation with median age of the renal replacement population (rho = -0.552, P = 0.018). There is no association with prevalence of diabetic nephropathy, healthcare expenditure or population density. Temporal trends in home HD prevalence are dramatically different in different countries, with several countries expanding its use in the last few years.

CONCLUSION

The use of home HD varies dramatically between and within countries. The variation cannot be explained by the variation in the use of other RRT modalities, nor by prevalence of diabetic nephropathy, national wealth or population density. The inverse correlation with median age is difficult to explain. Significant expansion of home HD is likely to be possible in most countries, and will be increasingly important as the impressive results of more frequent HD gain credence.

Nocturnal haemodialysis: an Australian cost comparison with conventional satellite haemodialysis

Dialysis is an expensive therapy, particularly considering its recurrent, protracted nature while patient numbers are also increasing. To afford dialysis for those in need, smarter, more efficient use of limited funds is mandatory. Newer techniques and improved equipment now permit safe, highly effective haemodialysis (HD) at home, alone and while asleep. Indeed, the increase in treatment hours and frequency achieved through nocturnal HD both increase HD efficiency and reduce cardiovascular stress when comparing nocturnal HD (6 nights/week for 8 h/treatment) to conventional daytime HD (4 h/treatment, three times/week). This study compares the expenditure of two distinct HD programmes in the same renal service during the Australian financial year 2003/2004. A conventional satellite HD unit (SHDU) and a nocturnal home HD programme (NHHD(6)) are compared, with both programmes 'notionalised' to 30 patients. The state-derived funding models under which these programmes operate are explained. All wage costs, recurrent expenditure, fixed costs and the estimated costs of building and infrastructure are included. The total NHHD(6) programme expenditure was 33,392 Australian dollars/patient per year (103.82 Australian dollars/treatment) and was 3,892 Australian dollars/patient per year less (a 10.75% saving) when compared with the SHDU expenditure of 36,284 Australian dollars/patient per year (232.58 Australian dollars/treatment). This represented an annual 116,750 Australian dollars programme saving for a 30 patient cohort. Potential additional NHHD(6) savings in erythropoietin, hospitalization and social security dependence were also identified. Home-based therapies are clinically sound, effective and fiscally prudent and efficient. Funding models should reward home-based HD. Health services should encourage home training and support systems, sustaining patients at home wherever possible.

Home haemodialysis: 'home, home, sweet, sweet home!' (Review Article)

Home haemodialysis was first developed 40 years ago as a means of treating more patients with the limited funds then available. It soon became obvious that the treatment worked well and subsequent studies and experience have confirmed that it improves both mortality and morbidity and provides the best quality of life and other benefits for dialysis patients. The present review describes the history of the development of home haemodialysis in Seattle and elsewhere and the lessons learned about its benefits in the early days, which are just as relevant today. The advantages and disadvantages are discussed, as are the issues of which patients are candidates for this treatment and what is required of a home haemodialysis training and support programme. The decline in use of home haemodialysis in the USA and elsewhere is described and the actions that may already be beginning to reverse this trend. The role of home haemodialysis in giving the opportunity for longer hours of dialysis three times a week or on alternate nights is important. There is discussion of the relationship of home haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis and its important future role as the means to enable treatment with more frequent short daily and long nightly haemodialysis.

Cost analysis of dialysis modalities in Italy

This study analyses management and costs of dialysis in the Italian National Health Service (NHS). Information on efficacy and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) based on the existing literature also is presented. The clinical differences between the dialysis modalities seem to be related to their appropriateness to specific patient groups. Efficacy rates are similar and the only differences are in complications and HRQOL. Traditional haemodialysis (THD) can be done by Italian patients in dialysis centres or in hospital. Highflux haemodialysis (HFHD) is generally only done in hospital. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is usually done at home. The cost analysis was performed on a sample of Italian dialysis centres and hospitals, according to the full cost method. As expected, HFHD was more expensive than THD and PD, but no marked differences emerged among the different HFHD modalities. THD modalities in dialysis centres were less costly than in hospitals. Automated PD (APD) was much more expensive (almost twice) than continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD), the cheapest method in absolute terms. This study confirms that dialysis is costly and that it is very difficult to assess the cost-effectiveness of the different approaches. Although this study has limits, it should provide sufficient analytical information to local healthcare managers for more rational allocation of financial resources to dialysis services.

Optimal care of the pediatric end-stage renal disease patient on dialysis

This manuscript is an effort on behalf of the American Society of Pediatric Nephrology to provide recommendations designed to optimize the clinical care of pediatric patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Although many of the recommendations are evidenced-based with the supporting data being derived from a variety of sources, including patient registries, others are opinion-based and derived from the combined clinical experience of the authors. In all cases, it is recommended that the decision to initiate dialysis should be made only after an assessment of a combination of biochemical and clinical characteristics. Irrespective of the choice of dialysis modality (hemodialysis v peritoneal dialysis), dialysis efficacy should be measured regularly, and the dialysis prescription should be designed to achieve target clearances. Attention to dialysis adequacy, control of osteodystrophy, nutrition, and correction of anemia is mandatory, because all may influence patient outcome in terms of growth, cognitive development, and school performance. Finally, the availability of a multidisciplinary team of pediatric specialists is desirable to provide all facets of pediatric ESRD care, including renal transplantation, in an optimal manner. Future clinical research efforts intended to address topics such as dialysis adequacy, anemia management, and growth should be encouraged.

Home hemodialysis: patient outcomes during a 24-year period of time from 1970 through 1993

In the United States, from 1983 to 1993, home hemodialysis use has decreased from 6% to 1.3% of the dialysis population, whereas continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) has increased to 20%. Most home hemodialysis programs have withered away because of current patient mix, increase in CAPD, proliferation of outpatient centers, disinterest in nephrologists, and fear of self-cannulation by patients. From 1970 through 1993, 896 patients began dialysis at North Shore and were followed up through 1994. During this period, 687 patients were on in-center hemodialysis, 95 on CAPD, 74 on home hemodialysis, and 40 on in-center peritoneal dialysis. The home hemodialysis patients were younger, with a median age of 44 versus 59 years for in-center hemodialysis patients, and had less comorbidity. The home hemodialysis group had fewer diabetic patients and no renal vascular patients. The 5-year and median survival estimates were significantly better for the home hemodialysis patients versus other dialysis modalities. More home hemodialysis patients received transplants. Compared with the other dialysis modalities, home hemodialysis patients showed significantly improved survival rates. When matched by age, sex, and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) diagnosis to corresponding in-center hemodialysis, the home hemodialysis patients still had significantly better survival rates, but the home hemodialysis patients had less comorbidity. In conclusion, home hemodialysis patients survive longer and have better rehabilitation than other dialysis patients. Reasons for better survival in addition to a younger age and more favorable ESRD diagnosis may include less comorbidity, more patient involvement, and longer dialysis time. Because of these better outcomes, home hemodialysis should be offered to more ESRD patients.