Hemodialysis Time and Kt/V: Less May Be Better

Incremental and Personalized Hemodialysis Start: A New Standard of Care

Introduction

Incremental hemodialysis (iHD) may attenuate “dialysis shock” and reduce costs, preserving quality of life. It is considered difficult to reconcile with HD wards’ routine; fear of underdialysis and increasing mortality are additional concerns. The aim of this study was to evaluate mortality, morbidity, and costs in a large HD ward where iHD is the standard of HD start.

Methods

This observational study included all incident HD patients in 2017 to 2021, stratified according to HD start: iHD (1–2 sessions/wk), decremental HD (dHD, 3 sessions/wk at start, later reduced), or standard (3 sessions/wk). Results were compared with data recorded in the same unit before the incremental program (2015–2017) and with a propensity score-matched cohort from the French Renal Epidemiology and Information Network (REIN) registry.

Results

A total of 158 patients started HD in 2017 to 2021, 57.6% on iHD, 8.9% dHD, and 33.5% standard HD schedule. Patients on the standard schedule had lower initial estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (5 vs. 7 ml/min per 1.72 m², P = 0.003). We found no survival differences according to period of start (same center) and propensity score matching (REIN). Patients intensively followed in the pre-HD period were more likely to start on iHD-dHD. Persistence on iHD-dHD was about 50% at 1 year and 35% at 2 years. Hospitalization rates and time to first hospitalization or death did not differ between the schedules. The iHD-dHD policy allowed a 16% cost saving, even accounting for supplemental biochemical tests.

Conclusion

Our study reveals that iHD can be a new standard of care, as it is safe and feasible in up to two-thirds of patients on incident HD.

Choices in hemodialysis therapies: variants, personalized therapy and application of evidence-based medicine

The extent of removal of the uremic toxins in hemodialysis (HD) therapies depends primarily on the dialysis membrane characteristics and the solute transport mechanisms involved. While designation of ‘flux’ of membranes as well toxicity of compounds that need to be targeted for removal remain unresolved issues, the relative role, efficiency and utilization of solute removal principles to optimize HD treatment are better delineated. Through the combination and intensity of diffusive and convective removal forces, levels of concentrations of a broad spectrum of uremic toxins can be lowered significantly and successfully. Extended clinical experience as well as data from several clinical trials attest to the benefits of convection-based HD treatment modalities. However, the mode of delivery of HD can further enhance the effectiveness of therapies. Other than treatment time, frequency and location that offer clinical benefits and increase patient well-being, treatment- and patient-specific criteria may be tailored for the therapy delivered: electrolytic composition, dialysate buffer and concentration and choice of anticoagulating agent are crucial for dialysis tolerance and efficacy. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) relies on three tenets, i.e. clinical expertise (i.e. doctor), patient-centered values (i.e. patient) and relevant scientific evidence (i.e. science), that have deviated from their initial aim and summarized to scientific evidence, leading to tyranny of randomized controlled trials. One must recognize that practice patterns as shown by Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study and personalization of HD care are the main driving force for improving outcomes. Based on a combination of the three pillars of EBM, and particularly on bedside patient–clinician interaction, we summarize what we have learned over the last 6 decades in terms of best practices to improve outcomes in HD patients. Management of initiation of dialysis, vascular access, preservation of kidney function, selection of biocompatible dialysers and use of dialysis fluids of high microbiological purity to restrict inflammation are just some of the approaches where clinical experience is vital in the absence of definitive scientific evidence. Further, HD adequacy needs to be considered as a broad and multitarget approach covering not just the dose of dialysis provided, but meeting individual patient needs (e.g. fluid volume, acid–base, blood pressure, bone disease metabolism control) through regular assessment—and adjustment—of a series of indicators of treatment efficiency. Finally, in whichever way new technologies (i.e. artificial intelligence, connected health) are embraced in the future to improve the delivery of dialysis, the human dimension of the patient–doctor interaction is irreplaceable. Kidney medicine should remain ‘an art’ and will never be just ‘a science’.

Toward an individualized determination of dialysis adequacy: a narrative review with special emphasis on incremental hemodialysis

INTRODUCTION

The search for the 'perfect' renal replacement therapy has been paralleled by the search for the perfect biomarkers for assessing dialysis adequacy. Three main families of markers have been assessed: small molecules (prototype: urea); middle molecules (prototype β2-microglobulin); comprehensive and nutritional markers (prototype of the simplified assessment, albumin levels; composite indexes as malnutrition-inflammation score). After an era of standardization of dialysis treatment, personalized dialysis schedules are increasingly proposed, challenging the dogma of thrice-weekly hemodialysis.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we describe the advantages and limitations of the approaches mentioned above, focusing on the open questions regarding personalized schedules and incremental hemodialysis.

EXPERT OPINION

In the era of personalized dialysis, the assessment of dialysis adequacy should be likewise personalized, due to the limits of 'one size fits all' approaches. We have tried to summarize some of the relevant issues regarding the determination of dialysis adequacy, attempting to adapt them to an elderly, highly comorbidity population, which would probably benefit from tailor-made dialysis prescriptions. While no single biomarker allows precisely tailoring the dialysis dose, we suggest using a combination of clinical and biological markers to prescribe dialysis according to comorbidity, life expectancy, residual kidney function, and small and medium-size molecule depuration.

A swan song for Kt/Vurea

Dialyzer clearance of urea multiplied by dialysis time and normalized for urea distribution volume (Kt/V_urea or simply Kt/V) has been used as an index of dialysis adequacy since more than 30 years. This article reviews the flaws of Kt/V, starting with a lack of proof of concept in three randomized controlled hard outcome trials (RCTs), and continuing with a long list of conditions where the concept of Kt/V was shown to be flawed. This information leaves little room for any conclusion other than that Kt/V, as an indicator of dialysis adequacy, is obsolete. The dialysis patient might benefit more if, instead, the nephrology community concentrates in the future on pursuing the optimal dialysis dose that conforms with adequate quality of life and on factors that are likely to affect outcomes more than Kt/V. These include residual renal function, volume status, dialysis length, ultrafiltration rate, the number of intra-dialytic hypotensive episodes, interdialytic blood pressure, serum potassium and phosphate, serum albumin, and C reactive protein.

Dialysis Reimbursement: What Impact Do Different Models Have on Clinical Choices?

Allowing patients to live for decades without the function of a vital organ is a medical miracle, but one that is not without cost both in terms of morbidity and quality of life and in economic terms. Renal replacement therapy (RRT) consumes between 2% and 5% of the overall health care expenditure in countries where dialysis is available without restrictions. While transplantation is the preferred treatment in patients without contraindications, old age and comorbidity limit its indications, and low organ availability may result in long waiting times. As a consequence, 30–70% of the patients depend on dialysis, which remains the main determinant of the cost of RRT. Costs of dialysis are differently defined, and its reimbursement follows different rules. There are three main ways of establishing dialysis reimbursement. The first involves dividing dialysis into a series of elements and reimbursing each one separately (dialysis itself, medications, drugs, transportation, hospitalisation, etc.). The second, known as the capitation system, consists of merging these elements in a per capita reimbursement, while the third, usually called the bundle system, entails identifying a core of procedures intrinsically linked to treatment (e.g., dialysis sessions, tests, intradialyitc drugs). Each one has advantages and drawbacks, and impacts differently on the organization and delivery of care: payment per session may favour fragmentation and make a global appraisal difficult; a correct capitation system needs a careful correction for comorbidity, and may exacerbate competition between public and private settings, the latter aiming at selecting the least complex cases; a bundle system, in which the main elements linked to the dialysis sessions are considered together, may be a good compromise but risks penalising complex patients, and requires a rapid adaptation to treatment changes. Retarding dialysis is a clinical and economical goal, but the incentives for predialysis care are not established and its development may be unfavourable for the provider. A closer cooperation between policymakers, economists and nephrologists is needed to ensure a high quality of dialysis care.

Assessment of dialysis adequacy: beyond urea kinetic measurements

Adequacy of dialysis is a term that has been used for many years based on measurement of small solute clearance using urea and creatinine. This has been shown in some but not all studies in adults to correlate with survival. However, small solute clearance is just one minor part of the effectiveness of dialysis and in fact 'optimum' dialysis, rather than 'adequate' dialysis is what most paediatric nephrologists would want for their patients. Additional ways to assess the success of dialysis in children would include dialysis access complications and longevity, preservation of residual kidney function, body composition, biochemical and haematological control, nutrition and growth, discomfort during the dialysis process and psychosocial adjustment including hospitalisation and school attendance. These criteria need to be balanced against a dialysis programme that has the least possible adverse effects on quality of life.

Prescribing Hemodialysis or Hemodiafiltration: When One Size Does Not Fit All the Proposal of a Personalized Approach Based on Comorbidity and Nutritional Status

There is no simple way to prescribe hemodialysis. Changes in the dialysis population, improvements in dialysis techniques, and different attitudes towards the initiation of dialysis have influenced treatment goals and, consequently, dialysis prescription. However, in clinical practice prescription of dialysis still often follows a "one size fits all" rule, and there is no agreed distinction between treatment goals for the younger, lower-risk population, and for older, high comorbidity patients. In the younger dialysis population, efficiency is our main goal, as assessed by the demonstrated close relationship between depuration (tested by kinetic adequacy) and survival. In the ageing dialysis population, tolerance is probably a better objective: "good dialysis" should allow the patient to attain a stable metabolic balance with minimal dialysis-related morbidity. We would like therefore to open the discussion on a personalized approach to dialysis prescription, focused on efficiency in younger patients and on tolerance in older ones, based on life expectancy, comorbidity, residual kidney function, and nutritional status, with particular attention placed on elderly, high-comorbidity populations, such as the ones presently treated in most European centers. Prescription of dialysis includes reaching decisions on the following elements: dialysis modality (hemodialysis (HD) or hemodiafiltration (HDF)); type of membrane (permeability, surface); and the frequency and duration of sessions. Blood and dialysate flow, anticoagulation, and reinfusion (in HDF) are also briefly discussed. The approach described in this concept paper was developed considering the following items: nutritional markers and integrated scores (albumin, pre-albumin, cholesterol; body size, Body Mass Index (BMI), Malnutrition Inflammation Score (MIS), and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA)); life expectancy (age, comorbidity (Charlson Index), and dialysis vintage); kinetic goals (Kt/V, normalized protein catabolic rate (n-PCR), calcium phosphate, parathyroid hormone (PTH), beta-2 microglobulin); technical aspects including vascular access (fistula versus catheter, degree of functionality); residual kidney function and weight gain; and dialysis tolerance (intradialytic hypotension, post-dialysis fatigue, and subjective evaluation of the effect of dialysis on quality of life). In the era of personalized medicine, we hope the approach described in this concept paper, which requires validation but has the merit of providing innovation, may be a first step towards raising attention on this issue and will be of help in guiding dialysis choices that exploit the extraordinary potential of the present dialysis "menu".

Survival in patients on hemodialysis: Effect of gender according to body mass index and creatinine

Background

The association of a higher body mass index (BMI) with better survival is a well-known “obesity paradox” in patients on hemodialysis (HD). However, men and women have different body compositions, which could impact the effect of BMI on mortality. We investigated the effect of gender on the obesity-mortality relationship in Korean patients on HD.

Methods

This study included 2,833 maintenance patients on HD from a multicenter prospective cohort study in Korea (NCT00931970). The relationship between categorized BMI and gender-specific mortality was evaluated by an adjusted Cox proportional hazard model with restricted cubic spline analyses and the Competing risk analysis. We also investigated the effect of changes in BMI over 12 months and serum creatinine level on survival in male and female patients on HD.

Results

The mean BMI was 22.6 ± 3.3 kg/m² and the mean follow up duration was 24.2 ± 3.4 months. The patients with the highest quintile of BMI (≥25.1 kg/m²) showed lower mortality (subdistributional hazard ratio [SHR] = 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.43–0.93, P = 0.019) compared with those with the reference BMI quintile. When analyzed by gender, male patients with a BMI over 25.1 kg/m² had lower mortality risk (HR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.25–0.75, P = 0.003); however, no significant difference was found in female patients. Increased BMI after 12 months and high serum creatinine were associated with better survival only in male patients on HD.

Conclusions

BMI could be used as a risk factor for mortality in male patients on HD. However, the mortality of female patients on HD was not related with baseline and follow-up BMI. This suggests that BMI is a good surrogate marker of lean body composition, especially in male patients on HD.