Comparative Survival Literature in Intensive Hemodialysis: Limitations and Future Directions

Debate: Should dialysis at home be mandatory for all suitable ESRD patients?: home-based dialysis therapies are the second choice after transplantation

Since their inception in the 1960s, home-based dialysis therapies have been viable alternatives to conventional thrice weekly in center hemodialysis. In spite of this, uptake of these therapies has been steadily declining over past decades with utilization varying globally; dependent on training support, funding models, and prevailing Nephrologist beliefs. In the Australian context, home dialysis (predominantly peritoneal dialysis and extended hours nocturnal hemodialysis) is now again increasing in popularity--with enthusiasm driven not only by evidence of an array of physiological and psychological patient benefit but also significant economic advantage: critical in the current climate where dialysis therapies in Australia take approximately $1 billion dollars per year from the healthcare budget. When assessing the significant advantages of home-based therapies, it is important to consider not only the increasing body of evidence around improved survival but also that for dramatically better health-related quality of life, decreased economic burden and the overall benefits of undertaking treatment in the home. With patient-centered care an increasingly important aspect of our decision making paradigm, home-based dialysis should be considered as the default option in all patients transitioning to renal replacement therapy.

Dialysis frequency versus dialysis time, that is the question

We reviewed a number of prospective randomized and multiple retrospective cohort studies of different dialysis prescriptions: longer dialysis time, at a frequency of at least three times a week, or a frequency of daily hemodialysis with a shorter dialysis time. Interestingly, the retrospective analyses have generally found significant survival benefits in the intensive dialysis groups, whereas more modest effects were observed in the prospective randomized controlled trials. The reason for this discrepancy may be related to the retrospective nature of the studies and possible selection bias; for example, the patients who were prescribed more frequent dialysis may have had more difficulties with volume control or high blood pressure. In contrast, the randomized controlled trials of increased dialysis frequency, which have shown indirect and modest benefits in complex coprimary end points, have small sample sizes and are plagued with difficulties in recruitment and compliance with the randomly allocated more frequent dialysis. This review, which attempts to balance the potential benefits of more frequent dialysis with the burden on the patient's lifestyle, an increased risk of access malfunction, as well as societal costs of such intensive dialysis prescriptions, concludes in favor of the conventional three times per week dialysis (at a minimum) but at longer dialysis times than is currently prescribed based on the Kt/Vurea metric alone.

Current state of intensive hemodialysis: a comparative review of benefits and barriers

The current interest in intensive hemodialysis (HD) was born out of the impasse in an effort to improve survival and quality of life (QOL) in patients with end-stage renal disease. In this review, we have summarized the emerging data of intensive HD on (i) survival, (ii) cardiovascular outcomes, (iii) phosphate balance and (iv) QOL. Although there is a consistent and compelling signal favoring intensive HD, it is important to balance the enthusiasm with the significant amount of perceived and actual barriers for our patients to overcome to receive or perform intensive HD. For an individual patient, the answer to the question 'What is the best form of intensive hemodialysis?' should be a consideration between the benefits sought and the obstacles in attaining intensive HD. In the future, changes in dialysis technology, healthcare delivery and education strategy are needed to allow the majority of patients to receive optimal renal replacement therapy.