Independent Community House Hemodialysis as a Novel Dialysis Setting: An Observational Cohort Study

Integrated home dialysis model: facilitating home-to-home transition

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD) are the two home dialysis modalities offered to patients. They promote patient autonomy, enhance independence, and are generally associated with better quality of life compared to facility hemodialysis. PD offers some advantages (enhanced flexibility, ability to travel, preservation of residual kidney function, and vascular access sites) but few patients remain on PD indefinitely due to peritonitis and other complications. By contrast, HHD incurs longer and more intensive training combined with increased upfront health costs compared to PD, but is easier to sustain in the long term. As a result, the integrated home dialysis model was proposed to combine the advantages of both home-based dialysis modalities. In this paradigm, patients are encouraged to initiate dialysis on PD and transfer to HHD after PD termination. Available evidence demonstrates the feasibility and safety of this approach and some observational studies have shown that patients who undergo the PD-to-HHD transition have clinical outcomes comparable to patients who initiate dialysis directly on HHD. Nevertheless, the prevalence of PD-to-HHD transfers remains low, reflecting the multiple barriers that prevent the full uptake of home-to-home transitions, notably a lack of awareness about the model, home-care "burnout," clinical inertia after a transfer to facility HD, suboptimal integration of PD and HHD centers, and insufficient funding for home dialysis programs. In this review, we will examine the conceptual advantages and disadvantages of integrated home dialysis, present the evidence that underlies it, identify challenges that prevent its success and finally, propose solutions to increase its adoption.

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.

Systems Innovations to Increase Home Dialysis Utilization

Globally, there is an interest to increase home dialysis utilization. The most recent United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data report that 13.3% of incident dialysis patients in the United States are started on home dialysis, while most patients continue to initiate KRT with in-center hemodialysis. To effect meaningful change, a multifaceted innovative approach will be needed to substantially increase the use of home dialysis. Patient and provider education is the first step to enhance home dialysis knowledge awareness. Ideally, one should maximize the number of patients with CKD stage 5 transitioning to home therapies. If this is not possible, infrastructures including transitional dialysis units and community dialysis houses may help patients increase self-care efficacy and eventually transition care to home. From a policy perspective, adopting a home dialysis preference mandate and providing financial support to recuperate increased costs for patients and providers have led to higher uptake in home dialysis. Finally, respite care and planned home-to-home transitions can reduce the incidence of transitioning to in-center hemodialysis. We speculate that an ecosystem of complementary system innovations is needed to cause a sufficient change in patient and provider behavior, which will ultimately modify overall home dialysis utilization.

Main Barriers to the Introduction of a Home Haemodialysis Programme in Poland: A Review of the Challenges for Implementation and Criteria for a Successful Programme

Introduction: Home dialysis in Poland is restricted to the peritoneal dialysis (PD) modality, with the majority of dialysis patients treated using in-centre haemodialysis (ICHD). Home haemodialysis (HHD) is an additional home therapy to PD and provides an attractive alternative to ICHD that combines dialysis with social distancing; eliminates transportation needs; and offers clinical, economic, and quality of life benefits. However, HHD is not currently provided in Poland. This review was performed to provide an overview of the main barriers to the introduction of a HHD programme in Poland. Main findings: The main high-level barrier to introducing HHD in Poland is the absence of specific health legislation required for clinician prescribing of HHD. Other barriers to overcome include clear definition of reimbursement, patient training and education (including infrastructure and experienced personnel), organisation of logistics, and management of complications. Partnering with a large care network for HHD represents an alternative option to payers for the provision of a new HHD service. This may reduce some of the barriers which need to be overcome when compared with the creation of a new HHD service and its supporting network due to the pre-existing infrastructure, processes, and staff of a large care network. Conclusions: Provision of HHD is not solely about the provision of home treatment, but also the organisation and definition of a range of support services that are required to deliver the service. HHD should be viewed as an additional, complementary option to existing dialysis modalities which enables choice of modality best suited to a patient’s needs.

Dialysis attendance patterns and health care utilisation of Aboriginal patients attending dialysis services in urban, rural and remote locations

Background

Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory (NT) suffer the heaviest burden of kidney failure in Australia with most living in remote areas at time of dialysis commencement. As there are few dialysis services in remote areas, many Aboriginal people are required to relocate often permanently, to access treatment. Missing dialysis treatments is not uncommon amongst Aboriginal patients but the relationship between location of dialysis service and dialysis attendance (and subsequent hospital use) has not been explored to date.

Aim

To examine the relationships between location of dialysis service, dialysis attendance patterns and downstream health service use (overnight hospital admissions, emergency department presentations) among Aboriginal patients in the NT.

Methods

Using linked hospital and dialysis registry datasets we analysed health service activity for 896 Aboriginal maintenance dialysis patients in the NT between 2008 and 2014. Multivariate linear regression and negative binomial regression analyses explored the associations between dialysis location, dialysis attendance and health service use.

Results

We found missing two or more dialysis treatments per month was more likely for Aboriginal people attending urban services and this was associated with a two-fold increase in the rate of hospital admissions and more than three-fold increase in ED presentations. However, we found higher dialysis attendance and lower health service utilisation for those receiving care in rural and remote settings. When adjusted for age, time on dialysis, region, comorbidities and residence pre-treatment, among Aboriginal people from remote areas, those dialysing in remote areas had lower rates of hospitalisations (IRR 0.56; P < 0.001) when compared to those who relocated and dialysed in urban areas.

Conclusion

There is a clear relationship between the provision and uptake of dialysis services in urban, rural and remote areas in the NT and subsequent broader health service utilisation. Our study suggests that the low dialysis attendance associated with relocation and care in urban models for Aboriginal people can potentially be ameliorated by access to rural and remote models and this warrants a rethinking of service delivery policy. If providers are to deliver effective and equitable services, the full range of intended and unintended consequences of a dialysis location should be incorporated into planning decisions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07628-9.

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.

Challenges and Opportunities in Expanding Home Hemodialysis for 2025

The Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative has set an aggressive target for home dialysis growth in the United States, and expanding both peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis (HHD) will be required. While there has been a growth in HHD across the United States in the last decade, its value in controlling specific risk factors has been underappreciated and as such its appropriate utilization has lagged. Repositioning how nephrologists incorporate HHD as a critical renal replacement therapy will require overcoming a number of barriers. Advancing education of both nephrology trainees and nephrologists in practice, along with increasing patient and family education on the benefits and requirements for HHD, is essential. Implementation of a transitional care unit design coupled with an intensive patient curriculum will increase patient awareness and comfort for HHD; patients on peritoneal dialysis reaching a modality transition point will benefit from Experience the Difference programs acclimating them to HHD. In addition, the potential link between HHD program size and patient outcomes will necessitate an increase in the size of the average HHD program to more consistently deliver quality dialysis results. Addressing the implications of the nursing shortage and need for designing in scope staffing models are necessary to safeguard HHD growth. Seemingly, certain government payment policy changes and physician documentation requirements deserve further examination. Future HHD innovations must result in decreasing the burden of care for HHD patients, optimize the level of device and biometric data flow, facilitate a more functional centralized patient management care approach, and leverage computerized clinical decision support for modality assignment.

Variability and trends over time and across centres in haemodialysis weekly duration in Australia and New Zealand

AIM

Haemodialysis treatment prescription varies widely internationally. This study explored patient- and centre-level characteristics associated with weekly haemodialysis hours.

METHODS

Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry data were analysed. Characteristics associated with weekly duration were evaluated using mixed-effects linear regression models with patient- and centre-level covariates as fixed effects, and dialysis centre and state as random effects using the 2017 prevalent in-centre haemodialysis (ICHD) and home haemodialysis (HHD) cohorts. Evaluation of patterns of weekly duration over time analysed the 2000 to 2017 incident ICHD and HHD cohorts.

RESULTS

Overall, 12 494 ICHD and 1493 HHD prevalent patients in 2017 were included. Median weekly treatment duration was 13.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 12-15) hours for ICHD and 16 (IQR 15-20) hours for HHD. Male sex, younger age, higher body mass index, arteriovenous fistula/graft use, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ethnicity and longer dialysis vintage were associated with longer weekly duration for both ICHD and HHD. No centre characteristics were associated with duration. Variability in duration across centres was very limited in ICHD compared with HHD, with variation in HHD being associated with state. Duration did not vary significantly over time for ICHD, whereas longer weekly HHD treatments were reported between 2006 and 2012 compared with before and after this period.

CONCLUSION

This study in the Australian and New Zealand haemodialysis population showed that weekly duration was primarily associated with patient characteristics. No centre effect was demonstrated. Practice patterns seemed to differ across states/countries, with more variability in HHD than ICHD.

Self-care training using the Tablo hemodialysis system

INTRODUCTION

Recently published results of the investigational device exemption (IDE) trial using the Tablo hemodialysis system confirmed its safety and efficacy for home dialysis. This manuscript reports additional data from the Tablo IDE study on the training time required to be competent in self-care, the degree of dependence on health care workers and caregivers after training was complete, and participants' assessment of the ease-of-use of Tablo.

METHODS

We collected data on the time required to set up concentrates and the Tablo cartridge prior to treatment initiation. We asked participants to rate system setup, treatment, and takedown on a Likert scale from 1 (very difficult) to 5 (very simple) and if they had required any assistance with any aspect of treatment over the prior 7 days. In a subgroup of 15 participants, we recorded the number of training sessions required to be deemed competent to do self-care dialysis.

FINDINGS

Eighteen men and 10 women with a mean age of 52.6 years completed the study. Thirteen had previous self-care experience using a different dialysis system. Mean set up times for the concentrates and cartridge were 1.1 and 10.0 minutes, respectively. Participants with or without previous self-care experience had similar set-up times. The mean ease-of-use score was 4.5 or higher on a scale from 1 to 5 during the in-home phase. Sixty-five percent required no assistance at home and on average required fewer than four training sessions to be competent in managing their treatments. Results were similar for participants with or without previous self-care experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants in the Tablo IDE trial were able to quickly learn and manage hemodialysis treatments in the home, found Tablo easy to use, and were generally independent in performing hemodialysis.

Patients' and caregivers' perspectives on access to kidney replacement therapy in rural communities: systematic review of qualitative studies

OBJECTIVE

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) requiring kidney replacement therapy (KRT) in rural communities encounter many barriers in accessing equitable care and have worse outcomes compared with patients in urban areas. This study aims to describe the perspectives of patients and caregivers on access to KRT in rural communities to inform strategies to maximise access to quality care, and thereby reduce disadvantage, inequity and improve health outcomes.

SETTING

18 studies (n=593 participants) conducted across eight countries (Australia, Canada, the UK, New Zealand, Ghana, the USA, Tanzania and India).

RESULTS

We identified five themes: uncertainty in navigating healthcare services (with subthemes of struggling to absorb information, without familiarity and exposure to options, grieving former roles and yearning for cultural safety); fearing separation from family and home (anguish of homesickness, unable to fulfil family roles and preserving sense of belonging in community); intense burden of travel and cost (poverty of time, exposure to risks and hazards, and taking a financial toll); making life-changing sacrifices; guilt and worry in receiving care (shame in taking resources from others, harbouring concerns for living donor, and coping and managing in isolation).

CONCLUSION

Patients with CKD in rural areas face profound and inequitable challenges of displacement, financial burden and separation from family in accessing KRT, which can have severe consequences on their well-being and outcomes. Strategies are needed to improve access and reduce the burden of obtaining appropriate KRT in rural communities.

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.

Effect of Low-Sodium versus Conventional Sodium Dialysate on Left Ventricular Mass in Home and Self-Care Satellite Facility Hemodialysis Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Fluid overload in patients undergoing hemodialysis contributes to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. There is a global trend to lower dialysate sodium with the goal of reducing fluid overload.

METHODS

To investigate whether lower dialysate sodium during hemodialysis reduces left ventricular mass, we conducted a randomized trial in which patients received either low-sodium dialysate (135 mM) or conventional dialysate (140 mM) for 12 months. We included participants who were aged >18 years old, had a predialysis serum sodium ≥135 mM, and were receiving hemodialysis at home or a self-care satellite facility. Exclusion criteria included hemodialysis frequency >3.5 times per week and use of sodium profiling or hemodiafiltration. The main outcome was left ventricular mass index by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

RESULTS

The 99 participants had a median age of 51 years old; 67 were men, 31 had diabetes mellitus, and 59 had left ventricular hypertrophy. Over 12 months of follow-up, relative to control, a dialysate sodium concentration of 135 mmol/L did not change the left ventricular mass index, despite significant reductions at 6 and 12 months in interdialytic weight gain, in extracellular fluid volume, and in plasma B-type natriuretic peptide concentration (ratio of intervention to control). The intervention increased intradialytic hypotension (odds ratio [OR], 7.5; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.1 to 49.8 at 6 months and OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 0.5 to 28.8 at 12 months). Five participants in the intervention arm could not complete the trial because of hypotension. We found no effect on health-related quality of life measures, perceived thirst or xerostomia, or dietary sodium intake.

CONCLUSIONS

Dialysate sodium of 135 mmol/L did not reduce left ventricular mass relative to control, despite improving fluid status.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER

The Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12611000975998.

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.

Mortality and Hospitalizations in Intensive Dialysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background:

Survival and hospitalization are critically important outcomes considered when choosing between intensive hemodialysis (HD), conventional HD, and peritoneal dialysis (PD). However, the comparative effectiveness of these modalities is unclear.

Objective:

We had the following aims: (1) to compare the association of mortality and hospitalization in patients undergoing intensive HD, compared with conventional HD or PD and (2) to appraise the methodological quality of the supporting evidence.

Data Sources:

MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Science, CENTRAL, and nephrology conference abstracts.

Study Eligibility, Participants, and Interventions:

We included cohort studies with comparator arm, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with >50% of adult patients (≥18 years) comparing any form of intensive HD (>4 sessions/wk or >5.5 h/session) with any form of chronic dialysis (PD, HD ≤4 sessions/wk or ≤5.5 h/session), that reported at least 1 predefined outcome (mortality or hospitalization).

Methods:

We used the GRADE approach to systematic reviews and quality appraisal. Two reviewers screened citations and full-text articles, and extracted study-level data independently, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. We pooled effect estimates of randomized and observational studies separately using generic inverse variance with random effects models, and used fixed-effects models when only 2 studies were available for pooling. Predefined subgroups for the intensive HD cohorts were classified by nocturnal versus short daily HD and home versus in-center HD.

Results:

Twenty-three studies with a total of 70 506 patients were included. Of the observational studies, compared with PD, intensive HD had a significantly lower mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.84; I² = 91%). Compared with conventional HD, home nocturnal (HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.38-0.55; I² = 0%), in-center nocturnal (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.60-0.90; I² = 57%) and home short daily (HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.31-0.95; I² = 82%) intensive regimens had lower mortality. Of the 2 RCTs assessing mortality, in-center short daily HD had lower mortality (HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.31-0.93), while home nocturnal HD had higher mortality (HR: 3.88; 95% CI: 1.27-11.79) in long-term observational follow-up. Hospitalization days per patient-year (mean difference: –1.98; 95% CI: –2.37 to −1.59; I² = 6%) were lower in nocturnal compared with conventional HD. Quality of evidence was similarly low or very low in RCTs (due to imprecision) and observational studies (due to residual confounding and selection bias).

Limitations:

The overall quality of evidence was low or very low for critical outcomes. Outcomes such as quality of life, transplantation, and vascular access outcomes were not included in our review.

Conclusions:

Intensive HD regimens may be associated with reduced mortality and hospitalization compared with conventional HD or PD. As the quality of supporting evidence is low, patients who place a high value on survival must be adequately advised and counseled of risks and benefits when choosing intensive dialysis. Practice guidelines that promote shared decision-making are likely to be helpful.

A Discrete Choice Study of Patient Preferences for Dialysis Modalities

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Improved knowledge about factors that influence patient choices when considering dialysis modality could facilitate health care interventions to increase rates of home dialysis. We aimed to quantify the attributes of dialysis care and the tradeoffs that patients consider when making decisions about dialysis modalities.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We conducted a prospective, discrete choice experiment survey with random parameter logit analysis to quantify preferences and tradeoffs for attributes of dialysis treatment in 143 adult patients with CKD expected to require RRT within 12 months (predialysis). The attributes included schedule flexibility, patient out of pocket costs, subsidized transport services, level of nursing support, life expectancy, dialysis training time, wellbeing on dialysis, and dialysis schedule (frequency and duration). We reported outcomes using β-coefficients with corresponding odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for choosing home-based dialysis (peritoneal dialysis or hemodialysis) compared with facility hemodialysis.

RESULTS

Home-based therapies were significantly preferred with the following attributes: longer survival (odds ratio per year, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.25 to 2.12), increased treatment flexibility (odds ratio, 9.22; 95% confidence interval, 2.71 to 31.3), improved wellbeing (odds ratio, 210; 95% confidence interval, 15 to 2489), and more nursing support (odds ratio, 87.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.8 to 2014). Respondents were willing to accept additional out of pocket costs of approximately New Zealand $400 (United States $271) per month (95% confidence interval, New Zealand $333 to $465) to receive increased nursing support. Patients were willing to accept out of pocket costs of New Zealand $223 (United States $151) per month (95% confidence interval, New Zealand $195 to $251) for more treatment flexibility.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients preferred home dialysis over facility-based care when increased nursing support was available and when longer survival, wellbeing, and flexibility were expected. Sociodemographics, such as age, ethnicity, and income, influenced patient choice.

Effects of Different Models of Dialysis Care on Patient-Important Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ongoing payment reform in dialysis necessitates better patient outcomes and lower costs. Suggested improvements to processes of care for maintenance dialysis patients are abundant; however, their impact on patient-important outcomes is unclear. This systematic review included comparative randomized controlled trials or observational studies with no restriction on language, published from 2000 to 2014, involving at least 5 adult dialysis patients who received a minimum of 6 months of follow-up. The effect size was pooled and stratified by intervention strategy (multidisciplinary care [MDC], home dialysis, alternate dialysis settings, and electronic health record implementation). Heterogeneity (I²) was used to assess the variability in study effects related to study differences rather than chance. Of the 1988 articles screened, 25 international studies with 74,833 maintenance dialysis patients were included. Interventions with MDC or home dialysis were associated with a lower mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61, 0.84, I² = 41.6%; HR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.41, 0.81, I² = 89.0%; respectively) and hospitalizations (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.68, 95% CI 0.51, 0.91, I² = NA; IRR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.64, 1.20, I² = 79.6%; respectively). Alternate dialysis settings also were associated with a reduction in hospitalizations (IRR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.25, 0.69, I² = 0.0%). This systematic review underscores the importance of multidisciplinary care, and also the value of telemedicine as a means to increase access to providers and enhance outcomes for those dialyzing at home or in alternate settings, including those with limited access to nephrology expertise because of travel distance.

Home hemodialysis: a comprehensive review of patient-centered and economic considerations

Internationally, the number of patients requiring treatment for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) continues to increase, placing substantial burden on health systems and patients. Home hemodialysis (HD) has fluctuated in its popularity, and the rates of home HD vary considerably between and within countries although there is evidence suggesting a number of clinical, survival, economic, and quality of life (QoL) advantages associated with this treatment. International guidelines encourage shared decision making between patients and clinicians for the type of dialysis, with an emphasis on a treatment that aligned to the patients’ lifestyle. This is a comprehensive literature review of patient-centered and economic impacts of home HD with the studies published between January 2000 and July 2016. Data from the primary studies representing both efficiency and equity of home HD were presented as a narrative synthesis under the following topics: advantages to patients, barriers to patients, economic factors influencing patients, cost-effectiveness of home HD, and inequities in home HD delivery. There were a number of advantages for patients on home HD including improved survival and QoL and flexibility and potential for employment, compared to hospital HD. Similarly, there were several barriers to patients preferring or maintaining home HD, and the strategies to overcome these barriers were frequently reported. Good evidence reported that indigenous, low-income, and other socially disadvantaged individuals had reduced access to home HD compared to other forms of dialysis and that this situation compounds already-poor health outcomes on renal replacement therapy. Government policies that minimize barriers to home HD include reimbursement for dialysis-related out-of-pocket costs and employment-retention interventions for home HD patients and their family members. This review argues that home HD is a cost-effective treatment, and increasing the proportion of patients on this form of dialysis compared to hospital HD will result in a more equitable distribution of good health outcomes for individuals with ESKD.

Patient and caregiver values, beliefs and experiences when considering home dialysis as a treatment option: a semi-structured interview study

BACKGROUND

Home dialysis can offer improved quality of life and economic benefits compared with facility dialysis. Yet the uptake of home dialysis remains low around the world, which may be partly due to patients' lack of knowledge and barriers to shared and informed decision-making. We aimed to describe patient and caregiver values, beliefs and experiences when considering home dialysis, to inform strategies to align policy and practice with patients' needs.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with adult patients with chronic kidney disease Stage 4-5D (on dialysis <1 year) and their caregivers, recruited from three nephrology centres in New Zealand. Transcripts were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

In total, 43 patients [pre-dialysis (n = 18), peritoneal dialysis (n = 13), home haemodialysis (n = 4) and facility haemodialysis (n = 9)] and 9 caregivers participated. We identified five themes related to home dialysis: lacking decisional power (complexity of information, limited exposure to home dialysis, feeling disempowered, deprived of choice, pressure to choose), sustaining relationships (maintaining cultural involvement, family influence, trusting clinicians, minimizing social isolation), reducing lifestyle disruption (sustaining employment, avoiding relocation, considering additional expenses, seeking flexible schedules, creating free time), gaining confidence in choice (guarantee of safety, depending on professional certainty, reassurance from peers, overcoming fears) and maximizing survival.

CONCLUSIONS

To engage and empower patients and caregivers to consider home dialysis, a stronger emphasis on the development of patient-focused educational programmes and resources is suggested. Pre-dialysis and home dialysis programmes that address health literacy and focus on cultural and social values may reduce fears and build confidence around decisions to undertake home dialysis. Financial burdens may be minimized through provision of reimbursement programmes, employment support and additional assistance for patients, particularly those residing in remote areas.

Cost of renal replacement: how to help as many as possible while keeping expenses reasonable?

The treatment of kidney diseases consumes a substantial amount of the health budget for a relatively small fraction of the overall population. If the nephrological community and society do not develop mechanisms to contain those costs, it will become impossible to continue assuring optimal outcomes and quality of life while treating all patients who need it. In this article, we describe several mechanisms to maintain sustainability of renal replacement therapy. These include (i) encouragement of transplantation after both living and deceased donation; (ii) stimulation of alternative dialysis strategies besides classical hospital haemodialysis, such as home haemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis or self-care and necessitating less reimbursement; (iii) promotion of educational activities guiding the patients towards therapies that are most suited for them; (iv) consideration of one or more of cost containment incentives such as bundling of reimbursement (if not affecting quality of the treatment), timely patient referral, green dialysis, start of dialysis based on clinical necessity rather than renal function parameters and/or prevention of CKD or its progression; (v) strategically planned adaptations to the expected growth of the ageing population in need of renal replacement; (vi) the necessity for support of research in the direction of helping as large as possible patient populations for acceptable costs; and (vii) the need for more patient-centred approaches. We also extend the discussion to the specific situation of kidney diseases in low- and middle-income countries. Finally, we point to the dramatic differences in accessibility and reimbursement of different modalities throughout Europe. We hope that this text will offer a framework for the nephrological community, including patients and nurses, and the concerned policy makers and caregivers on how to continue reaching all patients in need of renal replacement for affordable expenses.

Systems to cultivate suitable patients for home dialysis

The key to developing, initiating, and maintaining a strong home dialysis program is a fundamental commitment by the entire team to identify and cultivate patients who are suitable candidates to perform home dialysis. This process must start as early as possible in the disease trajectory, and must include a passionate and daily focus by physicians, nurses, social workers, and other members of the multidisciplinary team. This effort must be constant and sustained over months, with active promotion of home dialysis for suitable patients at every opportunity. Cultivation of suitable patients must become a defining and overarching mission for the entire program. This article reviews some of the components involved in this worthwhile effort and provides practical tips and links to resources.

Inpatient and emergent resource use of patients on dialysis at an academic medical center

BACKGROUND/AIM

End-stage renal disease patients require resources for emergent and inpatient care in addition to ambulatory dialysis. There are two dialysis modalities and settings which patients switch between. Our aim was to characterize the patterns and reasons for switching, as well as the emergent and inpatient utilization of these patients at the University Health Network.

METHODS

Patients who received chronic dialysis between March 1, 2006, and April 30, 2011, were identified. Utilization was measured by emergency department (ED) visits, inpatient hospitalizations, and bed-days occupied per year.

RESULTS

Out of 576 patients identified, 18.6% switched modality and/or setting. The majority of switches occurred during the first year of dialysis. Patients who switched had increased utilization compared to those on a continuous modality/setting. Overall, patients had a median rate of 0.91 ED visits per patient-year, compared to 1.56 for patients who switched modality and setting. Median inpatient bed resource requirement was 4.46 bed-days/patient-year overall, compared to 8.91 for patients who switched modality and setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergent and inpatient utilization is related to the setting and modality of dialysis, although differences are partly explained by comorbidities. Patients who switch modalities use more resources and may be a prime population for interventions.