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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Systematic review of the effectiveness of home versus hospital or satellite unit hemodialysis for people with end-stage renal failure

BACKGROUND

Home hemodialysis offers potential advantages over hospital hemodialysis, including the opportunity for more frequent and/or longer dialysis sessions. Expanding home hemodialysis services may help cope with the increasing numbers of people requiring hemodialysis.

METHODS

We sought comparative studies or systematic reviews of home versus hospital/satellite unit hemodialysis for people with end-stage renal failure (ESRF). Outcomes included quality of life and survival. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, CINAHL, PREMEDLINE, and BIOSIS. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the studies included.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies of variable quality were included. People on home hemodialysis generally experienced a better quality of life and lived longer than those on hospital hemodialysis. Their partners, however, found home hemodialysis more stressful. Four studies using a Cox proportional hazards model to compare home with hospital hemodialysis reported a lower mortality risk for home hemodialysis. Of two studies using a Cox model to compare home with satellite unit hemodialysis, one reported a similar mortality risk, whereas the other reported a lower mortality risk for home hemodialysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Home hemodialysis was generally associated with better outcomes than hospital hemodialysis and (more modestly so) satellite unit hemodialysis, in terms of quality of life, survival, and other measures of effectiveness. People on home hemodialysis, however, are a highly selected group. Home hemodialysis also provides the opportunity for more frequent and/or longer dialysis sessions than would otherwise be possible. It is difficult to disentangle the true effects of home hemodialysis from such influencing factors.