Home Hemodialysis and Mortality Risk in Australian and New Zealand Populations

Peritoneal dialysis versus haemodialysis for people commencing dialysis

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and haemodialysis (HD) are two possible modalities for people with kidney failure commencing dialysis. Only a few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated PD versus HD. The benefits and harms of the two modalities remain uncertain. This review includes both RCTs and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of PD, compared to HD, in people with kidney failure initiating dialysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies from 2000 to June 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for NRSIs from 2000 until 28 March 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs and NRSIs evaluating PD compared to HD in people initiating dialysis were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two investigators independently assessed if the studies were eligible and then extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using standard Cochrane methods, and relevant outcomes were extracted for each report. The primary outcome was residual kidney function (RKF). Secondary outcomes included all-cause, cardiovascular and infection-related death, infection, cardiovascular disease, hospitalisation, technique survival, life participation and fatigue.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 153 reports of 84 studies (2 RCTs, 82 NRSIs) were included. Studies varied widely in design (small single-centre studies to international registry analyses) and in the included populations (broad inclusion criteria versus restricted to more specific participants). Additionally, treatment delivery (e.g. automated versus continuous ambulatory PD, HD with catheter versus arteriovenous fistula or graft, in-centre versus home HD) and duration of follow-up varied widely. The two included RCTs were deemed to be at high risk of bias in terms of blinding participants and personnel and blinding outcome assessment for outcomes pertaining to quality of life. However, most other criteria were assessed as low risk of bias for both studies. Although the risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) was generally low for most NRSIs, studies were at risk of selection bias and residual confounding due to the constraints of the observational study design. In children, there may be little or no difference between HD and PD on all-cause death (6 studies, 5752 participants: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.07; I2 = 28%; low certainty) and cardiovascular death (3 studies, 7073 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.59; I2 = 29%; low certainty), and was unclear for infection-related death (4 studies, 7451 participants: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.46; I2 = 56%; very low certainty). In adults, compared with HD, PD had an uncertain effect on RKF (mL/min/1.73 m2) at six months (2 studies, 146 participants: MD 0.90, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.60; I2 = 82%; very low certainty), 12 months (3 studies, 606 participants: MD 1.21, 95% CI -0.01 to 2.43; I2 = 81%; very low certainty) and 24 months (3 studies, 334 participants: MD 0.71, 95% CI -0.02 to 1.48; I2 = 72%; very low certainty). PD had uncertain effects on residual urine volume at 12 months (3 studies, 253 participants: MD 344.10 mL/day, 95% CI 168.70 to 519.49; I2 = 69%; very low certainty). PD may reduce the risk of RKF loss (3 studies, 2834 participants: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.68; I2 = 17%; low certainty). Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on all-cause death (42 studies, 700,093 participants: RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; I2 = 99%; very low certainty). In an analysis restricted to RCTs, PD may reduce the risk of all-cause death (2 studies, 1120 participants: RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.86; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty). PD had uncertain effects on both cardiovascular (21 studies, 68,492 participants: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; I2 = 92%) and infection-related death (17 studies, 116,333 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.42; I2 = 98%) (both very low certainty). Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on the number of patients experiencing bacteraemia/bloodstream infection (2 studies, 2582 participants: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.18; I2 = 68%) and the number of patients experiencing infection episodes (3 studies, 277 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.62; I2 = 20%) (both very low certainty). PD may reduce the number of bacteraemia/bloodstream infection episodes (2 studies, 2637 participants: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.71; I2 = 24%; low certainty). Compared with HD; It is uncertain whether PD reduces the risk of acute myocardial infarction (4 studies, 110,850 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.10; I2 = 55%), coronary artery disease (3 studies, 5826 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.97; I2 = 62%); ischaemic heart disease (2 studies, 58,374 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.28; I2 = 95%), congestive heart failure (3 studies, 49,511 participants: RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.21; I2 = 89%) and stroke (4 studies, 102,542 participants: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.99; I2 = 0%) because of low to very low certainty evidence. Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on the number of patients experiencing hospitalisation (4 studies, 3282 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.30; I2 = 97%) and all-cause hospitalisation events (4 studies, 42,582 participants: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.29; I2 = 91%) (very low certainty). None of the included studies reported specifically on life participation or fatigue. However, two studies evaluated employment. Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on employment at one year (2 studies, 593 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.43; I2 = 97%; very low certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The comparative effectiveness of PD and HD on the preservation of RKF, all-cause and cause-specific death risk, the incidence of bacteraemia, other vascular complications (e.g. stroke, cardiovascular events) and patient-reported outcomes (e.g. life participation and fatigue) are uncertain, based on data obtained mostly from NRSIs, as only two RCTs were included.

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.

Usage and Health Outcomes of Home Hemodialysis vs Center Hemodialysis in Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups in the United States a Quantitative Research in 2016-2019 USRDS Using Aday-Anderson Framework and Multiple Regression Models

Introduction

Home hemodialysis (HHD) offers patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) greater flexibility and advantages of health outcomes over center hemodialysis (CHD). This study aims to investigate the differences between home and center hemodialysis with a focus on racial/ethnic minorities.

Methods

The US Renal Disease System (USRDS) 2019 patient core data containing mortality and hospitalization which are cumulative since 2010 were merged with 2016-2019 Medicare clinical claims. To assess demographic and medical factors adjusted utilization and mortality of HHD vs CHD within every racial/ethnic cohort, logistic regression was used, and negative binomial regression was conducted to analyze the number of hospitalizations.

Results

Evaluating 548,453 (97.48%) CHD patients and 14,202 (2.52%) HHD patients with Whites 47%, Blacks 32%, Hispanics 15%, Asians 4%, and other minorities 2%, the outcomes from adjusted regressions showed that: 1) minorities were significantly less likely to use HHD than Whites (Blacks: OR, 0.568, 95% CI, 0.546-0.592; Hispanics: OR, 0.510, 95% CI, 0.477-0.544; Asians: OR, 0.689, 95% CI, 0.619-0.766; Others: OR, 0.453, 95% CI, 0.390-0.525; p < 0.001); 2) most minority patients were younger and had fewer comorbidities than Whites, and all minority groups displayed significantly lower mortality and hospitalization incidences than the White group with adjustment on multiple covariates; 3) in the overall and main racial/ethnic cohorts, HHD showed a significantly lower risk of death than CHD after confounding for major risk factors (overall cohort: OR, 0.686, 95% CI, 0.641-0.734; White: OR, 0.670, 95% CI, 0.612-0.734; Blacks: OR, 0.717, 95% CI, 0.644-0.799; Hispanics: OR, 0.715, 95% CI, 0.575-0.889; Others: OR, 0.473, 95% CI, 0.265-0.844).

Conclusion

There are substantial racial/ethnic variations in home hemodialysis use and health outcomes in the United States.

Patient Survival With Extended Home Hemodialysis Compared to In-Center Conventional Hemodialysis

Introduction

More frequent and/or longer hemodialysis (HD) has been associated with improvements in numerous clinical outcomes in patients on dialysis. Home HD (HHD), which allows more frequent and/or longer dialysis with lower cost and flexibility in treatment planning, is not widely used worldwide. Although, retrospective studies have indicated better survival with HHD, this issue remains controversial. In this multicenter study, we compared thrice-weekly extended HHD with in-center conventional HD (ICHD) in a large patient population with a long-term follow-up.

Methods

We matched 349 patients starting HHD between 2010 and 2014 with 1047 concurrent patients on ICHD by using propensity scores. Patients were followed-up with from their respective baseline until September 30, 2018. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were technique survival; hospitalization; and changes in clinical, laboratory, and medication parameters.

Results

The mean duration of dialysis session was 418 ± 54 minutes in HHD and 242 ± 10 minutes in patients on ICHD. All-cause mortality rate was 3.76 and 6.27 per 100 patient-years in the HHD and the ICHD groups, respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, HHD was associated with a 40% lower risk for all-cause mortality than ICHD (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.80; P < 0.001). In HHD, the 5-year technical survival was 86.5%. HHD treatment provided better phosphate and blood pressure (BP) control, improvements in nutrition and inflammation, and reduction in hospitalization days and medication requirement.

Conclusion

These results indicate that extended HHD is associated with higher survival and better outcomes compared to ICHD.

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.

Expanded hemodialysis: what's up, Doc?

In recent years there has been an increasing interest in expanded hemodialysis (HDx), an emerging renal replacement therapy based on the use of medium cut-off membranes (MCO). Thanks to the internal architecture of these types of membranes, with a higher pore size and smaller fiber inner diameter to favor internal filtration rate, they can increase the removal of larger middle molecules in conventional hemodialysis. Secondarily, several reports suggest that this therapy potentially improve the outcomes for end-stage renal disease patients. However, HDx has not been defined yet and the characteristics of MCO membranes are not well stablished. The aim of this narrative review is to define HDx and summarize the dialyzers that have been used so far to perform this therapy, collect the evidence available on its efficacy and clinical outcomes compared with other hemodialysis techniques and settle the bases for its optimal prescription.

Severe infections in peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis patients: An inception cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Infections are the most common non-cardiovascular cause of death among dialysis patients. Earlier studies have shown similar or higher risk of infectious complications in peritoneal dialysis (PD) compared to hemodialysis (HD) patients, but comparisons to home HD patients have been rare. We investigated the risk of severe infections after start of continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD) and automated PD (APD) as compared to home HD.

METHODS

All adult patients (n = 536), who were on home dialysis at day 90 from starting kidney replacement therapy (KRT) between 2004 and 2017 in Helsinki healthcare district, were included. We defined severe infection as an infection with C-reactive protein of 100 mg/l or higher. Cumulative incidence of first severe infection was assessed considering death as a competing risk. Hazard ratios were estimated using Cox regression with propensity score adjustment.

RESULTS

The risk of getting a severe infection during the first year of dialysis was 35% for CAPD, 25% for APD and 11% for home HD patients. During five years of follow-up, the hazard ratio of severe infection was 2.8 [95% CI 1.6-4.8] for CAPD and 2.2 [95% CI 1.4-3.5] for APD in comparison to home HD. Incidence rate of severe infections per 1000 patient-years was 537 for CAPD, 371 for APD, and 197 for home HD patients. When excluding peritonitis, the incidence rate was not higher among PD than home HD patients.

CONCLUSIONS

CAPD and APD patients had higher risk of severe infections than home HD patients. This was explained by PD-associated peritonitis.

Home dialysis: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference

Home dialysis modalities (home hemodialysis [HD] and peritoneal dialysis [PD]) are associated with greater patient autonomy and treatment satisfaction compared with in-center modalities, yet the level of home-dialysis use worldwide is low. Reasons for limited utilization are context-dependent, informed by local resources, dialysis costs, access to healthcare, health system policies, provider bias or preferences, cultural beliefs, individual lifestyle concerns, potential care-partner time, and financial burdens. In May 2021, KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) convened a controversies conference on home dialysis, focusing on how modality choice and distribution are determined and strategies to expand home-dialysis use. Participants recognized that expanding use of home dialysis within a given health system requires alignment of policy, fiscal resources, organizational structure, provider incentives, and accountability. Clinical outcomes across all dialysis modalities are largely similar, but for specific clinical measures, one modality may have advantages over another. Therefore, choice among available modalities is preference-sensitive, with consideration of quality of life, life goals, clinical characteristics, family or care-partner support, and living environment. Ideally, individuals, their care-partners, and their healthcare teams will employ shared decision-making in assessing initial and subsequent kidney failure treatment options. To meet this goal, iterative, high-quality education and support for healthcare professionals, patients, and care-partners are priorities. Everyone who faces dialysis should have access to home therapy. Facilitating universal access to home dialysis and expanding utilization requires alignment of policy considerations and resources at the dialysis-center level, with clear leadership from informed and motivated clinical teams.

Sex and Racial/Ethnic Differences in Home Hemodialysis Mortality

Key Points

Women on home hemodialysis have higher 1-year mortality than men, and women and men have comparable survival on long-term follow-up. Compared with White patients on home hemodialysis, there was no difference in all-cause mortality for Black patients, Hispanics, or Native Americans. Among patients undergoing home hemodialysis, Asians had a lower risk of all-cause mortality than White patients.

Background

Women and minorities constitute substantial portions of the prevalent population of patients with kidney failure. Little is known about sex and racial/ethnic differences in mortality among patients with kidney failure on home hemodialysis in the United States.

Methods

Using the United States Renal Data System, we retrospectively evaluated a cohort of 42,849 patients who started home hemodialysis between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2015. We examined the association of sex and race/ethnicity with the outcome of all-cause mortality using adjusted Cox proportional hazard models and logistic regression models.

Results

In the study cohort, 40.4% were women, and 57.4% were White. Women on home hemodialysis had higher unadjusted death rates (26.9 versus 22.4 per 100 person-years) compared with men. There was no difference in adjusted all-cause mortality between men and women, but women had an 8% higher adjusted risk of all-cause mortality at 1 year after initiating home hemodialysis (odds ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.15). Regarding race/ethnicity, Hispanic, White, and Black patients had higher unadjusted death rates compared with Asians and Native Americans (25.1 versus 24.8 versus 23.2 versus 17.4 versus 16.6 per 100 person-years). There was no difference in adjusted all-cause mortality in Black, Hispanic, and Native Americans compared with White patients, while Asians had a lower risk of all-cause mortality than did White patients (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.92). There was no difference in adjusted 1-year mortality for Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Native American patients compared with White patients.

Conclusions

Among patients undergoing home hemodialysis, women have higher 1-year mortality than men, and women and men have comparable survival on long-term follow-up after adjusting for other covariates. Compared with White patients, there was no difference in adjusted survival on long-term follow-up for Black patients, Hispanics, or Native Americans, while Asians had better survival. Our results suggest the need for population-wide strategies to overcome differences in home hemodialysis care.

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.

The initial attempt at home hemodialysis in mainland China

BACKGROUND

Observational studies have shown home hemodialysis (HHD) to be associated with better survival than facility hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD). Patients on HHD have reported higher quality of life and independence. HHD is considered to be an economical way to manage end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has had a significant impact on patients with ESKD. Patients on HHD may have an advantage over in-center HD patients because of a lower risk of exposure to infection.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

We enrolled HD patients from our dialysis center. We first established the HHD training center. The training center was approved by the Chinese government. Doctors, nurses and engineers train and assess patients separately. There are three forms of patient monitoring: home visits, internet remote monitoring, and outpatient services. Demographic and medical data included age, sex, blood pressure, and dialysis-related data. Laboratory tests were conducted in our central testing laboratory, including hemoglobin (Hgb), serum creatinine (Cr), urea nitrogen (BUN), uric acid (UA), albumin (Alb), calcium (Ca), phosphorus (P), parathyroid hormone (PTH), and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels.

RESULTS

Six patients who underwent regular dialysis in the HD center of our hospital were selected for HHD training. We enrolled 6 patients, including 4 males and 2 females. The mean age of the patients was 47.5 (34.7-55.7) years, and the mean dialysis age was 33.5 (11.2-41.5) months. After an average of 16.0 (11.2-25.5) months of training, Alb, P and BNP levels were improved compared with the baseline values. After training, three patients returned home to begin independent HD. During the follow-up, there were no serious adverse events leading to hospitalization or death, but there were several adverse events. They were solved quickly by extra home visits of the technicians or online by remote monitoring. During the follow-up time, the laboratory indicators of all the patients, including Hgb, Alb, Ca, P, PTH, BNP, and β2-MG levels, remained stable before and after HHD treatment.

CONCLUSION

HHD is feasible and safe for ESKD in China, but larger-scale and longer-term studies are needed for further confirmation.

Characteristics and technical survival of home hemodialysis in the Valencian Community (1976-2020)

INTRODUCTION

Home hemodialysis (HDD) is implemented in the Valencian Community with a higher prevalence than to the rest of the national territory, with a prevalence of 13.4 patients pmp in December 2018. We carried out an assessment of the patients characteristics and the overall and technical survival in HDD depending on the historical moment of onset and its origin.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective and descriptive study including patients of the Valencian Registry of Renal Patients from the beginning of data reported until December 2020. We calculated overall survival (combined event death-technical failure, censoring transplantation) and technical survival (event technical failure, censoring exitus and transplantation). Comparing technical survival according to the starting era: ancient (1976-2000) vs modern (2001-2020) and according to the modality of origin. We performed univariate and multivariate Cox regression in the total series for both overall and technical survival.

RESULTS

236 patients on HDD (611.4 patient-years of follow-up), mean age 49.7±16.3 years; median time of prior renal replacement therapy 0.2 years. The ratio of transplantation, death, and technical failure were 13.2, 4.4, and 7 events per 100 patient-years, respectively. In the comparison by ancient (n=57) vs modern (n=179) eras, age (37.5 vs 53.5 years), DM (3.5 vs 13.4%) and chronic tubuleinterstitial nephropathy (24.6 vs 8.9%) as a cause of chronic kidney disease were statistically significant. The probability of coming from outpatient consultation (33.3 vs 48.6%) and peritoneal dialysis (1.8 vs 12.8%) were higher in modern era with statistical significance. In the ancient era a single hospital centralized 57.9% of the patients, and in the modern era between two hospitals centralized 55.8% of the patients. Overall survival in the ancient era was 83.7% at 1year, 77.4% at 2 years, and 61% at 5 years; and in the modern era 87.3% per year, 83% 2 years and 47.8% 5 years (Log Rank 0.521). Technical survival in the ancient era was 85.4% at 1year, 79% 2 years, and 64.1% 5 years; and in the modern era 91.4% per year, 88.5% 2 years and 74.5% 5 years (Log Rank 0.195). There were no statistical differences in the comparison based on technical of provenance. In the Cox regression it was statistically significant for overall survival: the age and being diagnosed with heart disease, vascular disease or active neoplasia and for technical survival liver disease or social problem, both in univariate and multivariate.

CONCLUSIONS

In the modern era there is a considerable increase in HDD patients in the Valencian Community. There was a center effect in the development of HDD programs, most of the patients depended on few healthcare centers. The patients were older and had greater comorbidity in the modern era, despite this without affecting the technical and overall survival of the HDD.

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.

Multicenter registry analysis comparing survival on home hemodialysis and kidney transplant recipients in Australia and New Zealand

BACKGROUND

In the era of organ shortage, home hemodialysis (HHD) has been identified as the possible preferential bridge to kidney transplantation. Data are conflicting regarding the comparability of HHD and transplantation outcomes. This study aimed to compare patient and treatment survival between HHD patients and kidney transplant recipients.

METHODS

The Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry was used to include incident HHD patients on Day 90 after initiation of kidney replacement therapy and first kidney-only transplant recipients in Australia and New Zealand from 1997 to 2017. Survival times were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method comparing HHD patients with subtypes of kidney transplant recipients using the log-rank test. Adjusted analyses were performed with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models for time to all-cause mortality. Time-to-treatment failure or death was assessed as a composite secondary outcome.

RESULTS

The study compared 1411 HHD patients with 4960 living donor (LD) recipients, 6019 standard criteria donor (SCD) recipients and 2427 expanded criteria donor (ECD) recipients. While LD and SCD recipients had reduced risks of mortality compared with HHD patients [LD adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.71; SCD HR = 0.65 95% CI 0.52-0.79], the risk of mortality was comparable between ECD recipients and HHD patients (HR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.73-1.12). LD, SCD and ECD kidney recipients each experienced superior time-to-treatment failure or death compared with HHD patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This large registry study showed that kidney transplant offers a survival benefit compared with HHD but that this advantage is not significant for ECD recipients.

Characteristics and technical survival of home hemodialysis in the Valencian Community (1976-2020)

INTRODUCTION

Home hemodialysis (HDD) is implemented in the Valencian Community with a higher prevalence than to the rest of the national territory, with a prevalence of 13.4 patients' pmp in December 2018. We carried out an assessment of the patients' characteristics and the overall and technical survival in HDD depending on the historical moment of onset and its origin.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective and descriptive study including patients of the Valencian Registry of Renal Patients from the beginning of data reported until December 2020. We calculated overall survival (combined event death-technical failure, censoring transplantation) and technical survival (event technical failure, censoring exitus and transplantation). Comparing technical survival according to the starting era: ancient (1976-2000) vs modern (2001-2020) and according to the modality of origin. We performed univariate and multivariate Cox regression in the total series for both overall and technical survivals.

RESULTS

236 patients on HDD (611.4 patient-years of follow-up), mean age 49.7±16.3 years; median time of prior renal replacement therapy 0.2 years. The ratio of transplantation, death, and technical failure were 13.2, 4.4, and 7 events per 100 patient-years, respectively. In the comparison by ancient (n=57) vs modern (n=179) eras, age (37.5 vs 53.5 years), DM (3.5 vs 13.4%) and chronic tubuleinterstitial nephropathy (24.6 vs 8.9%) as a cause of chronic kidney disease were statistically significant. The probability of coming from outpatient consultation (33.3 vs 48.6%) and peritoneal dialysis (1.8 vs 12.8%) were higher in modern era with statistical significance. In the ancient era a single hospital centralized 57.9% of the patients, and in the modern era between two hospitals centralized 55.8% of the patients. Overall survival in the ancient era was 83.7% at 1 year, 77.4% at 2 years, and 61% at 5 years; and in the modern era 87.3% per year, 83% 2 years and 47.8% 5 years (Log Rank 0.521). Technical survival in the ancient era was 85.4% at 1 year, 79% 2 years, and 64.1% 5 years; and in the modern era 91.4% per year, 88.5% 2 years and 74.5% 5 years (Log Rank 0.195). There were no statistical differences in the comparison based on technical of provenance. In the Cox regression it was statistically significant for overall survival: the age and being diagnosed with heart disease, vascular disease or active neoplasia and for technical survival liver disease or social problem, both in univariate and multivariate.

CONCLUSION

In the modern era there is a considerable increase in HDD patients in the Valencian Community. There was a center effect in the development of HDD programs, most of the patients depended on few healthcare centers. The patients were older and had greater comorbidity in the modern era, despite this without affecting the technical and overall survival of the HDD.

Exploring stakeholders and their requirements in the process of home hemodialysis: A literature review

Providing home hemodialysis (HHD) therapy is a complex process that not only requires the use of a complex technology but also involves a diverse group of stakeholders, and each stakeholder has their requirements and may not share a common interest. Bringing them together will require the alignment of their interests. A process management perspective can help to accomplish the alignment of their interests. To align their interests, it is crucial to identify interest groups and understand their interests. The main objective of this paper is to identify the stakeholders and represents their interests as a list of requirements in the HHD process. An extensive literature review has been carried out and PubMed was used for literature extraction. In total, 1848 articles were retrieved of which 80 have fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A large array of actors is identified and their interests/requirements at different stages of the HHD process are represented in the form of a list. They have both common and conflicting requirements in the HHD process. If these requirements are aligned and balanced, a stakeholder's driven treatment process will be developed and a real improvement will be achieved in the treatment process.

Choice of dialysis modality among patients initiating dialysis: results of the Peridialysis study

Background

In patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), home dialysis offers socio-economic and health benefits compared with in-centre dialysis but is generally underutilized. We hypothesized that the pre-dialysis course and institutional factors affect the choice of dialysis modality after dialysis initiation (DI).

Methods

The Peridialysis study is a multinational, multicentre prospective observational study assessing the causes and timing of DI and consequences of suboptimal DI. Clinical and biochemical data, details of the pre-dialytic course, reasons for DI and causes of the choice of dialysis modality were registered.

Results

Among 1587 included patients, 516 (32.5%) were judged unsuitable for home dialysis due to contraindications [384 ( 24.2%)] or no assessment [106 (6.7%); mainly due to late referral and/or suboptimal DI] or death [26 (1.6%)]. Older age, comorbidity, late referral, suboptimal DI, acute illness and rapid loss of renal function associated with unsuitability. Of the remaining 1071 patients, 700 (65.4%) chose peritoneal dialysis (61.7%) or home haemodialysis (HD; 3.6%), while 371 (34.6%) chose in-centre HD. Somatic differences between patients choosing home dialysis and in-centre dialysis were minor; factors linked to the choice of in-centre dialysis were late referral, suboptimal DI, acute illness and absence of a ‘home dialysis first’ institutional policy.

Conclusions

Given a personal choice with shared decision making, 65.4% of ESKD patients choose home dialysis. Our data indicate that the incidence of home dialysis potentially could be further increased to reduce the incidence of late referral and unplanned DI and, in acutely ill patients, by implementing an educational programme after improvement of their clinical condition.

Commentary on the NICE guideline on renal replacement therapy and conservative management

NICE Guideline NG107, “Renal replacement therapy and conservative management” (Renal replacement therapy and conservative management (NG107); 2018:1–33) was published in October 2018 and replaced the existing NICE guideline CG125, “Chronic Kidney Disease (Stage 5): peritoneal dialysis” (Chronic kidney disease (stage 5): peritoneal dialysis | Guidance | NICE; 2011) and NICE Technology Appraisal TA48, “Guidance on home compared with hospital haemodialysis for patients with end-stage renal failure”(Guidance on home compared with hospital haemodialysis for patients with end-stage renal failure (Technology appraisal guideline TA48); 2002) The aim of the NICE guideline (NG107) was to provide guidance on renal replacement therapy (RRT), including dialysis, transplant and conservative care, for adults and children with CKD Stages 4 and 5. The guideline is extremely welcomed by the Renal Association and it offers huge value to patients, clinicians, commissioners and key stakeholders. It overlaps and enhances current guidance published by the Renal Association including “Haemodialysis” (Clinical practice guideline: Haemodialysis; 2019) which was updated in 2019 after the publication of the NICE guideline, “Peritoneal Dialysis in Adults and Children” (Clinical practice guideline: peritoneal Dialysis in adults and children; 2017) and “Planning, Initiation & withdrawal of Renal Replacement Therapy” (Clinical practice guideline: planning, initiation and withdrawal of renal replacement therapy; 2014) (at present there are no plans to update this guideline).

There are several strengths to NICE guideline NG107 and we agree with and support the vast majority of recommendation statements in the guideline. This summary from the Renal Association discusses some of the key highlights, controversies, gaps in knowledge and challenges in implementation. Where there is disagreement with a NICE guideline statement, we have highlighted this and a new suggested statement has been written.

Similar survival on home hemodialysis and automated peritoneal dialysis: an inception cohort study

BACKGROUND

Several studies have shown superior survival of patients on home hemodialysis (HD) compared to peritoneal dialysis (PD), but patients on automated PD (APD) and continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD) have not been considered separately. As APD allows larger fluid volumes and may be more efficient than CAPD, we primarily compared patient survival between APD and home HD.

METHODS

All adult patients who started kidney replacement therapy (KRT) between 2004 and 2017 in the district of Helsinki-Uusimaa in Finland, and who were on one of the home dialysis modalities at 90 days from starting KRT, were included. We used intention-to-treat analysis.Survival of home HD, APD and CAPD patients was studied using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression with adjustment for propensity scores that were based on extensive data on possible confounding factors.

RESULTS

The probability of surviving 5 years was 90% for home HD, 88% for APD and 56% for CAPD patients. After adjustment for propensity score, the hazard ratio of death was 1.1 [95% CI 0.52-2.4] for APD and 1.6 [95% CI 0.74-3.6] for CAPD in comparison to home HD. Censoring at the time of kidney transplantation or at transfer to in-center hemodialysis did not change the results. Characteristics of home HD and APD patients at the start of dialysis were similar, whereas patients on CAPD had higher median age and more comorbidities, and received kidney transplantation less frequently.

CONCLUSIONS

Home HD and APD patients had comparable characteristics and their survival appeared similar.

Mortality After Home Hemodialysis Treatment Failure and Return to In-Center Hemodialysis

RATIONALE OBJECTIVE

Patients on home hemodialysis (HHD) may eventually return to in-center hemodialysis (ICHD) for clinical, technical or psycho-social reasons. We studied the mortality of patients returning to ICHD after HHD comparing it to the mortality experience among patients receiving HHD and patients receiving ICHD without prior treatment with HHD.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING PARTICIPANTS

All patients represented in the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry who commenced HD during 2005-2015 and were treated for >90 days.

EXPOSURES

ICHD and/or HHD, and clinical characteristics at study entry.

OUTCOMES

Mortality and cause of death.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

A time-varying multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis with shared frailty was implemented to explore the association between patient treatment states and mortality. Patients were censored at the time of transplantation and change in treatment modality to peritoneal dialysis.

RESULTS

A total of 19,306 patients initiated HD and were treated for >90 days. The mean age of patients was 60.8y (SD=15.4y), 62% were male and 49% had diabetes. After HHD treatment failure, adjusted mortality was increased compared to continued HHD at 0-30 days (HR 3.93, 95% CI 2.09-7.40 p<0.001), 30-90 days (HR 3.34, 95% CI 1.98-5.62, p<0.001) and >90 days (HR 2.29, CI 1.84-2.85, p<0.001).

LIMITATIONS

Covariates recorded at dialysis initiation. Residual confounding underlying successful initiation of HHD treatment.Observational data lacking detail on cause of HHD treatment failure.

CONCLUSIONS

HHD treatment failure is associated with a significant increase in mortality compared to continued HHD. This risk was present in both the early (first 30 days and 30-90 days) and late (>90 days) periods after HHD treatment failure. Further investigation into the specific causes of treatment failure and death may highlight specific high-risk patients.

Home Versus Facility Dialysis and Mortality in Australia and New Zealand

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Mortality is an important outcome for all dialysis stakeholders. We examined associations between dialysis modality and mortality in the modern era.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational study comparing dialysis inception cohorts 1998-2002, 2003-2007, 2008-2012, and 2013-2017.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) dialysis population.

EXPOSURE

The primary exposure was dialysis modality: facility hemodialysis (HD), continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD), automated PD (APD), or home HD.

OUTCOME

The main outcome was death.

ANALYTICAL METHODS

Cause-specific proportional hazards models with shared frailty and subdistribution proportional hazards (Fine and Gray) models, adjusting for available confounding covariates.

RESULTS

In 52,097 patients, the overall death rate improved from ~15 deaths per 100 patient-years in 1998-2002 to ~11 in 2013-2017, with the largest cause-specific contribution from decreased infectious death. Relative to facility HD, mortality with CAPD and APD has improved over the years, with adjusted hazard ratios in 2013-2017 of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.78-0.99) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.82-1.00), respectively. Increasingly, patients with lower clinical risk have been adopting APD, and to a lesser extent CAPD. Relative to facility HD, mortality with home HD was lower throughout the entire period of observation, despite increasing adoption by older patients and those with more comorbidities. All effects were generally insensitive to the modeling approach (initial vs time-varying modality, cause-specific versus subdistribution regression), different follow-up time intervals (5 year vs 7 year vs 10 year). There was no effect modification by diabetes, comorbidity, or sex.

LIMITATIONS

Potential for residual confounding, limited generalizability.

CONCLUSIONS

The survival of patients on PD in 2013-2017 appears greater than the survival for patients on facility HD in ANZ. Additional research is needed to assess whether changing clinical risk profiles over time, varied dialysis prescription, and morbidity from dialysis access contribute to these findings.

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.

Survival comparisons in home hemodialysis: Understanding the present and looking to the future

A number of studies have compared relative survival for home hemodialysis patients (including longer hours/more frequent schedules) and other forms of renal replacement therapy. While informative, many of these studies have been limited by issues pertaining to their observational design including selection bias and residual confounding. Furthermore the few randomized controlled trials that have been conducted have been underpowered to detect a survival difference. Finally, in the face of a growing recognition of the value of patient-important outcomes beyond survival, the focus of comparisons between dialysis modalities may be changing. In this review, we will discuss the determinants of survival for patients receiving home hemodialysis and address the various studies that have compared relative survival for differing home hemodialysis schedules to each of in-center hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis and transplantation. We will conclude this review by discussing whether there is an ongoing role for survival analyses in home hemodialysis.

Home Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis Patient and Technique Survival in Canada

INTRODUCTION

As interest for home dialysis is growing, knowledge of comparative clinical outcomes between peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD) would help to better inform shared decision making with patients and caregivers during modality discussion. This study aimed to assess differences in risk of mortality and technique failure in an incident home dialysis cohort and, specifically, to assess change in this association through eras.

METHODS

All adults patients initiating PD or HHD, in Canada (excluding Quebec), within 365 days after kidney replacement therapy (KRT) initiation between 2000 and 2013 were included (administrative censoring 31 December 2014). Mortality and treatment failure (transfer to another modality for >90 days or death) were assessed in a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model, with prespecified stratification based on the year of KRT initiation.

RESULTS

The study included 959 HHD and 15,469 PD patients. Compared with incident PD, incident HHD was associated with a lower risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.53-0.78), and treatment failure (aHR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.45-0.60). These lower risks of mortality with HHD were more pronounced for older cohorts (2000-2005: aHR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.31-0.70; 2006-2010: aHR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.54-0.89) and not significantly different in the most recent era (2011-2013: aHR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.51-1.47).

CONCLUSION

In Canadian incident KRT patients, HHD was associated with appreciably lower risks of mortality and treatment failure compared to PD, although this association appeared to be attenuated in the most contemporary era.

Survival Among Incident Peritoneal Dialysis Versus Hemodialysis Patients Who Initiate With an Arteriovenous Fistula

Rationale & Objective

Comparisons of outcomes between in-center hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) are confounded by selection bias because PD patients are typically younger and healthier and may have received longer predialysis care. We compared first-year survival between what we hypothesized were clinically equivalent groups; namely, patients who initiate maintenance HD using an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) and those selecting PD as their initial modality.

Study Design

Observational, registry-based, retrospective cohort study.

Setting & Participants

US Renal Data System data for 5 annual cohorts (2010-2014; n = 130,324) of incident HD with an AVF and incident PD patients.

Exposures and Predictors

Exposure was more than 1 day receiving PD or more than 1 day receiving HD with an AVF. Time at risk for both cohorts was determined for 12 consecutive 30-day segments, censoring for transplantation, loss to follow-up, or end of time. Predictors included patient-level characteristics obtained from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2728 Form and other data sources.

Outcomes

Patient survival.

Analytical Approach

Unadjusted and multivariable risk-adjusted HRs for death of HD versus PD patients, averaged over 2010 to 2014, were calculated.

Results

The HD cohort's average unadjusted mortality rate was consistently higher than for the PD cohort. The HR of HD versus PD was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.20-1.30) in the unadjusted model and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.87) in the adjusted model. However, multivariable risk-adjusted analyses showed the HR of HD versus PD for the first 90 days was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.98-1.14), decreasing to 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68-0.80) in the 270- to 360-day period.

Limitations

Residual confounding due to selection bias inherent in dialysis modality choice and the observational study design. Form 2728 provides baseline data at dialysis incidence alone, but not over time.

Conclusions

US patients receiving HD with an AVF appear to have a survival advantage over PD patients after 90 days of dialysis initiation after accounting for patient characteristics. These findings have implications in the choice of initial dialysis modality and vascular access for patients.

Factors affecting uptake of home hemodialysis among self-care dialysis unit patients

INTRODUCTION

Superior outcomes have been reported among hemodialysis (HD) patients who take active control over their dialysis treatment either at self-care satellite dialysis units or home compared to the regular in-center hemodialysis patient. Although the differences between the home hemodialysis (HHD) and self-care in-center HD (SCHD) are not well described, the growing literature on the superior outcomes of HHD suggests that HHD is the better option.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study in a stand-alone self-care unit to examine the differences in patients that are keen to consider HHD and those who are not.

FINDINGS

A cross-sectional sample of 44 patients completed a structured interview and the distress thermometer score used to assess psychological stress. Only 68% of patients reported to have heard about the benefits of HHD despite the long-established history and availability of the modality in the unit. One of the more critical findings in our study was that the cohort of patients who were keen to consider HHD believed that self-care and HHD would improve their quality of life (P < 0.05). Specifically, the perceived benefits stated by those willing to consider HHD were the lack of need to travel, association with better outcomes and the possibility of having the treatment in the comfort of home (P < 0.05).

DISCUSSION

We surmise that the answers expressed in this survey likely reflect a difference in perceptions of self-care and beliefs about HHD; hence, the importance of introducing HHD education earlier in the course of their chronic kidney disease journey.

Patients' Experiences of Community House Hemodialysis: A Qualitative Study

Rationale & Objective

Community house hemodialysis is a submodality of home hemodialysis that enables patients to perform hemodialysis independent of nursing or medical supervision in a shared house. This study describes the perspectives and experiences of patients using community house hemodialysis in New Zealand to explore ways this dialysis modality may support the wider delivery of independent hemodialysis care.

Study Design

Qualitative semi-structured in-depth interview study.

Setting & Participants

25 patients who had experienced community house hemodialysis. Participants were asked about why they chose community house hemodialysis and their experiences and perspectives of this.

Analytical Approach

Thematic analysis using an inductive approach.

Results

25 patients were interviewed (14 men and 11 women, aged 31-65 years). Most were of Māori or Pacific ethnicity and in part- or full-time employment. More than two-thirds dialyzed for 20 hours a week or more. We identified 4 themes that described patients’ experiences and perspectives of choosing and using community house hemodialysis: reducing burden on family (when home is not an option, minimizing family exposure to dialysis, maintaining privacy and self-identity, reducing the costs of home hemodialysis, and gaining a reprieve from home), offering flexibility and freedom (having a normal life, maintaining employment, and facilitating travel), control of my health (building independence and self-efficacy, a place of wellness, avoiding institutionalization, and creating a culture of extended-hour dialysis), and community support (building social inclusion and supporting peers).

Limitations

Non-Māori and non-Pacific patient experiences of community house hemodialysis could not be explored.

Conclusions

Community house hemodialysis is a dialysis modality that overcomes many of the socioeconomic barriers to home hemodialysis, is socially and culturally acceptable to Māori and Pacific people, and supports extended-hour hemodialysis and thereby promotes more equitable access to best practice services. It is therefore a significant addition to independent hemodialysis options available for patients.

Benefits and risks of frequent or longer haemodialysis: weighing the evidence

Although the ability of individuals with end-stage renal disease to maintain body homoeostasis is equally impaired during all weekdays, conventional haemodialysis (HD) treatment is scheduled thrice weekly, containing two short and one long interdialytic interval. This intermittent nature of HD and the consequent fluctuations in volume, metabolic parameters and electrolytes have long been hypothesized to predispose to complications. Large observational studies link the first weekday with an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Several schemes of frequent and/or longer, home or in-centre HD have been introduced, aiming to alleviate the above risks by both increasing total dialysis duration and reducing the duration of interdialytic intervals. Observational studies in this field have non-uniform results, showing that enhanced frequency in home (but not in-centre) HD is associated with reduced mortality. Evidence from the randomized Daily and Nocturnal Trials of the Frequent HD Network suggest the opposite, showing mortality benefits with in-centre daily but not with home nocturnal dialysis. Secondary analyses of these trials indicate that daily and nocturnal schedules do not have equal effects on intermediate outcomes. Alternative schemes, such as thrice weekly in-centre nocturnal HD or every-other-day HD, seem to also offer improvements in several intermediate endpoints, but need further testing with randomized trials. This review summarizes the effects of frequent and/or longer HD methods on hard and intermediate outcomes, attempting to provide a balanced overview of the field.

The benefit of early survival on PD versus HD—Why this is (still) very important

There are a number of misconceptions around the identified early survival benefit of peritoneal dialysis (PD) relative to hemodialysis (HD), including that such benefits “even out in the end” since the relative risk of death over time eventually encompasses 1.0 (or even an estimate that is unfavorable to PD); that the early benefit is, in fact, most likely due to unmeasured confounding; and such benefits are only due to the influence of central venous catheters and “crash starters” in the HD group. In fact, the early survival benefit results in a substantial gain of patient life years in PD cohorts relative to HD ones, even if it the benefit appears to “even out in the end,” is relatively insensitive to unmeasured confounding, and persists even when the effects of central venous catheters are accounted for. In this review, the calculations and arguments are made to support these tenets. Survival on dialysis is still one of the most important considerations for all stakeholders in the end-stage kidney disease community, including patients who rank it among their top priorities. Shared decision-making is a fundamental patient right and requires both balanced information and an iterative mechanism for a consensual decision based on shared understanding and purpose. A cornerstone of this process should be an explicit discussion of the early survival benefit of PD relative to HD.

Emotion sharing in remote patient monitoring of patients with chronic kidney disease

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relationship between emotion sharing and technically troubled dialysis (TTD) in a remote patient monitoring (RPM) setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A custom software system was developed for home hemodialysis patients to use in an RPM setting, with focus on emoticon sharing and sentiment analysis of patients' text data. We analyzed the outcome of emoticon and sentiment against TTD. Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between patients' emotions (emoticon and sentiment) and TTD.

RESULTS

Usage data were collected from January 1, 2015 to June 1, 2018 from 156 patients that actively used the app system, with a total of 31 159 dialysis sessions recorded. Overall, 122 patients (78%) made use of the emoticon feature while 146 patients (94%) wrote at least 1 or more session notes for sentiment analysis. In total, 4087 (13%) sessions were classified as TTD. In the multivariate model, when compared to sessions with self-reported very happy emoticons, those with sad emoticons showed significantly higher associations to TTD (aOR 4.97; 95% CI 4.13-5.99; P = < .001). Similarly, negative sentiments also revealed significant associations to TTD (aOR 1.56; 95% CI 1.22-2; P = .003) when compared to positive sentiments.

DISCUSSION

The distribution of emoticons varied greatly when compared to sentiment analysis outcomes due to the differences in the design features. The emoticon feature was generally easier to understand and quicker to input while the sentiment analysis required patients to manually input their personal thoughts.

CONCLUSION

Patients on home hemodialysis actively expressed their emotions during RPM. Negative emotions were found to have significant associations with TTD. The use of emoticons and sentimental analysis may be used as a predictive indicator for prolonged TTD.

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.

Nonrandomized studies using causal-modeling may give different answers than RCTs: a meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate how estimated treatment effects agree between nonrandomized studies using causal modeling with marginal structural models (MSM-studies) and randomized trials (RCTs).

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-epidemiological study.

SETTING

MSM-studies providing effect estimates on any healthcare outcome of any treatment were eligible. We systematically sought RCTs on the same clinical question and compared the direction of treatment effects, effect sizes, and confidence intervals.

RESULTS

The main analysis included 19 MSM-studies (1,039,570 patients) and 141 RCTs (120,669 patients). MSM-studies indicated effect estimates in the opposite direction from RCTs for eight clinical questions (42%), and their 95% CI (confidence interval) did not include the RCT estimate in nine clinical questions (47%). The effect estimates deviated 1.58-fold between the study designs (median absolute deviation OR [odds ratio] 1.58; IQR [interquartile range] 1.37 to 2.16). Overall, we found no systematic disagreement regarding benefit or harm but confidence intervals were wide (summary ratio of odds ratios [sROR] 1.04; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.23). The subset of MSM-studies focusing on healthcare decision-making tended to overestimate experimental treatment benefits (sROR 1.44; 95% CI 0.99 to 2.09).

CONCLUSION

Nonrandomized studies using causal modeling with MSM may give different answers than RCTs. Caution is still required when nonrandomized "real world" evidence is used for healthcare decisions.

Expanded haemodialysis: news from the field

Expanded haemodialysis (HDx) has emerged as a promising solution to improve haemodialysis effectiveness. A medium cut-off membrane allows the removal of a wider range of uraemic toxins. However, little is known about the potential interesting applications of HDx therapy. Feedback from the first routine use of HDx therapy under real-life conditions in European facilities was excellent for priming and rinse back. There was no adverse event after 5191 HDx treatments. Patients suffering from itching, restless legs syndrome, persistent asthenia or malnourishment could benefit from HDx therapy. Moreover, we discuss here the promising applications in which HDx could be valuable (myeloma, rhabdomyolysis or cardiovascular diseases). This enthusiastic message is mitigated by reminding why and how prudence should be taken in the design of future HDx studies.

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.

Independent effect of haemodialysis session frequency and duration on survival in non-indigenous Australians on haemodialysis

BACKGROUND

End-stage kidney disease patients have increased mortality compared to the general population. Haemodialysis (HD) of more frequent and of longer duration has been proposed to improve survival but it remains unclear if this is attributed to increased frequency, duration, or both. We aimed to examine the independent effects of session frequency and duration on mortality in incident HD patients.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed using data from the Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry examining non-Indigenous patients aged ≥18 years who initiated HD of ≥3 sessions/week in Australia from 2001 to 2015. Initial dialysis prescription was categorized as session duration >5 h/session compared to ≤5 h/session and session frequency as >3 sessions/week compared to 3 sessions/week. Survival analysis was performed using Cox regression analysis, with multivariable analysis controlling for available covariates.

RESULTS

We examined 16 944 patients of whom 757 (4.5%) received >3 sessions/week and 518 (3.1%) received >5 h/session. After controlling for frequency, patients initiated on HD sessions >5 h had a significantly reduced risk of mortality compared with patients with HD session ≤5 h (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.44-0.74). In contrast, patients initiated on >3 sessions/week of HD had a similar risk of death when compared with patients on 3 sessions/week of HD (adjusted HR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.84-1.13), after controlling for duration. Limitations include potential residual confounding and changes in exposure over time.

CONCLUSION

Longer duration rather than increased frequency of treatment appears to reduce mortality in HD patients. This has implications for management and requires further study.

Daily hemodialysis practices in Australia/New Zealand and in France: a comparative cohort study

Background

As patients on daily hemodialysis (DHD) have heterogeneous profiles, DHD benefit in terms of survival is still debated. The aim of this study was to compare DHD practices in France and in Australia and New Zealand.

Methods

This study was based on data from the French Renal Epidemiology and Information Network (REIN) and the Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA). All incident patients from both registries who underwent DHD (i.e., 5–6 sessions/week, including short daily hemodialysis and long nocturnal hemodialysis) at least once during their trajectories were included, and their characteristics and care trajectories were compared. For survival analyses, one French patient was matched to one Australian or New Zealand patient, based on age, sex and year of dialysis start. Survival was assessed using the Cox proportional hazards model, and access to renal transplantation was evaluated using the Fine & Gray model to take into account death as competing risk.

Results

Between 2003 and 2012, 523 patients from the AZNDATA and 753 from the REIN registry started DHD. ANZDATA patients were younger (54.8 vs 64.0 years, p < 0.001) and had comorbidities more frequently than French patients. In both registries, one third of patients were on early DHD (i.e., DHD started less than one year after dialysis initiation). Long nocturnal hemodialysis was more frequent in the ANZDATA than in the REIN cohort (20.8 and 3%, respectively). Comparison of the matched subgroups showed comparable survival rates between French and Australian/New Zealand patients (HRadjusted = 1.08; 95%CI: 0.78–1.50). Access to renal transplantation also was similar between matched groups (SHRadjusted = 1.30, 95%CI: 0.86–1.97).

Conclusions

Our study shows that, despite differences in terms of patients’ characteristics and DHD regimens, the mortality risk and access to renal transplantation are similar in France and Australia and New Zealand.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12882-019-1330-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Association of incident dialysis modality with mortality: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies

BACKGROUND

At least 2.6 million adults and children receive dialysis treatment for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) worldwide. The large majority of these receive hemodialysis (HD), while the remaining receive peritoneal dialysis (PD). Peritoneal dialysis may be associated with similar mortality outcomes as HD, and patient-reported outcomes are potentially increased with PD. Existing evidence for the mortality associated with PD was summarized over 20 years ago, and there has been greater marginal improvement in survival with PD relative to HD since that time. It is therefore timely to reexamine the question of differential mortality by modality and summarize evidence from more contemporary practice settings.

METHODS/DESIGN

Electronic databases will be systematically searched for publications that report the association between dialysis modality (HD or PD) with death from any cause and cause-specific death in incident patients with end-stage kidney disease. The database searches will be supplemented by searching through citations and references and consultation with experts. Studies published before 1995 will be excluded. Screening of both titles and abstracts will be done by two independent reviewers. All disagreements will be resolved by an independent third reviewer. A quantitative meta-analysis of effect sizes and standard errors will be applied.

DISCUSSION

Our systematic review will update previous evidence summaries and provide a quantitative and standardized assessment of the contemporary literature comparing HD and PD including published and unpublished non-English studies from greater China, Taiwan, and Japan. This review will inform shared decision-making around initial dialysis modality choice and jurisdiction-level considerations of dialysis practice.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018111829.

Improved long-term survival with home hemodialysis compared with institutional hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis: a matched cohort study

Background

The survival rate for dialysis patients is poor. Previous studies have shown improved survival with home hemodialysis (HHD), but this could be due to patient selection, since HHD patients tend to be younger and healthier. The aim of the present study is to analyse the long-term effects of HHD on patient survival and on subsequent renal transplantation, compared with institutional hemodialysis (IHD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD), taking age and comorbidity into account.

Methods

Patients starting HHD as initial renal replacement therapy (RRT) were matched with patients on IHD or PD, according to gender, age, Charlson Comorbidity Index and start date of RRT, using the Swedish Renal Registry from 1991 to 2012. Survival analyses were performed as intention-to-treat (disregarding changes in RRT) and per-protocol (as on initial RRT).

Results

A total of 152 patients with HHD as initial RRT were matched with 608 IHD and 456 PD patients, respectively. Median survival was longer for HHD in intention-to-treat analyses: 18.5 years compared with 11.9 for IHD (p <  0.001) and 15.0 for PD (p = 0.002). The difference remained significant in per-protocol analyses omitting the contribution of subsequent transplantation. Patients on HHD were more likely to receive a renal transplant compared with IHD and PD, although treatment modality did not affect subsequent graft survival (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

HHD as initial RRT showed improved long-term patient survival compared with IHD and PD. This survival advantage persisted after matching and adjusting for a higher transplantation rate. Dialysis modality had no impact on subsequent graft survival.

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.

Changing ethnic and clinical trends and factors associated with successful home haemodialysis at Auckland District Health Board

BACKGROUND

The health and diversity of the population in New Zealand (NZ) is changing under the influence of many socio-economic factors. This may have shifted the landscape of home haemodialysis (HHD).

AIMS

To examine the demographic and clinical changes, determinants of HHD training and technique outcome and mortality between 2008 and 2015 at Auckland District Health Board, NZ.

METHODS

We compared three incident cohorts of HHD patients between 2008 and 2015. Relevant factors, including demographic and clinical characteristics, training failure, technique failure and mortality were recorded. Factors associated with training and technique failure were examined by multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 152 patients, 133 completed training, 13 (10%) experienced technique failure and 15 (11%) died. Significant changes in ethnicity (increased: Māori 1.7-fold, Asian 1.7-fold and Pasifika 1.4-fold; decreased: NZ European 2.7-fold, P = 0.001), and major comorbidities, ≥2 major comorbidities (1.8-fold increase, P = 0.03), diabetes (2.1-fold increase, P = 0.013) and heart failure (P = 0.04) were seen. HHD as first renal replacement therapy modality increased 15-fold (P = 0.0001) and training time increased by 4.5 weeks (P = 0.004). Death and technique failure were unchanged over time. Shorter training time, employment and lower C-reactive protein were associated with 'Successful HHD'. 'Unsuccessful HHD' patient characteristics differed by ethnicity.

CONCLUSIONS

The HHD population has become more representative of the NZ population, but significantly more comorbid over time. Patient training time has increased, but mortality and technique failure remain stable. 'Successful HHD' is predicted by social and clinical factors, and 'unsuccessful HHD' may have different mechanisms in different patient groups.

Home hemodialysis treatment and outcomes: retrospective analysis of the Knowledge to Improve Home Dialysis Network in Europe (KIHDNEy) cohort

Background

Utilization of home hemodialysis (HHD) is low in Europe. The Knowledge to Improve Home Dialysis Network in Europe (KIHDNEy) is a multi-center study of HHD patients who have used a transportable hemodialysis machine that employs a low volume of lactate-buffered, ultrapure dialysate per session. In this retrospective cohort analysis, we describe patient factors, HHD prescription factors, and biochemistry and medication use during the first 6 months of HHD and rates of clinical outcomes thereafter.

Methods

Using a standardized digital form, we recorded data from 7 centers in 4 Western European countries. We retained patients who completed ≥6 months of HHD. We summarized patient and HHD prescription factors with descriptive statistics and used mixed modeling to assess trends in biochemistry and medication use. We also estimated long-term rates of kidney transplant and death.

Results

We identified 129 HHD patients; 104 (81%) were followed for ≥6 months. Mean age was 49 years and 66% were male. Over 70% of patients were prescribed 6 sessions per week, and the mean treatment duration was 15.0 h per week. Median HHD training duration was 2.5 weeks. Mean standard Kt/V_urea was nearly 2.7 at months 3 and 6. Pre-dialysis biochemistry was generally stable. Between baseline and month 6, mean serum bicarbonate increased from 23.1 to 24.1 mmol/L (P = 0.01), mean serum albumin increased from 36.8 to 37.8 g/L (P = 0.03), mean serum C-reactive protein increased from 7.3 to 12.4 mg/L (P = 0.05), and mean serum potassium decreased from 4.80 to 4.59 mmol/L (P = 0.01). Regarding medication use, the mean number of antihypertensive medications fell from 1.46 agents per day at HHD initiation to 1.01 agents per day at 6 months (P < 0.001), but phosphate binder use and erythropoiesis-stimulating agent dose were stable. Long-term rates of kidney transplant and death were 15.3 and 5.4 events per 100 patient-years, respectively.

Conclusions

Intensive HHD with low-flow dialysate delivers adequate urea clearance and good biochemical outcomes in Western European patients. Intensive HHD coincided with a large decrease in antihypertensive medication use. With relatively rapid training, HHD should be considered in more patients.

Prospective monitoring of after-hours nursing and technologist support calls to a regional Canadian home hemodialysis program

INTRODUCTION

Increasing renal care providers offer home hemodialysis (HD) as a modality choice. There is considerable variation in the provision of after-hours on-call support for self-dialyzing patients and no literature describing the utility of this service. In this prospective, observational study we sought to monitor and classify the number and nature of interactions between home patients and our on-call nurses and technologists, and enumerate the number of adverse events averted by the availability of on-call staff.

METHODS

Our home HD unit provided 24-hour on-call patient support and during a 4-month period in 2012, we prospectively monitored all patient calls to this service. The nature of the calls was logged as nursing-related vs. technical. Call outcomes were classified according to whether patients were able to initiate/resume their treatments or whether additional interventions were required.

FINDINGS

During this period, our program cared for 58 home HD patients. Nurses fielded 172 calls and dealt with 239 issues. One hundred nine (46%) were clinical issues including 5 (2%) of a serious nature involving potential harm; 67 (28%) related to machine setup or alarms, 36 (15%) required a technologist to resolve, and 27 (11%) were deemed non-urgent. One hundred six issues were directed to technologists in 99 calls. Issues pertained to machine malfunction (45 calls-43%), machine set-up and alarms (25 calls-24%), or the water system (24 calls-23%). Only 12 calls (11.3%) were not of a technical nature. Nursing and technologist support allowed patients to initiate or continue their treatment 75% and 71% of the time, respectively.

DISCUSSION

Home HD on-call services provide patients support to successfully continue their dialysis treatments by troubleshooting clinical and technical aspects of dialysis and by averting potential adverse events.

Dietary Sodium and Other Nutrient Intakes among Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis in New Zealand

This study describes baseline intakes of sodium and other nutrients in a multi-ethnic sample of hemodialysis patients in New Zealand participating in the SoLID Trial between May/2013 to May/2016. Baseline 3-day weighed food record collections were analyzed using Foodworks 8 Professional food composition database, supplemented by other sources of nutrient information. Intakes of dietary sodium and other nutrients were compared with relevant guidelines and clinical recommendations. Eighty-five participants completed a 3-day weighed food record. The mean (SD) sodium intake was 2502 (957) mg/day at and more than half of the participants exceeded recommended intake levels. Sodium intake was positively associated with energy intake. Only 5% of participants met the recommended calorie density; nine percent of participants ate the recommended minimum of 1.2 g/kg of protein per day; 68% of participants were consuming inadequate fiber at baseline. A high proportion of dialysis patients in SoLID Trial did not meet current renal-specific dietary recommendations. The data show excess sodium intake. It is also evident that there was poor adherence to dietary guidelines for a range of other nutrients. A total diet approach is needed to lower sodium intake and improve total diet quality among hemodialysis patients in New Zealand.