Outcome of home haemodialysis patients: a case-cohort study

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.

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.

Home and facility haemodialysis patients: a comparison of outcomes in a matched cohort

Background

Home haemodialysis (HHD) is utilized significantly less often than facility HD globally with few exceptions, despite being associated with improved survival and better quality of life. Previously HHD was exclusively offered to younger patients with a few comorbidities. However, with the increasing burden of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) alongside an ageing population, increasing numbers of older patients are being treated with HHD. This study aims to re-evaluate survival and related outcomes in the context of this epidemiological shift.

Methods

A matched cohort design was used to compare all-cause mortality, transplantation, average biochemical values and graft survival 6 months post-transplant between HHD and facility HD patients. A total of 181 HHD patients from a major hospital network were included with 413 facility HD patients from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry matched by age, gender and cause of ESKD. Survival analysis and competing risks analysis (for transplantation) were performed.

Results

After adjusting for body mass index, smoking status, racial group and comorbidities, HHD was associated with a significantly reduced risk of death compared with facility HD patients [hazard ratio 0.47 (95% confidence interval 0.30–0.74)]. Transplantation rates were comparable, with high rates of graft survival at 6 months in both groups. Haemoglobin, calcium and parathyroid hormone levels did not vary significantly. However, HHD patients had significantly lower phosphate levels.

Conclusions

In this study, improved survival outcomes were observed in patients on home compared with facility dialysis, with comparable rates of transplantation, graft survival and biochemical control.

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.

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.

Vascular access for home haemodialysis

Introduction:

Home haemodialysis has been advocated due to improved quality of life. However, there are very little data on the optimum vascular access for it.

Method:

A retrospective cohort study was carried on all patients who initiated home haemodialysis between 2011 and 2016 at a large university hospital. Access-related hospital admissions and interventions were used as primary outcome measures.

Results:

Our cohort consisted of 74 patients. On initiation of home haemodialysis, 62 individuals were using an arteriovenous fistula as vascular access, while the remaining were on a tunnelled dialysis catheter. Of the 12 patients who started on a tunnelled dialysis catheter, 5 were subsequently converted to either an arteriovenous fistula ( n = 4) or an arteriovenous graft ( n = 1). During the period of home haemodialysis use, four arteriovenous fistula failed or thrombosed with patients continuing on home haemodialysis using an arteriovenous graft ( n = 3) or a tunnelled dialysis catheter ( n = 1). To maintain uninterrupted home haemodialysis, interventional rates were 0.32 per arteriovenous fistula/arteriovenous graft access-year and 0.4 per tunnelled dialysis catheter access-year. Hospital admission rates for patients on home haemodialysis were 0.33 per patient-year.

Conclusion:

Our study has shown that home haemodialysis can be safely and independently performed at home within a closely managed home haemodialysis programme. The authors also advocate the use of arteriovenous fistulas for this cohort of patients due to both low complication and intervention rates.

Choosing Home Hemodialysis: A Critical Review of Patient Outcomes

BACKGROUND/AIM

Home hemodialysis (HHD) has been associated with improved clinical outcomes vs. in-center HD (ICHD). The prevalence of HHD in the United States is still very low at 1.8%. This critical review compares HHD and ICHD outcomes for survival, hospitalization, cardiovascular (CV), nutrition, and quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

Of 545 publications identified, 44 were not selected after applying exclusion criteria. A systematic review of the identified publications was conducted to compare HHD to ICHD outcomes for survival, hospitalization, CV outcomes, nutrition, and QoL.

RESULTS

Regarding mortality, 10 of 13 trials reported 13-52% reduction; three trials found no differences. According to 6 studies, blood pressure and left ventricular size measurements were generally lower in HHD patients compared to similar measurements in ICHD patients. Regarding nutritional status, conflicting results were reported (8 studies); some found improved muscle mass, total protein, and body mass index in HHD vs. ICHD patients, while others found no significant differences. There were no significant differences in the rate of hospitalization between HHD and ICHD in the 6 articles reviewed. Seven studies on QoL demonstrated positive trends in HHD vs. ICHD populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite limitations in the current data, 66% of the publications reviewed (29/44) demonstrated improved clinical outcomes in patients who chose HHD. These include improved survival, CV, nutritional, and QoL parameters. Even though HHD may not be preferred in all patients, a review of the literature suggests that HHD should be provided as a modality choice for substantially more than the current 1.8% of HHD patients in the United States.

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.

A Comparison of Clinical Parameters and Outcomes over 1 Year in Home Hemodialysis Patients Using 2008K@home or NxStage System One

The prevalence of home hemodialysis (HHD) in the United States is growing, driven in part by improvements in dialysis machines for home use. We assessed clinical parameters and outcomes in HHD patients using either Fresenius 2008K@home or NxStage System One over 1 year. Patients were 18 years or older and received HHD for ≥30 days between January 1, 2009, and June 30, 2010. A propensity score match was used to control for differences in baseline characteristics, and 2008K@home patients were stratified by frequency of use. Data for outcome measures were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models. Treatment frequency was lower for 2008K@home groups than System One. Mean standardized Kt/V (stdKt/V) was 2.75 for 2008K@home ≥3.5x/week users and 1.99 for System One users (p < 0.001). Erythropoiesis-stimulating agent use tended to be lower for patients using System One. There were no statistically significant differences across groups in serum albumin, calcium, phosphorus, hemoglobin, or parathyroid hormone levels, normalized protein catabolic rate, body mass index, number of hospitalizations, or hospitalized days. Clinical parameters and outcomes for HHD patients using 2008K@home and System One were largely equivalent, although 2008K@home use was associated with higher stdKt/V. Further studies will be required to establish whether these differences in stdKt/V relate to differences in technology, treatment schedule, or a combination thereof.

Home versus in-centre haemodialysis for end-stage kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Home haemodialysis is associated with improved survival and quality of life in uncontrolled studies. However, relative benefits and harms of home versus in-centre haemodialysis in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of home haemodialysis versus in-centre haemodialysis in adults with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register was searched up to 31 October 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs of home versus in-centre haemodialysis in adults with ESKD were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by two investigators independently. Study risk of bias and other patient-centred outcomes were extracted. Insufficient data were available to conduct meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a single cross-over RCT (enrolling 9 participants) that compared home haemodialysis (long hours: 6 to 8 hours, 3 times/week) with in-centre haemodialysis (short hours: 3.5 to 4.5 hours, 3 times/weeks) for 8 weeks in prevalent home haemodialysis patients. Outcome data were limited and not available for the end of the first phase of treatment in this cross-over study which was at risk of bias due to differences in dialysate composition between the two treatment comparisons.Overall, home haemodialysis reduced 24 hour ambulatory blood pressure and improved uraemic symptoms, but increased treatment-related burden of disease and interference in social activities. Insufficient data were available for mortality, hospitalisation or dialysis vascular access complications or treatment durability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Insufficient randomised data were available to determine the effects of home haemodialysis on survival, hospitalisation, and quality of life compared with in-centre haemodialysis. Given the consistently observed benefits of home haemodialysis on quality of life and survival in uncontrolled studies, and the low prevalence of home haemodialysis globally, randomised studies evaluating home haemodialysis would help inform clinical practice and policy.

The financial impact of increasing home-based high dose haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that high dose haemodialysis (HD) may be associated with better health outcomes and even cost savings (if conducted at home) versus conventional in-centre HD (ICHD). Home-based regimens such as peritoneal dialysis (PD) are also associated with significant cost reductions and are more convenient for patients. However, the financial impact of increasing the use of high dose HD at home with an increased tariff is uncertain. A budget impact analysis was performed to investigate the financial impact of increasing the proportion of patients receiving home-based dialysis modalities from the perspective of the England National Health Service (NHS) payer.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to investigate the 5 year budget impact of increasing the proportion of dialysis patients receiving home-based dialysis, including both high dose HD at home and PD, under the current reimbursement tariff and a hypothetically increased tariff for home HD (£575/week). Five scenarios were compared with the current England dialysis modality distribution (prevalent patients, 14.1% PD, 82.0% ICHD, 3.9% conventional home HD; incident patients, 22.9% PD, 77.1% ICHD) with all increases coming from the ICHD population.

RESULTS

Under the current tariff of £456/week, increasing the proportion of dialysis patients receiving high dose HD at home resulted in a saving of £19.6 million. Conducting high dose HD at home under a hypothetical tariff of £575/week was associated with a budget increase (£19.9 million). The costs of high dose HD at home were totally offset by increasing the usage of PD to 20-25%, generating savings of £40.0 million - £94.5 million over 5 years under the increased tariff. Conversely, having all patients treated in-centre resulted in a £172.6 million increase in dialysis costs over 5 years.

CONCLUSION

This analysis shows that performing high dose HD at home could allow the UK healthcare system to capture the clinical and humanistic benefits associated with this therapy while limiting the impact on the dialysis budget. Increasing the usage of PD to 20-25%, the levels observed in 2005-2008, will totally offset the additional costs and generate further savings.

How do hospitalization patterns of home hemodialysis patients compare with a reasonably well dialysis patient cohort?

Background

The home hemodialysis (HHD) treatment option has been associated with improved patient outcomes compared to in-center hemodialysis (ICHD) programs. What is not quite clear is the influence of patient selection bias on the perceived benefits of HHD. The purpose of this study was to explore the potential benefits of HHD by comparing the admission patterns of HHD patients with a control group from a reasonably well dialysis patient cohort, which in this case were satellite hemodialysis patients on a Category 1 transplant waiting list (Cat1 SHD).

Methods

A single center retrospective randomized cohort study of HHD and Cat1 SHD patients who were on these two treatment modalities from August 2012 to August 2013 was performed to obtain a sample of 25 patients for each group.

Results

The mean length of stay in hospital was 5.9 days for HHD patients and 6.7 days for Cat1 SHD group (P=0.8). Eighteen admissions were observed for both groups (0.72 admissions/patient-year; P=0.5). HHD patients spent 71 days and Cat1 SHD patients spent 85 days in hospital (2.8 and 3.4 days/patient-year respectively; P<0.005). The mean serum potassium level for HHD patients was 4.1 (3.1–6.5) mEq/L versus 5.0 (3.7–6.1) mEq/L for Cat1 SHD patients (P=0.001) and the mean phosphate level was 1.1 (0.56–2.38) mg/dL and 1.5 (0.43–3.2) mg/dL (P=0.02) for the respective groups.

Conclusion

This study confirms the superiority of the HHD treatment option in improving patient outcomes. Admission patterns of HHD patients fared very well against a control group which consisted of reasonably well dialysis patients.

Survival on home dialysis in New Zealand

Background

New Zealand (NZ) has a high prevalence of both peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home haemodialysis (HD) relative to other countries, and probably less selection bias. We aimed to determine if home dialysis associates with better survival than facility HD by simultaneous comparisons of the three modalities.

Methods

We analysed survival by time-varying dialysis modality in New Zealanders over a 15-year period to 31-Dec-2011, adjusting for patient co-morbidity by Cox proportional hazards multivariate regression.

Results

We modelled 6,419 patients with 3,254 deaths over 20,042 patient-years of follow-up. Patients treated with PD and facility HD are similar; those on home HD are younger and healthier. Compared to facility HD, home dialysis (as a unified category) associates with an overall 13% lower mortality risk. Home HD associates with a 52% lower mortality risk. PD associates with a 20% lower mortality risk in the early period (<3 years) that is offset by a 33% greater mortality risk in the late period (>3 years), with no overall net effect. There was effect modification and less observable benefit associated with PD in those with diabetes mellitus, co-morbidity, and in NZ Maori and Pacific People. There was no effect modification by age or by era.

Conclusion

Our study supports the culture of home dialysis in NZ, and suggests that the extent and duration of survival benefit associated with early PD may be greater than appreciated. We are planning further analyses to exclude residual confounding from unmeasured co-morbidity and other sociodemographic factors using database linkage to NZ government datasets. Finally, our results suggest further research into the practice of PD in NZ Maori and Pacific People, as well as definitive study to determine the best timing for switching from PD in the late phase.

Excellent long time survival for Swedish patients starting home-hemodialysis with and without subsequent renal transplantations

Survival for patients on dialysis is poor. Earlier reports have indicated that home-hemodialysis is associated with improved survival but most of the studies are old and report only short-time survival. The characteristics of patient populations are often incompletely described. In this study, we report long-term survival for patients starting home-hemodialysis as first treatment and estimate the impact on survival of age, comorbidity, decade of start of home-hemodialysis, sex, primary renal disease and subsequent renal transplantation. One hundred twenty-eight patients starting home-hemodialysis as first renal replacement therapy 1971-1998 in Lund were included. Data were collected from patient files, the Swedish Renal Registry and Swedish census. Survival analysis was made as intention-to-treat analysis (including survival after transplantation) and on-dialysis-treatment analysis with patients censored at the day of transplantation. Ten-, twenty- and thirty-year survival were 68%, 36% and 18%. Survival was significantly affected by comorbidity, age and what decade the patients started home-hemodialysis. For patients younger than 60 years and with no comorbidities, the corresponding figures were 75%, 47% and 23% and a subsequent renal transplantation did not significantly influence survival. Long-term survival for patients starting home-hemodialysis is good, and improves decade by decade. Survival is significantly affected by patient age and comorbidity, but the contribution of subsequent renal transplantation was not significant for younger patients without comorbidities.

Is lack of suitable housing a barrier to home-based dialysis therapy for patients with end-stage renal disease? A cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether inadequate housing is the main barrier to the provision of home dialysis treatment.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients attending a predialysis clinic between 2006 and 2009 deemed medically suitable for home dialysis and not active on the preemptive transplant list.

SETTING

A predialysis clinic in a London teaching hospital.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Assessment of patient's accommodation for suitability for home-based dialysis using departmental guidelines and the Government's Housing Health and Safety Rating System regulations 2005.

RESULTS

A lack of adequate housing prohibited the provision of home haemodialysis to all but one of these patients. Moreover, only 29% of homes assessed were suitable for peritoneal dialysis, despite the lower spatial demands of this form of renal replacement therapy. In addition to the specific requirements of dialysis, we also found that only 33% of the homes visited fulfilled the minimum standard of housing as defined in the Government's Decent Homes Standard, with multiple specific hazards identified across the properties.

CONCLUSIONS

This study illustrates that the lack of suitable housing is a major barrier to the provision of home-based dialysis and underscores the need for this to be addressed urgently at both the central government and local authority levels. We suggest that it should be considered as a major priority to rehouse medically suitable patients with a view to enabling home-based therapy.

Outcomes on home haemodialysis: registry challenges

Health care policy is encouraging expansion of home haemodialysis, aiming to improve patient outcomes and reduce cost. However, most patient outcome data derive from retrospective observational studies, with all their inherent weaknesses. Conventional thrice weekly home haemodialysis delivers a 22-51% reduction in mortality, but why should that be? Frequent and/or nocturnal haemodialysis reduces mortality by 36-66%, with comparable outcomes to deceased donor kidney transplantation. Approaches which might improve the quality of future observational studies are discussed. Patient-relevant outcomes other than mortality are also discussed.

Does home haemodialysis produce better outcomes for patients?

Demand for renal replacement therapy (dialysis and transplantation) is projected to rise by approximately 5% every year until at least 2030. Therefore, particular attention should be paid to areas in which significant increases in demand are likely to lead to further pressure on services. There is evidence to support higher patient survival rates in home haemodialysis compared with those that receive hospital- or satellite-based haemodialysis (i.e. a smaller renal unit based in a community hospital closer to the patient's home). Furthermore, studies suggest that home haemodialysis is at least as effective as and less costly than hospital or satellite unit haemodialysis. Therefore, there is a greater requirement for expanding the provision of home haemodialysis, and to make this treatment option available to a wider range of patients.

Novel Trends in Haemodialysis: Where Are We Heading?

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

Utilization and outcome of 'out-of-center hemodialysis' in the United States: a contemporary analysis

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in the delivery of out-of-center hemodialysis (HD), particularly in the home setting, but little systematic information about its use and outcome in contemporary incident patients is available.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Out-of-center HD was defined as HD delivered in a residential setting, mainly at home or in a long-term care facility (such as a nursing home) irrespective of the length and frequency of therapy. All-cause mortality was determined in an observational cohort study of 458,329 adult patients initiating dialysis in the United States with Medicare as a primary payer.

RESULTS

Between 1995 and 2004, out-of-center HD was the initial modality in 1,641 (0.4%) of eligible participants, although there was significant geographic variation. Patients initiating out-of-center HD were younger, more likely to be nonwhite, had fewer comorbidities, a higher median income, and were more likely to be employed than patients initiating in-center HD or peritoneal dialysis (PD). In multivariate analysis, out-of-center HD patients had a higher overall risk of death compared to in-center HD or PD patients (HR = 1.10, 95% CI 1.04, 1.17), although the relative risk of death was lower in younger and healthier patients (HR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.61, 1.00).

CONCLUSION

Out-of-center HD is not associated with a survival advantage among unselected patients initiating dialysis in the United States. These results call for better characterization of out-of-center HD in national registries, primarily to effectively compare the use, outcomes and potential benefits of home HD to standard therapies.

International variations and trends in home hemodialysis

Home hemodialysis, once a valid, viable dialysis choice, faded as facility-based care was preferentially funded and supported through the 1970s and 1980s. It was simply more comfortable for providers, physicians, and nurses to capture dialysis patients through clinic schedules and clinical protocols. Home patients were unpredictable, out of sight and out of control, trouble, and best avoided. This was so except in Australia and New Zealand where funding and support remained strong for what was seen there as an effective, outcome-rich, and cost-effective modality. The renaissance of home hemodialysis began in Canada when home-based nocturnal dialysis emerged in the 1990s. Home patients soon appreciated the self-determination and re-employment opportunities that overnight dialysis delivered. This article explores the origins, the near demise, the foundations of renewal, and the now-expanding potential of home and nocturnal hemodialysis in regions as diverse as North America, Australia and New Zealand, South East Asia, the United Kingdom, and Finland. Home dialysis fed by cost containment, outcome success, patient acceptance, and new smart equipment has emerged as a bright new modality option. Trainee nephrologists would be wise to take more notice as this near ghost of the past forges an exciting future.

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

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

Drug dosing considerations in alternative hemodialysis

The provision of renal replacement therapy for patients with chronic kidney disease has been reasonably standardized for decades, with thrice-weekly hemodialysis being the standard. Short-daily and nocturnal hemodialysis are 2 new hemodialysis techniques, each are administered 6 to 7 days a week but differ primarily in the duration of the treatment and blood-flow rate. The emergence of these hemodialysis regimens has shown promise in attenuating some of the complications associated with chronic kidney disease. The benefits of these daily regimens are postulated to be a result of enhanced solute clearance and improved extracellular volume management. The improved solute clearance associated with daily hemodialysis is likely to lead to altered dialytic clearance of drugs given to patients receiving these therapies. The purpose of this paper is to review the concepts pertinent to drug removal by hemodialysis and discuss the issues related to these new dialysis techniques and how they may have a impact on drug removal and the design of dosing regimens.

Comparison of survival between short-daily hemodialysis and conventional hemodialysis using the standardized mortality ratio

More frequent hemodialysis (5 or more times weekly, both short during the day and long overnight) has been shown to improve patient well-being, reduce symptoms during and between treatments, and have beneficial effects on clinical outcomes. Because of the relatively small patient sample sizes, there are little or no data on mortality from any single study at this time. This study compares survival in 117 U.S. patients treated by short-daily hemodialysis in 2003 and 2004, with patients reported in the 2003 data from the United States Renal Data System (USRDS). Expected mortality was calculated from the USRDS and compared with observed actual mortality. The standardized mortality ratio (SMR) was used to adjust for differences in patient age, sex, race, and cause of renal failure. The SMR for the short-daily hemodialysis patients was 0.39, statistically significantly better (p < 0.005) than data from the overall U.S. population of hemodialysis patients and indicating that daily hemodialysis patients had a 61% better survival. Patients treated by short-daily hemodialysis have a better survival rate than comparable populations treated by conventional hemodialysis.

Home haemodialysis—international trends and variation

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Health status and quality of life reported by incident patients after 1 year on haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that there are no large differences in the quality of life of incident patients starting on haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD), but few studies have addressed this issue.

METHODS

Association of modality with incident patients' health status and quality of life scores was investigated with propensity score (PS) analysis and also with traditional multivariable regression analyses. We compared patient reported health status and quality of life scores after 1 year of therapy in 455 HD and 413 PD patients who participated in a national study, stayed on the same modality and had complete socio-demographic and clinical information needed to create a PS indicating their expected probability of starting on PD.

RESULTS

One year scores on the majority of health status and quality of life measures were not significantly different for HD and PD patients within propensity-matched quintiles. PD patients' scores were higher than HD patients' scores on effects of kidney disease, burden of kidney disease, staff encouragement and satisfaction with care in some quintiles, and traditional regression analyses confirmed that dialysis modality was associated with patients' scores on these variables.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides support for making the choice of PD more widely available as an option to patients initiating chronic dialysis therapy. Patient lifestyle opportunities associated with use of PD, a home-based and self-care therapy, may also apply to home-based HD or in-centre self-care HD. Patients' expectations regarding treatment and their attitudes toward management of their health may interact with treatment modality to shape patient-reported experience on dialysis; this is an important focus for future studies.

Future of home haemodialysis in Australia and New Zealand (Review Article)

Maintenance haemodialysis (HD) was pioneered in Seattle and rapidly became home-based. When dialysis treatment began in Australia and New Zealand, home haemodialysis (HHD) became the predominant form of dialysis. When compared with in-centre conventional dialysis, HHD is associated with superior survival and quality of life and is cheaper. There is currently significant interest in increasing the frequency and duration of dialysis and in providing more flexible dialysis regimens for patients. If the likely benefits of these treatment changes are to be fully realized HHD and self care HD services will need to expand. Dialysis units in Australia and New Zealand are better equipped than most to respond to this challenge.