Home Versus Facility Dialysis and Mortality in Australia and New Zealand

Frailty in patients on dialysis

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

Centre variation in home dialysis uptake: A survey of kidney centre practice in relation to home dialysis organisation and delivery in England

BACKGROUND

Disparities in home dialysis uptake across England suggest inequity and unexplained variation in access. We surveyed staff at all English kidney centres to identify patterns in service organisation/delivery and explore correlations with home therapy uptake, as part of a larger study ('Inter-CEPt'), which aims to identify potentially modifiable factors to address observed variations.

METHODS

Between June and September 2022, staff working at English kidney centres were surveyed and individual responses combined into one centre-level response per question using predetermined data aggregation rules. Descriptive analysis described centre practices and their correlation with home dialysis uptake (proportion of new home dialysis starters) using 2019 UK Renal Registry 12-month home dialysis incidence data.

RESULTS

In total, 180 responses were received (50/51 centres, 98.0%). Despite varied organisation of home dialysis services, most components of service delivery and practice had minimal or weak correlations with home dialysis uptake apart from offering assisted peritoneal dialysis and 'promoting flexible decision-making about dialysis modality'. Moderate to strong correlations were identified between home dialysis uptake and centres reporting supportive clinical leadership (correlation 0.32, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.05-0.55), an organisational culture that values trying new initiatives (0.57, 95% CI: 0.34-0.73); support for reflective practice (0.38, 95% CI: 0.11-0.60), facilitating research engagement (0.39, 95% CI: 0.13-0.61) and promoting continuous quality improvement (0.29, 95% CI: 0.01-0.53).

CONCLUSIONS

Uptake of home dialysis is likely to be driven by organisational culture, leadership and staff attitudes, which provide a supportive clinical environment within which specific components of service organisation and delivery can be effective.

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.

An update on absolute and relative indications for dialysis treatment modalities

Background

Choosing a dialysis modality is an important decision for people to make as their kidney failure progresses. In doing so, their options should be informed by any absolute or relative indications that may favour one modality over another.

Methods

In creating this update, we reviewed literature using a framework that considered first, high-level outcomes (survival and modality transition) from large registry data and cohort studies when considering optimal patient pathways; second, factors at a dialysis provider level that might affect relative indications; and third, specific patient-level factors. Both main types of dialysis modality, peritoneal (PD) and haemodialysis (HD), and their subtypes were considered.

Results

For most people starting dialysis, survival is independent of modality, including those with diabetes. Better survival is seen in those with less comorbidity starting with PD or home HD, reflecting continued improvements over recent decades that have been greater than improvements seen for centre HD. There are provider-level differences in the perceived relative indications for home dialysis that appear to reflect variability in experience, prejudice, enthusiasm, and support for patients and carers. Absolute contraindications are uncommon and, in most cases, where modality prejudice exists, e.g. obesity, Adult Polycystic Kidney Disease, and social factors, this is not supported by reported outcomes.

Conclusion

Absolute contraindications to a particular dialysis modality are rare. Relative indications for or against particular modalities should be considered but are rarely more important than patient preferences.

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.

Peritoneal dialysis after shared decision-making: the disparity between reality and patient expectations

Background

The current health policy in Taiwan favors peritoneal dialysis (PD) at home. Policy objectives may make healthcare providers give more consideration to the introduction of PD treatment. This study aimed to explore the process of information acquisition and consideration during shared decision-making (SDM) for patients undergoing PD and compare their quality of life expectations before and after PD at home.

Methods

In this qualitative study, 15 patients undergoing PD for < 12 months were purposively recruited from one large PD unit in Taichung, Taiwan. Data were collected between August 2020 and December 2020 using a semi-structured interview. All transcripts were evaluated using thematic analysis.

Results

Three themes and seven subthemes were identified following data analysis: 1. sources for information on dialysis treatment, including (a) effect of others’ experiences and (b) incomplete information from healthcare providers (HCPs); 2. considerations for choosing PD, including (a) trusting physicians, and (b) maintaining pre-dialysis life; and 3. disparity between pre-and post-PD reality and expectation, including (a) limitation by time and place, (b) discrepancies in expected freedom and convenience, and (c) regret versus need to continue.

Conclusion

HCPs played an important role in SDM, providing key information that influenced the process. Patients undergoing initial PD at home exhibited a disparity between expectation and reality, which was exacerbated by incomplete information.

Cardiovascular Effects of Home Dialysis Therapies: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with end-stage kidney disease. Currently, thrice-weekly in-center hemodialysis for 3 to 5 hours per session is the most common therapy worldwide for patients with treated kidney failure. Outcomes with thrice-weekly in-center hemodialysis are poor. Emerging evidence supports the overarching hypothesis that a more physiological approach to administering dialysis therapy, including in the home through home hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis, may lead to improvement in several cardiovascular risk factors and cardiovascular outcomes compared with thrice-weekly in-center hemodialysis. The Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative, which has a goal of increasing the use of home dialysis, is aligned with the American Heart Association's 2024 mission to champion a full and healthy life and health equity. We conclude that incorporation of interdisciplinary care models to increase the use of home dialysis therapies in an equitable manner will contribute to the ultimate goal of improving outcomes for patients with kidney failure and cardiovascular disease.

Intervening to eliminate the centre-effect variation in home dialysis use: protocol for Inter-CEPt-a sequential mixed-methods study designing an intervention bundle

INTRODUCTION

Use of home dialysis by centres in the UK varies considerably and is decreasing despite attempts to encourage greater use. Knowing what drives this unwarranted variation requires in-depth understanding of centre cultural and organisational factors and how these relate to quantifiable centre performance, accounting for competing treatment options. This knowledge will be used to identify components of a practical and feasible intervention bundle ensuring this is realistic and cost-effective.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Underpinned by the non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread and sustainability framework, our research will use an exploratory sequential mixed-methods approach. Insights from multisited focused team ethnographic and qualitative research at four case study sites will inform development of a national survey of 52 centres. Survey results, linked to patient-level data from the UK Renal Registry, will populate a causal graph describing patient and centre-level factors, leading to uptake of home dialysis and multistate models incorporating patient-level treatment modality history and mortality. This will inform a contemporary economic evaluation of modality cost-effectiveness that will quantify how modification of factors facilitating home dialysis, identified from the ethnography and survey, might yield the greatest improvements in costs, quality of life and numbers on home therapies. Selected from these factors, using the capability, opportunity and motivation for behaviour change framework (COM-B) for intervention design, the optimal intervention bundle will be developed through workshops with patients and healthcare professionals to ensure acceptability and feasibility. Patient and public engagement and involvement is embedded throughout the project.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been granted by the Health Research Authority reference 20-WA-0249. The intervention bundle will comprise components for all stake holder groups: commissioners, provider units, recipients of dialysis, their caregivers and families. To reache all these groups, a variety of knowledge exchange methods will be used: short guides, infographics, case studies, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, patient conferences, 'Getting it Right First Time' initiative, Clinical Reference Group (dialysis).

Half a Century of Haemodialysis: Two Patient Journeys

The history of renal replacement therapy (RRT) for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) started in 1960 and has reached, in these six decades, goals initially unforeseen. This report describes two patients who commenced dialysis at the age of 17 and 27, for 53 and 45 years, respectively, whereby the modality of RRT was mostly in the form of home haemodialysis. The history of these two patients, who started RRT in distant parts of the world, Australia and Croatia, highlights not only the advances made over time, to significantly delay the onset and reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with ESKD, but also underlines the importance of empowerment and commitment, added values in home haemodialysis.

Peritoneal Dialysis for Potential Kidney Transplant Recipients: Pride or Prejudice?

Kidney transplantation (KT) is recognized as the gold-standard of treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that receiving a pre-emptive KT ensures the best recipient and graft survivals. However, due to an overwhelming discrepancy between the organs available and the patients on the transplant waiting list, the vast majority of transplant candidates require prolonged periods of dialysis before being transplanted. For many years, peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) have been considered competitive renal replacement therapies (RRT). This dualistic vision has recently been questioned by evidence suggesting that an individualized and flexible approach may be more appropriate. In fact, tailored and cleverly planned changes between different RRT modalities, according to the patient’s needs and characteristics, are often needed in order to achieve the best results. While home HD is still under scrutiny in this particular setting, current data seems to favor the use of PD over in-center HD in patients awaiting a KT. In this specific population, the demonstrated advantages of PD are superior quality of life, longer preservation of residual renal function, lower incidence of delayed graft function, better recipient survival, and reduced cost.