The risk of hospitalization and modality failure with home dialysis

Lost dwell time and cycler alarms in inpatient automated peritoneal dialysis at a tertiary care hospital

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Dwell time is a critical component of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) prescription, the stage at which transmembrane mass and fluid transfer occur. Loss of prescribed dwell time (LDT) can negatively influence the efficiency of APD. We investigated the incidence of LDT and related causes using APD in the acute care setting at a tertiary care center.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was conducted of all inpatients receiving APD treatments from 1 December 2021 to 1 June 2023. Patient demographics, comorbidities, laboratory, and treatment data were extracted from electronic medical records and a propriety database.

RESULTS

N = 235 cycler treatments completed by 32 patients were included for analysis. The total LDT per treatment exceeding 30 minutes and 60 minutes occurred in 27% and 20% of all treatments. LDT of more than 10 minutes per each cycle exchange occurred in 26%. Session disruptions were caused by slow out-flow (55%), inadequate drain volumes (32%), patient line occlusions (20%), and priming errors (23%). The slow flow alarm requiring user intervention was reported to occur in about one-third of all treatments (31%).

CONCLUSION

There was significant LDT and inadequate drain volume seen in about one-quarter and one-third of all inpatient APD treatments respectively. This can impact solute clearance and ultrafiltration.  Slow flow alarms were the most prevalent and the leading cause of LDT followed by inadequate drain volume. Future studies are required to investigate measures to reduce slow drain and improve drain volume in the hospital setting.   .

Staying home when peritoneal dialysis ends: the integrated home dialysis approach

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Home dialysis has been promoted for several years for patients starting dialysis. Although incident use of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD) is increasing in several regions, patients on home dialysis remain at high risk of transfer to facility-hemodialysis (HD). The integrated home dialysis model, where patient start dialysis on PD and eventually transition to HHD when PD cannot be optimally continued has gain interest from dialysis stakeholders.

RECENT FINDINGS

Transfers from PD to HHD are infrequently used among patients ending PD, representing between 2% and 6% of transfers to HD in registry studies. Nonetheless, this approach is associated with several clinical benefits as well as favorable cost-effectiveness.

SUMMARY

In this review, we will present data pertaining to home dialysis and the integrated home dialysis model, with broad discussion of the implementation challenges, including identifying patients who could most benefit from this approach, timely planning of the transitions and challenges relating to unexpected PD endings.

Frailty in patients on dialysis

Frailty is a condition that is frequently observed among patients undergoing dialysis. Frailty is characterized by a decline in both physiological state and cognitive state, leading to a combination of symptoms, such as weight loss, exhaustion, low physical activity level, weakness, and slow walking speed. Frail patients not only experience a poor quality of life, but also are at higher risk of hospitalization, infection, cardiovascular events, dialysis-associated complications, and death. Frailty occurs as a result of a combination and interaction of various medical issues in patients who are on dialysis. Unfortunately, frailty has no cure. To address frailty, a multifaceted approach is necessary, involving coordinated efforts from nephrologists, geriatricians, nurses, allied health practitioners, and family members. Strategies such as optimizing nutrition and chronic kidney disease-related complications, reducing polypharmacy by deprescription, personalizing dialysis prescription, and considering home-based or assisted dialysis may help slow the decline of physical function over time in subjects with frailty. This review discusses the underlying causes of frailty in patients on dialysis and examines the methods and difficulties involved in managing frailty among this group.

Long-term survival of patients receiving home hemodialysis with self-punctured arteriovenous access

OBJECTIVE

To determine the long-term survival of patients receiving home hemodialysis (HHD) through self-punctured arteriovenous access.

METHODS

We conducted an observational study of all patients receiving HHD at our facility between 2001 and 2020. The primary outcome was treatment survival, and it was defined as the duration from HHD initiation to the first event of death or technique failure. The secondary outcomes were the cumulative incidence of technique failure and mortality. Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify the predictive factors for treatment survival.

RESULTS

A total of 77 patients (mean age, 50.7 years; 84.4% male; 23.4% with diabetes) were included. The median dialysis duration was 18 hours per week, and all patients self-punctured their arteriovenous fistula. During a median follow-up of 116 months, 30 treatment failures (11 deaths and 19 technique failures) were observed. The treatment survival was 100% at 1 year, 83.5% at 5 years, 67.2% at 10 years, and 34.6% at 15 years. Age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.07) and diabetes (aHR, 2.45) were significantly associated with treatment survival. Cardiovascular disease was the leading cause of death, and vascular access-related issues were the primary causes of technique failure, which occurred predominantly after 100 months from HHD initiation.

CONCLUSION

This study showed a favorable long-term prognosis of patients receiving HHD. HHD can be a sustainable form of long-term kidney replacement therapy. However, access-related technique failures occur more frequently in patients receiving it over the long term. Therefore, careful management of vascular access is crucial to enhance technique survival.

Home versus in-centre haemodialysis for people with kidney failure

BACKGROUND

Home haemodialysis (HHD) may be associated with important clinical, social or economic benefits. However, few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated HHD versus in-centre HD (ICHD). The relative benefits and harms of these two HD modalities are uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2014. This update includes non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of HHD versus ICHD in adults with kidney failure.

SEARCH METHODS

We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 9 October 2022 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We searched MEDLINE (OVID) and EMBASE (OVID) for NRSIs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs and NRSIs evaluating HHD (including community houses and self-care) compared to ICHD in adults with kidney failure were eligible. The outcomes of interest were cardiovascular death, all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, all-cause hospitalisation, vascular access interventions, central venous catheter insertion/exchange, vascular access infection, parathyroidectomy, wait-listing for a kidney transplant, receipt of a kidney transplant, quality of life (QoL), symptoms related to dialysis therapy, fatigue, recovery time, cost-effectiveness, blood pressure, and left ventricular mass.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed if the studies were eligible and then extracted data. The risk of bias was assessed, and relevant outcomes were extracted. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Meta-analysis was performed on outcomes where there was sufficient data.

MAIN RESULTS

From the 1305 records identified, a single cross-over RCT and 39 NRSIs proved eligible for inclusion. These studies were of varying design (prospective cohort, retrospective cohort, cross-sectional) and involved a widely variable number of participants (small single-centre studies to international registry analyses). Studies also varied in the treatment prescription and delivery (e.g. treatment duration, frequency, dialysis machine parameters) and participant characteristics (e.g. time on dialysis). Studies often did not describe these parameters in detail. Although the risk of bias, as assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, was generally low for most studies, within the constraints of observational study design, studies were at risk of selection bias and residual confounding. Many study outcomes were reported in ways that did not allow direct comparison or meta-analysis. It is uncertain whether HHD, compared to ICHD, may be associated with a decrease in cardiovascular death (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07; 2 NRSIs, 30,900 participants; very low certainty evidence) or all-cause death (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.95; 9 NRSIs, 58,984 patients; very low certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether HHD may be associated with a decrease in hospitalisation rate (MD -0.50 admissions per patient-year, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.02; 2 NRSIs, 834 participants; very low certainty evidence), compared with ICHD. Compared with ICHD, it is uncertain whether HHD may be associated with receipt of kidney transplantation (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.63; 6 NRSIs, 10,910 participants; very low certainty evidence) and a shorter recovery time post-dialysis (MD -2.0 hours, 95% CI -2.73 to -1.28; 2 NRSIs, 348 participants; very low certainty evidence). It remains uncertain if HHD may be associated with decreased systolic blood pressure (SBP) (MD -11.71 mm Hg, 95% CI -21.11 to -2.46; 4 NRSIs, 491 participants; very low certainty evidence) and decreased left ventricular mass index (LVMI) (MD -17.74 g/m2, 95% CI -29.60 to -5.89; 2 NRSIs, 130 participants; low certainty evidence). There was insufficient data to evaluate the relative association of HHD and ICHD with fatigue or vascular access outcomes. Patient-reported outcome measures were reported using 18 different measures across 11 studies (QoL: 6 measures; mental health: 3 measures; symptoms: 1 measure; impact and view of health: 6 measures; functional ability: 2 measures). Few studies reported the same measures, which limited the ability to perform meta-analysis or compare outcomes. It is uncertain whether HHD is more cost-effective than ICHD, both in the first (SMD -1.25, 95% CI -2.13 to -0.37; 4 NRSIs, 13,809 participants; very low certainty evidence) and second year of dialysis (SMD -1.47, 95% CI -2.72 to -0.21; 4 NRSIs, 13,809 participants; very low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low to very low certainty evidence, HHD, compared with ICHD, has uncertain associations or may be associated with decreased cardiovascular and all-cause death, hospitalisation rate, slower post-dialysis recovery time, and decreased SBP and LVMI. HHD has uncertain cost-effectiveness compared with ICHD in the first and second years of treatment. The majority of studies included in this review were observational and subject to potential selection bias and confounding, especially as patients treated with HHD tended to be younger with fewer comorbidities. Variation from study to study in the choice of outcomes and the way in which they were reported limited the ability to perform meta-analyses. Future research should align outcome measures and metrics with other research in the field in order to allow comparison between studies, establish outcome effects with greater certainty, and avoid research waste.

Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients on Home Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis

Key Points

Background

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with ESKD. Little is known about differences in cardiovascular outcomes between home hemodialysis (HHD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD).

Methods

We evaluated 68,645 patients who initiated home dialysis between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2018, using the United States Renal Data System with linked Medicare claims. Rates for incident cardiovascular events of acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, and stroke hospitalizations were determined. Using adjusted time-to-event models, the associations of type of home dialysis modality with the outcomes of incident cardiovascular events, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death were examined.

Results

Mean age of patients in the study cohort was 64±15 years, and 42.3% were women. The mean time of follow-up was 1.8±1.6 years. The unadjusted cardiovascular event rate was 95.1 per thousand person-years (PTPY) (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.6 to 96.8), with a higher rate in patients on HHD than on PD (127.8 PTPY; 95% CI, 118.9 to 137.2 versus 93.3 PTPY; 95% CI, 91.5 to 95.1). However, HHD was associated with a slightly lower adjusted risk of cardiovascular events than PD (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85 to 0.997). Compared with patients on PD, patients on HHD had 42% lower adjusted risk of stroke (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.71), 17% lower adjusted risk of acute coronary syndrome (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.95), and no difference in risk of heart failure (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.16). HHD was associated with 22% lower adjusted risk of cardiovascular death (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.86) and 8% lower adjusted risk of all-cause death (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.97) as compared with PD.

Conclusions

Relative to PD, HHD is associated with decreased risk of stroke, acute coronary syndrome, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death. Further studies are needed to better understand the factors associated with differences in cardiovascular outcomes by type of home dialysis modality in patients with kidney failure.

Value of an Integrated Home Dialysis Model in the United Kingdom: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine the lifetime cost-effectiveness of increasing home hemodialysis as a treatment option for patients experiencing peritoneal dialysis technique failure compared with the current standard of care.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to assess the lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and cost-effectiveness of increasing the usage an integrated home dialysis model compared with the current patient pathways in the United Kingdom. A secondary analysis was conducted including only the cost difference in treatments, minimizing the impact of the high cost of dialysis during life-years gained. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed, including analyses from a societal rather than a National Health Service perspective.

RESULTS

The base-case probabilistic analysis was associated with incremental costs of £3413 and a quality-adjusted life-year of 0.09, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £36 341. The secondary analysis found the integrated home dialysis model to be dominant. Conclusions on cost-effectiveness did not change under the societal perspective in either analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The base-case analysis found that an integrated home dialysis model compared with current patient pathways is likely not cost-effective. These results were primarily driven by the high baseline costs of dialysis during life-years gained by patients receiving home hemodialysis. When excluding baseline dialysis-related treatment costs, the integrated home dialysis model was dominant. New strategies in kidney care patient pathway management should be explored because, under the assumption that dialysis should be funded, the results provide cost-effectiveness evidence for an integrated home dialysis model.

Hospitalization in maintenance peritoneal dialysis: a review

Although hemodialysis continues to be the dominant form of dialysis in the United States, peritoneal dialysis rates continue to rise both nationally and worldwide. Peritoneal dialysis offers patients increased flexibility due to the ability to dialyze at home, leading to potential quality of life benefits for patients. However, questions exist regarding clinical outcomes in patients on peritoneal dialysis and the literature has not recently been reviewed. This review examines hospitalizations within patients utilizing peritoneal dialysis, including comparison to other dialysis modalities. Much heterogeneity exists within the literature, often explained by patient population. Recent data show all-cause, cardiovascular, and infection-related hospitalizations to be high in patients on peritoneal dialysis, although data variation limits conclusions in comparison to other modalities. This review found there is insufficient evidence to suggest admission rates are different in peritoneal dialysis than in-center hemodialysis. While the rate is similar to infectious causes, most studies report cardiovascular complications to be the leading cause of hospitalization. Some evidence suggests that cardiovascular hospitalizations occur at a higher rate in peritoneal dialysis, but further studies are required. The infection-related hospitalization rate appears to be higher in peritoneal dialysis due to rates of peritonitis, but rates of life-threatening bacteremia are lower. Differences in reporting of hospital days vs. length of stay challenge the interpretability of length of stay data between modalities, but patients on PD may spend more days per year in the hospital. In summary, hospitalization is highly prevalent in patients on peritoneal dialysis and few definitive conclusions can be drawn in comparison to other dialysis modalities. In eligible patient populations who desire increased flexibility, peritoneal dialysis is a reasonable modality choice.

Managing Transition between dialysis modalities: a call for Integrated care In Dialysis Units

Summary Patients with chronic kidney disease have three main possible groups of dialysis techniques: in-center hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and home hemodialysis. Home dialysis techniques have been associated with clinical outcomes that are equivalent and sometimes superior to those of in-center hemodialysisTransitions between treatment modalities are crucial moments. Transition periods are known as periods of disruption in the patient’s life associated with major complications, greater vulnerability, greater mortality, and direct implications for quality of life. Currently, it is imperative to offer a personalized treatment adapted to the patient and adjusted over time.An integrated treatment unit with all dialysis treatments and a multidisciplinary team can improve results by establishing a life plan, promoting health education, medical and psychosocial stabilization, and the reinforcement of health self-care. These units will result in gains for the patient’s journey and will encourage home treatments and better transitions.Peritoneal dialysis as the initial treatment modality seems appropriate for many reasons and the limitations of the technique are largely overcome by the advantages (namely autonomy, preservation of veins, and preservation of residual renal function).The transition after peritoneal dialysis can (and should) be carried out with the primacy of home treatments. Assisted dialysis must be considered and countries must organize themselves to provide an assisted dialysis program with paid caregivers.The anticipation of the transition is essential to improve outcomes, although there are no predictive models that have high accuracy; this is particularly important in the transition to hemodialysis (at home or in-center) in order to plan autologous access that allows a smooth transition.

Home versus In-Center Dialysis and Day of the Week Hospitalization: A Cohort Study

Background

The dialysis treatment day after the 2-day interdialytic interval (Monday/Tuesday) is associated with a heightened risk of hospitalization for patients on in-center hemodialysis (ICHD). In this national cohort study, we sought to characterize hospitalizations by day of the week for patients receiving ICHD, home HD (HHD), and peritoneal dialysis (PD) and to identify whether there were differences in the probability of a Monday/Tuesday admission for each modality type.

Methods

Patients on maintenance dialysis in Canada were analyzed from 2005 to 2014 using the Canadian Organ Replacement Register. Patients on hemodialysis were categorized as those receiving ICHD, HHD, frequent ICHD, or frequent HHD (the latter two included short daily and nocturnal HD). Hospitalizations were attributed to the previous treatment if they occurred within 30 days of a treatment change. Differences in the proportion of patients experiencing a Monday/Tuesday admission with all other days of the week were compared using a generalized linear model with binomial distribution and reported using adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% CIs.

Results

Overall, 27,430 individuals experienced 111,748 hospitalization episodes. Rates per 1000 patient days were 3.76, 2.98, 2.71, 2.16, and 2.13 for each of frequent ICHD, ICHD, PD, HHD, and frequent HHD, respectively. Compared with those on ICHD, only patients receiving frequent HHD (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.97) and PD (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93 to 0.97) had a lower odds of experiencing a Monday/Tuesday admission. The OR was lower when restricted to hospitalization episodes for cardiovascular reasons comparing frequent HHD with ICHD (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.96).

Conclusion

In this nationally representative cohort, we identified that the probability of a Monday/Tuesday admission was lower for frequent HHD and PD compared with ICHD, most notably for hospitalizations due to cardiovascular causes. Gaining a better understanding of the reasons behind this observation may help to develop future strategies to reduce overall and cause-specific hospitalization for patients receiving dialysis.

A breakthrough series collaborative to increase patient participation with hemodialysis tasks: A stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Compared to in-centre, home hemodialysis is associated with superior outcomes. The impact on patient experience and clinical outcomes of consistently providing the choice and training to undertake hemodialysis-related treatment tasks in the in-centre setting is unknown.

METHODS

A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial in 12 UK renal centres recruited prevalent in-centre hemodialysis patients with sites randomised into early and late participation in a 12-month breakthrough series collaborative that included data collection, learning events, Plan-Study-Do-Act cycles, and teleconferences repeated every 6 weeks, underpinned by a faculty, co-production, materials and a nursing course. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients undertaking five or more hemodialysis-related tasks or home hemodialysis. Secondary outcomes included independent hemodialysis, quality of life, symptoms, patient activation and hospitalisation. ISRCTN Registration Number 93999549.

RESULTS

586 hemodialysis patients were recruited. The proportion performing 5 or more tasks or home hemodialysis increased from 45.6% to 52.3% (205 to 244/449, difference 6.2%, 95% CI 1.4 to 11%), however after analysis by step the adjusted odds ratio for the intervention was 1.63 (95% CI 0.94 to 2.81, P = 0.08). 28.3% of patients doing less than 5 tasks at baseline performed 5 or more at the end of the study (69/244, 95% CI 22.2-34.3%, adjusted odds ratio 3.71, 95% CI 1.66-8.31). Independent or home hemodialysis increased from 7.5% to 11.6% (32 to 49/423, difference 4.0%, 95% CI 1.0-7.0), but the remaining secondary endpoints were unaffected.

CONCLUSIONS

Our intervention did not increase dialysis related tasks being performed by a prevalent population of centre based patients, but there was an increase in home hemodialysis as well as an increase in tasks among patients who were doing fewer than 5 at baseline. Further studies are required that examine interventions to engage people who dialyse at centres in their own care.

Anemia management for home dialysis including the new US public policy initiative

Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) requiring kidney replacement therapy are often treated in conventional dialysis centers at substantial cost and patient inconvenience. The recent United States Executive Order on Advancing American Kidney Health, in addition to focusing on ESKD prevention and reforming the kidney transplantation system, focuses on providing financial incentives to promote a shift toward home dialysis. In accordance with this order, a goal was set to have 80% of incident dialysis patients receiving home dialysis or a kidney transplant by 2025. Compared with conventional in-center therapy, home dialysis modalities, including both home hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, appear to offer equivalent or improved mortality, clinical outcomes, hospitalization rates, and quality of life in patients with ESKD in addition to greater convenience, flexibility, and cost-effectiveness. Treatment of anemia, a common complication of chronic kidney disease, may be easier to manage at home with a new class of agents, hypoxia-inducible factor-prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors, which are orally administered in contrast to the current standard of care of i.v. iron and/or erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. This review evaluates the clinical, quality-of-life, economic, and social aspects of dialysis modalities in patients with ESKD, including during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic; explores new therapeutics for the management of anemia in chronic kidney disease; and highlights how the proposed changes in Advancing American Kidney Health provide an opportunity to improve kidney health in the United States.

Quality Assurance and Preventing Serious Adverse Events in the Home Hemodialysis Setting

Patient safety is of the utmost importance in home hemodialysis (HHD). Recognizing that there are risks related to vascular access (both infectious and noninfectious events), dialysis water quality, and procedural-related adverse events (including arteriovenous fistula needle dislodgement or air embolism), there is a need for systematic identification and management. Although adverse events are relatively infrequent in HHD, the potential consequences of these events may include significant morbidity, HHD treatment failure, or death. Therefore, having a systematic framework to review each event, audit and retrain patient technique, disclose and discuss events with patients, home unit staff and device companies (if relevant) and determine preventative measures to avoid future adverse events, is crucial. In this review, we will describe the literature around the types and relative frequency of serious adverse events in the HHD setting and we will outline a quality assurance framework for capturing, managing, and avoiding serious adverse events. Finally, we will describe some of the novel existing approaches to preventing or addressing serious adverse events and critical knowledge gaps that should be evaluated in future study.

Development of a scoring tool for predicting prolonged length of hospital stay in peritoneal dialysis patients through data mining

Background

The hospital admission rate is high in patients treated with peritoneal dialysis (PD), and the length of stay (LOS) in the hospital is a key indicator of medical resource allocation. This study aimed to develop a scoring tool for predicting prolonged LOS (pLOS) in PD patients by combining machine learning and traditional logistic regression (LR).

Methods

This study was based on patient data collected using the Hospital Quality Monitoring System (HQMS) in China. Three machine learning methods, classification and regression tree (CART), random forest (RF), and gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT), were used to develop models to predict pLOS, which is longer than the average LOS, in PD patients. The model with the best prediction performance was used to identify predictive factors contributing to the outcome. A multivariate LR model based on the identified predictors was then built to derive the score assigned to each predictor. Finally, a scoring tool was developed, and it was tested by stratifying PD patients into different pLOS risk groups.

Results

A total of 22,859 PD patients were included in our study, with 25.2% having pLOS. Among the three machine learning models, the RF model achieved the best prediction performance and thus was used to identify the 10 most predictive variables for building the scoring system. The multivariate LR model based on the identified predictors showed good discrimination power with an AUROC of 0.721 in the test dataset, and its coefficients were used as a basis for scoring tool development. On the basis of the developed scoring tool, PD patients were divided into three groups: low risk (≤5), median risk [5–10], and high risk (>10). The observed pLOS proportions in the low-risk, median-risk, and high-risk groups in the test dataset were 11.4%, 29.5%, and 54.7%, respectively.

Conclusions

This study developed a scoring tool to predict pLOS in PD patients. The scoring tool can effectively discriminate patients with different pLOS risks and be easily implemented in clinical practice. The pLOS scoring tool has a great potential to help physicians allocate medical resources optimally and achieve improved clinical outcomes.

No evidence of a legacy effect on survival following randomization to extended hours dialysis in the ACTIVE Dialysis trial

AIM

Extended hours haemodialysis is associated with superior survival to standard hours. However, residual confounding limits the interpretation of this observation. We aimed to determine the effect of a period of extended hours dialysis on long-term survival among participants in the ACTIVE Dialysis trial.

METHODS

Two-hundred maintenance haemodialysis recipients were randomized to extended hours dialysis (median 24 h/wk) or standard hours dialysis (median 12 h/wk) for 12 months. Further pre-specified observational follow up occurred at 24, 36 and 60 months. Vital status and modality of renal replacement therapy were ascertained.

RESULTS

Over the 5 years, 38 participants died, 30 received a renal transplant, and 6 were lost to follow up. Total weekly dialysis hours did not differ between standard and extended groups during the follow-up period (14.1 hours [95%CI 13.4-14.8] vs 14.8 hours [95%CI 14.1-15.6]; P = .16). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio for extended hours 0.91 [95%CI 0.48-1.72]; P = .77). Similar results were obtained after censoring participants at transplantation, and after adjusting for potential confounding variables. Subgroup analysis did not reveal differences in treatment effect by region, dialysis setting or vintage (P-interaction .51, .54, .12, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Twelve months of extended hours dialysis did not improve long-term survival nor affect dialysis hours after the intervention period. An urgent need remains to further define the optimal dialysis intensity across the broad range of dialysis recipients.

Seroepidemiology of hepatitis E virus infection in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Patients undergoing regular hemodialysis (HD) are at an extreme risk of acquiring bloodstream infections compared to the general population. Hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection is an important emerging health issue in these patients. To date, numerous studies have investigated the seroprevalence of HEV among HD patients across the world; however, the data are conflicting. The present study aimed to measure the exposure rate of HD patients to HEV infection by estimating the overall seroprevalence of HEV in this high-risk group. A systematic literature search was carried out using five electronic databases from inception to January 10, 2020, with standard keywords. Pooled seroprevalence estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random intercept logistic regression model. The seroprevalence of HEV increased from 6.6% between the years of 1994 and 2000 to 11.13% from 2016 to 2020. Blood transfusion was associated with a nearly 2-fold increase in the rate of HEV seropositivity (OR = 1.99; 95% CI: 1.50-2.63, P < .0001, I² = 6.5%). HEV seroprevalence among patients with HD for more than 60 months was significantly higher than those with HD for less than 60 months (27.69%, 95% CI: 20.69%-35.99% vs 15.78%, 95%CI: 8.85%-26.57%, respectively) (P = .06). Our results indicated increased exposure of HD patients with HEV infection over the last decade. We concluded that blood transfusion and duration of HD are considerable risk factors for acquiring HEV infection among HD patients.

Fewer hospitalizations and prolonged technique survival with home hemodialysis- a matched cohort study from the Swedish Renal Registry

BACKGROUND

Patients on home hemodialysis (HHD) exhibit superior survival compared with patients on institutional hemodialysis (IHD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD). There is a sparsity of reports comparing morbidity between HHD and IHD or PD and none in a European population. The aim of this study is to compare morbidity between modalities in a Swedish population.

METHODS

The Swedish Renal Registry was used to retrieve patients starting on HHD, IHD or PD. Patients were matched according to sex, age, comorbidity and start date. The Swedish Inpatient Registry was used to determine comorbidity before starting renal replacement therapy (RRT) and hospital admissions during RRT. Dialysis technique survival was compared between HHD and PD.

RESULTS

RRT was initiated with HHD for 152 patients; these were matched with 608 patients with IHD and 456 with PD. Patients with HHD had significantly lower annual admission rate and number of days in hospital. (median 1.7 admissions; 12 days) compared with IHD (2.2; 14) and PD (2.8; 20). The annual admission rate was significantly lower for patients with HHD compared with IHD for cardiovascular diagnoses and compared with PD for infectious disease diagnoses. Dialysis technique survival was significantly longer with HHD compared with PD.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients choosing HHD as initial RRT spend less time in hospital compared with patients on IHD and PD and they were more likely than PD patients, to remain on their initial modality. These advantages, in combination with better survival and higher likelihood of renal transplantation, are important incentives for promoting the use of HHD.

Optimization of Dialysis Modality Transitions for Improved Patient Care

Purpose of review:

Initial and subsequent modality decisions are important, impacting both clinical outcomes and quality of life. Transition from chronic kidney disease to dialysis and between dialysis modalities are periods were patients may be especially vulnerable. Reviewing our current knowledge surrounding these critical periods and identifying areas for future research may allow us to develop dialysis strategies beneficial to patients.

Sources of information:

We searched the electronic database PubMed and queried Google Scholar for English peer-reviewed articles using appropriate keywords (non-exhaustive list): dialysis transitions, peritoneal dialysis, home hemodialysis, integrated care pathway, and health-related quality of life. Primary sources were accessed whenever possible.

Methods:

In this narrative review, we aim to expose the controversies surrounding home-dialysis first strategies and examine the evidence underpinning home-dialysis first strategies as well as home-to-home and home-to-in-center transitions.

Key findings:

Diverse factors must be taken into consideration when choosing initial and subsequent dialysis modalities. Given the limitations of available data (and lack of convincing benefit or detriment of one modality over the other), patient-centered considerations may prime over suspected mortality benefits of one modality or another.

Limitations:

Available data stem almost exclusively from retrospective and observational studies, often using large national and international databases, susceptible to bias. Furthermore, this is a narrative review which takes into account the views and opinions of the authors, especially as it pertains to optimal dialysis pathways.

Implications:

Emphasis must be placed on individual patient goals and preferences during modality selection while planning ahead to achieve timely and appropriate transitions limiting discomfort and anxiety for patients. Further research is required to ascertain specific interventions which may be beneficial to patients.

Managing Kidney Failure with Home Hemodialysis

There is a resurgence in clinical adoption of home hemodialysis globally driven by several demonstrated clinical and economic advantages. Yet, the overall adoption of home hemodialysis remains under-represented in most countries. The practicality of managing ESKD with home hemodialysis is a common concern among practicing nephrologists in the United States. The primary objective of this invited feature is to deliver a practical guide to managing ESKD with home hemodialysis. We have included common clinical scenarios, clinical and infrastructure management problems, and approaches to the day-to-day management of patients undergoing home hemodialysis.

Survival Comparisons of Home Dialysis Versus In-Center Hemodialysis: A Narrative Review

Purpose of review:

Many observational studies have demonstrated a survival benefit with home dialysis compared with in-center dialysis; however, results have been conflicting. The purpose of this review was to identify pitfalls and limitations in existing literature and examine the challenges of studying home and in-center dialysis populations.

Sources of information:

Original research articles were identified from MEDLINE using search terms “in-center hemodialysis,” “home hemodialysis,” “conventional hemodialysis,” “nocturnal hemodialysis,” and “short daily hemodialysis.”

Methods:

A focused review and critical appraisal of existing home versus in-center hemodialysis survival literature was conducted to identify potential causes for variability in the observed survival outcomes.

Key findings:

The controversy in existing literature stems from the challenges of randomizing patients to home versus in-center hemodialysis modalities, and therefore a reliance on observational comparisons for study. In many cases, these observational analyses have been limited by selection bias (variabilities in populations included, inclusion of both incident and prevalent cohorts, and variabilities in dialysis intensity), as well as residual confounding. Furthermore, the studies that do exist lack generalizability in many cases.

Limitations:

There are few randomized controlled trials examining the survival benefit of home versus in-center hemodialysis and existing observational studies are often limited by bias and reduced generalizability. These limitations comprise the body of this review.

Implications:

This review examines challenges surrounding survival comparisons with home versus in-center hemodialysis and identify important directions for future study.

The use of nurse-administered vascular access audit in home hemodialysis patients: A quality initiative

INTRODUCTION

Vascular access complications are associated with increased morbidity and mortality in home hemodialysis (HHD). Nurse-administered vascular access checklist is a feasible quality improvement strategy aimed to lower HHD access errors.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective quality improvement initiative for consecutive HHD patients between April 2013 and December 2016 at the Toronto General Hospital. Vascular access audits were administered every 6 months during clinic visits and during retraining sessions after an infection. We aimed to (1) determine whether prospective serial administration of vascular audit will decrease in the number of errors performed by the patient and (2) to determine whether there is an association between the number of errors and vascular access related infection.

FINDINGS

A total of 370 audits were performed on 122 patients with a mean HHD vintage of 6.7 (0.8-19.5) years. The mean number of errors per patient decreased from 1.24 ± 1.75 (baseline) to 0.33 ± 0.49 (last follow-up), P < 0.001. Among patients who had serial vascular access audits performed, there was a significant decrease in median number of errors (baseline median 1, [0-2] end of study median 0, [0-1] P = 0.01). Patients performing buttonhole cannulation made most proportion of errors as compared to CVC, 54% vs. 40% (P = 0.01) respectively; and as compared to rope ladder cannulation 54% vs. 37% (P = 0.008). We were unable to demonstrate an association between the change in patient reported errors and vascular access related infection.

DISCUSSION

Vascular access audit is a feasible quality initiative, which leads to a decrease in the number of patient reported errors in vascular access. The longitudinal clinical sequelae of this strategy warrants further examination.

Planning Vascular Access in Peritoneal Dialysis-Defining High-Risk Patients

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an effective renal replacement technique. However, every year a considerable number of patients are transferred to hemodialysis (HD). Our aim was to identify those at risk, in order to place an arteriovenous fistula (AVF).

METHODS

Case-control study enrolling all prevalent patients in 2014 and 2015 in our clinic. Groups: 72 case patients who were transferred definitively to HD, 111 control patients (remaining on PD, transplanted, recovered renal function, or deceased).

RESULTS

A total of 183 patients were eligible, with a mean age of 55.2 ± 14.8 years, 56.3% male, 31.1% diabetic, and 49.7% on continuous ambulatory PD. The mean follow-up time was 42.1 ± 25.6 months. Eighty-five patients had an AVF. The groups differed in diabetic nephropathy etiology, and in some PD-related characteristics (Kt/V, creatinine clearance, residual renal function, mean ultrafiltration, natriuretic peptide, peritonitis, hospitalizations, and hypervolemia). In multivariate analysis, Kt/V < 1.7 (odds ratio [OR] 3.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20 - 7.50], albumin < 35 g/L (OR 4.03, 95% CI: 1.26 - 12.92), number of hospitalizations 1 to 3 (OR 2.74, 95% CI: 1.15 - 6.53) and 4 or more (OR 10.48, 95% CI: 3.62 - 30.36), and 2 or more peritonitis episodes (OR 2.50, 95% CI: 1.03 - 6.07) were predictors of PD transfer to HD. In those patients who were transferred to HD, 34 initiated HD by AVF, 2 needed a catheter due to a non-functioning AVF, and 36 did not have an AVF needing catheter placement.

CONCLUSIONS

Low Kt/V, low albumin, higher number of hospitalizations, and peritonitis were factors associated with PD transfer to HD, probably indicative of a high-risk PD population where arteriovenous access should be weighed.

Hospitalizations in Dialysis Patients in Canada: A National Cohort Study

Background:

Hospitalizations of chronic dialysis patients have not been previously studied at a national level in Canada. Understanding the scope and variables associated with hospitalizations will inform measures for improvement.

Objective:

To describe the risk of all-cause and infection-related hospitalizations in patients on dialysis.

Design:

Retrospective cohort study using health care administrative databases.

Setting:

Provinces and territories across Canada (excluding Manitoba and Quebec).

Patients:

Incident chronic dialysis patients with a dialysis start date between January 1, 2005, and March 31, 2014. Patients with a prior history of kidney transplantation were excluded.

Measurements:

Patient characteristics were recorded at baseline. Dialysis modality was treated as a time-varying covariate. The primary outcomes of interest were all-cause and dialysis-specific infection-related hospitalizations.

Methods:

Crude rates for all-cause hospitalization and infection-related hospitalization were determined per patient year (PPY) at 7 and 30 days, and at 3, 6, and 12 months postdialysis initiation. A stratified, gamma-distributed frailty model was used to assess repeat hospital admissions and to determine the inter-recurrence dependence of hospitalizations within individuals, as well as the hazard ratio (HR) attributed to each covariate of interest.

Results:

A total of 38 369 incident chronic dialysis patients were included: 38 088 adults and 281 pediatric patients (age less than 18 years). There were 112 374 hospitalizations, of which 11.5% were infection-related hospitalizations. The all-cause hospitalization rate was similar for all adult age groups (age 65 years and older: 1.40, 1.35, and 1.18 admissions PPY at 7 days, 30 days, and 6 months, respectively). The all-cause hospitalization rate was higher for pediatric patients (1.67, 2.48, and 2.47 admissions PPY at 7 days, 30 days, and 6 months, respectively; adjusted HR: 2.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.37-3.15, referent age group: 45-64 years). Within the first 7 days after dialysis initiation, patients on peritoneal dialysis had a higher risk of all-cause hospitalization (HR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.07-1.50) and infection-related hospitalization (HR: 2.05, 95% CI: 1.19-3.55) compared with patients on hemodialysis. Beyond 7 days, the risk did not differ significantly by dialysis modality. Female sex and Indigenous race were significant risk factors for all-cause hospitalization.

Limitations:

The cohort had too few home hemodialysis patients to examine this subgroup. The outcome of infection-related hospitalization was determined using diagnostic codes. Dialysis patients from Manitoba and Quebec were not included.

Conclusions:

In Canada, the rates of hospitalization were not influenced by dialysis modality beyond the initial 7-day period following dialysis initiation; however, the rate of hospitalization in pediatric patients was higher than in adults at every time frame examined.

When is more frequent hemodialysis beneficial?

The use of frequent hemodialysis (HD) is growing, with the hope of improving outcomes in end-stage renal disease. We narratively review the three randomized trials, 15 comparative cohort studies, and several case series of frequent HD that empirically demonstrate the potential efficacy and adverse effects of these regimens. Taken together, the randomized studies suggest frequent HD may result in left ventricular mass regression. This effect is most pronounced when left ventricular mass is abnormal, but attenuated by significant residual urine output. Both frequent short and long HD consistently improved blood pressure control and reduced antihypertensive use, despite greater weekly interdialytic weight gains. Serum phosphate was lowered. Frequent short daytime HD improved health-related quality of life, while frequent long overnight HD did not. Regarding adverse effects, frequent HD patients underwent significantly more procedures to salvage arteriovenous vascular accesses. An absolute increase in hypotensive episodes was observed with frequent short HD, while frequent long HD accelerated residual renal function loss and increased perceived caregiver burden. The effect of frequent HD on mortality is controversial, due to conflicting results and limitations of published studies. Finally, pregnancy outcomes may be substantially better with frequent long HD. On the basis of these data, we suggest frequent HD is most likely to benefit patients with left ventricular hypertrophy particularly if there is minimal urine output, those unable to attain dry weight on a thrice weekly schedule, and pregnant women. All patients receiving frequent HD should be advised of and monitored for potential risks.

Hospital Readmission among New Dialysis Patients Associated with Young Age and Poor Functional Status

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Over one-third of hospital discharges among dialysis patients are followed by 30-day readmission. The first year after dialysis start is a high-risk time frame. We examined the rate, causes, timing, and predictors of 30-day readmissions among adult, incident dialysis patients.

METHODS

Hospital readmissions were assessed from the 91st day to the 15th month after the initiation of dialysis using a Mayo Clinic registry linkage to United States Renal Data System claims during the period January 2001-December 2010.

RESULTS

Among 1,727 patients with ≥1 hospitalization, 532 (31%) had ≥1, and 261 (15%) had ≥2 readmissions. Readmission rate was 1.1% per person-day post-discharge, and the highest rates (2.5% per person-day) occurred ≤5 days after index admission. The overall cumulative readmission rate was 33.8% at day 30. Common readmission diagnoses included cardiac issues (22%), vascular disorders (19%), and infection (13%). Similar-cause readmissions to index hospitalization were more common during days 0-14 post-discharge than days 15-30 (37.5 vs. 22.9%; p = 0.004). Younger age at dialysis initiation, inability to transfer/ambulate, serum creatinine ≤5.3 mg/dL, higher number of previous hospitalizations, and longer duration on dialysis were associated with higher readmission rates in multivariable analyses. Patients aged 18-39 were few (8.3%) but comprised 17.7% of "high-readmission" users such that a 30-year-old patient had an 87% chance of being readmitted within 30 days of any hospital discharge, whereas an 80-year-old patient had a 25% chance.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, 30-day readmissions are common within the first year of dialysis start. The first 10-day period after discharge, young patients, and those with poor functional status represent key areas for targeted interventions to reduce readmissions.

Intensive Hemodialysis and Potential Risks With Increasing Treatment

Although intensive hemodialysis (HD) can address important clinical problems, increasing treatment also introduces risks. In this review, we assess risks pertaining to 6 domains: vascular access complications, infection, mortality, loss of residual kidney function, solute balance, and patient and care partner burden. In the Frequent Hemodialysis Network (FHN) trials, short daily and nocturnal schedules increased the incidence of access complications, although the incidence of access loss was not statistically higher. Observational studies indicate that infection-related hospitalization is an ongoing challenge with short daily HD. Excess risk may be catalyzed by poor infection control practices in the home setting in which intensive HD is typically delivered, but with fixed probability of bacterial contamination per cannulation, greater treatment frequency necessarily increases the risk for infectious complications. Buttonhole cannulation may increase the risk for metastatic infections. However, intensive HD in the home setting is associated with lower risk for infection than peritoneal dialysis. Data regarding mortality are equivocal. With extended follow-up of individuals in the FHN trials, short daily HD was associated with lower risk relative to the usual schedule, whereas nocturnal HD was associated with higher risk. In many, but not all, observational studies, short daily HD has been associated with lower risk than both in-center HD and peritoneal dialysis; however, observational studies are subject to unmeasured confounding. Intensive HD can accelerate the loss of residual kidney function in new dialysis patients with substantial urine output and can deplete solutes (eg, phosphorus) to the extent that supplementation is necessary. Finally, intensive HD may increase burden on patients and caregivers, possibly leading to technique failure. Some of these problems might be addressed with careful monitoring, so that relevant interventions (eg, antibiotics, retraining, and respite care) can be delivered. Ultimately, intensive HD is not a panacea for end-stage renal disease. Potential benefits and risks of treatment should be jointly considered.

Changing Landscape for Peritoneal Dialysis: Optimizing Utilization

The future growth of peritoneal dialysis (PD) will be directly linked to the shift in US healthcare to a value-based payment model due to PD's lower yearly cost, early survival advantage over in-center hemodialysis, and improved quality of life for patients treating their kidney disease in the home. Under this model, nephrology practices will need an increased focus on managing the transition from chronic kidney disease to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), providing patient education with the aim of accomplishing modality selection and access placement ahead of dialysis initiation. Physicians must expand their knowledge base in home therapies and work toward increased technique survival through implementation of specific practice initiatives that highlight PD catheter placement success, preservation of residual renal function, consideration of incremental PD, and competence in urgent start PD. Avoidance of both early and late PD technique failures is also critical to PD program growth. Large dialysis organizations must continue to measure and improve quality metrics for PD, expand their focus beyond the sole provision of PD to holistic patient care, and initiate programs to reduce PD hospitalization rates and encourage physicians to consider the benefits of PD as an initial modality for appropriate patients. New and innovative strategies are needed to address the main reasons for PD technique failure, improve the connectivity of the patient in the home, leverage home biometric data to improve overall outcomes, and develop PD cycler devices that lower patient treatment burden and reduce both treatment fatigue and treatment-dependent complications.

Re-evaluation of re-hospitalization and rehabilitation in renal research

INTRODUCTION

The use of administrative data to capture 30-day readmission rates in end-stage renal disease is challenging since Medicare combines claims from acute care, inpatient rehabilitation (IRF), and long-term care hospital stays into a single "Inpatient" file. For data prior to 2012, the United States Renal Data System does not contain the variables necessary to easily identify different facility types, making it likely that prior studies have inaccurately estimated 30-day readmission rates.

METHODS

For this report, we developed two methods (a "simple method" and a "rehabilitation-adjusted method") to identify acute care, IRF, and long-term care hospital stays from United States Renal Data System claims data, and compared them to methods used in previously published reports.

FINDINGS

We found that prior methods overestimated 30-day readmission rates by up to 12.3% and overestimated average 30-day readmission costs by up to 11%. In contrast, the simple and rehabilitation-adjusted methods overestimated 30-day readmission rates by 0.1% and average 30-day readmission costs by 1.8%. The rehabilitation-adjusted method also accurately identified 96.8% of IRF stays.

DISCUSSION

Prior research has likely provided inaccurate estimates of 30-day readmissions in patients undergoing dialysis. In the absence of data on specific facility types particularly when using data prior to 2012, future researchers could employ our method to more accurately characterize 30-day readmission rates and associated outcomes in patients with end-stage renal disease.

Survival by Dialysis Modality-Who Cares?

In light of the recent emphasis on patient-centered outcomes and quality of life for patients with kidney disease, we contend that the nephrology community should no longer fund, perform, or publish studies that compare survival by dialysis modality. These studies have become redundant; they are methodologically limited, unhelpful in practice, and therefore a waste of resources. More than two decades of these publications show similar survival between patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis and those receiving thrice-weekly conventional hemodialysis, with differences only for specific subgroups. In clinical practice, modality choice should be individualized with the aim of maximizing quality of life, patient-reported outcomes, and achieving patient-centered goals. Expected survival is often irrelevant to modality choice. Even for the younger and fitter home hemodialysis population, quality of life, not just duration of survival, is a major priority. On the other hand, increasing evidence suggests that patients with ESRD continue to experience poor quality of life because of high symptom burden, unsolved clinical problems, and unmet needs. Patients care more about how they will live instead of how long. It is our responsibility to align our research with their needs. Only by doing so can we meet the challenges of ESRD patient care in the coming decades.

Comparative effectiveness of home dialysis therapies: a matched cohort study

Background

Home dialysis is being increasingly promoted among patients with end-stage renal disease, but the comparative effectiveness of home hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis is unknown.

Objective

To determine whether patients receiving home daily hemodialysis have reduced mortality risk compared with matched patients receiving home peritoneal dialysis.

Design

This study is an observational, propensity-matched, new-user cohort study.

Setting

Linked electronic data were from the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) and a large dialysis provider’s database.

Patients

The patients were adults receiving in-center hemodialysis in the USA between 2004 and 2011 and registered in the USRDS.

Measurements

Baseline comorbidities, demographics, and outcomes for both groups were ascertained from the United States Renal Data System.

Methods

We identified 3142 consecutive adult patients initiating home daily hemodialysis (≥5 days/week for ≥1.5 h/day) and matched 2688 of them by propensity score to 2688 contemporaneous US patients initiating home peritoneal dialysis. We used Cox regression to compare all-cause mortality between groups.

Results

After matching, the two groups were well balanced on all baseline characteristics. Mean age was 51 years, 66 % were male, 72 % were white, and 29 % had diabetes. During 10,221 patient-years of follow-up, 1493/5336 patients died. There were significantly fewer deaths among patients receiving home daily hemodialysis than those receiving peritoneal dialysis (12.7 vs 16.7 deaths per 100 patient-years, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 0.75; 95 % CI 0.68–0.82; p < 0.001). Similar results were noted with several different analytic methods and for all pre-specified subgroups.

Limitations

We cannot exclude residual confounding in this observational study.

Conclusions

Home daily hemodialysis was associated with lower mortality risk than home peritoneal dialysis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40697-016-0105-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

An Incident Cohort Study Comparing Survival on Home Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis (Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplantation Registry)

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Home dialysis is often recognized as a first-choice therapy for patients initiating dialysis. However, studies comparing clinical outcomes between peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis have been very limited.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

This Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplantation Registry study assessed all Australian and New Zealand adult patients receiving home dialysis on day 90 after initiation of RRT between 2000 and 2012. The primary outcome was overall survival. The secondary outcomes were on-treatment survival, patient and technique survival, and death-censored technique survival. All results were adjusted with three prespecified models: multivariable Cox proportional hazards model (main model), propensity score quintile-stratified model, and propensity score-matched model.

RESULTS

The study included 10,710 patients on incident peritoneal dialysis and 706 patients on incident home hemodialysis. Treatment with home hemodialysis was associated with better patient survival than treatment with peritoneal dialysis (5-year survival: 85% versus 44%, respectively; log-rank P<0.001). Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, home hemodialysis was associated with superior patient survival (hazard ratio for overall death, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.59) as well as better on-treatment survival (hazard ratio for on-treatment death, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.45), composite patient and technique survival (hazard ratio for death or technique failure, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.29 to 0.40), and death-censored technique survival (hazard ratio for technique failure, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.41). Similar results were obtained with the propensity score models as well as sensitivity analyses using competing risks models and different definitions for technique failure and lag period after modality switch, during which events were attributed to the initial modality.

CONCLUSIONS

Home hemodialysis was associated with superior patient and technique survival compared with peritoneal dialysis.