Choosing Home Hemodialysis: A Critical Review of Patient Outcomes

Transfers from home to facility-based dialysis: comparisons of HHD, assisted PD and autonomous PD

Background

Home dialysis therapies such as peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD) are beneficial for quality of life and patient empowerment. The short technique survival time partly explains their low prevalence. We aimed to assess the risk of transfer to facility-based hemodialysis in patients treated with autonomous PD, assisted PD and HHD.

Methods

This was a retrospective study using data from the REIN registry of patients starting home dialysis in France from 2002 to 2019. The risks of transfer to facility-based hemodialysis (HD) were compared between three modalities of home dialysis (HHD, nurse-assisted PD, autonomous PD) using survival models with a propensity score (PS)-matched and unmatched cohort of patients.

Results

The study included 17 909 patients: 628 in the HHD group, 10 214 in the autonomous PD group, and 7067 in the assisted PD group. During the follow-up period, there were 5347 transfers to facility-based HD. The observed number of transfers was 2458 (13.7%) at 1 year and 5069 (28.3) at 5 years after the start of home dialysis, including 3272 (32%) on autonomous PD, 1648 (23.3%) on assisted PD, and 149 (23.7) on HHD. Owing to clinical characteristics differences, only 38% of HHD patients could be matched to patients from the others group. In the PS-matched cohort, the adjusted Cox model showed no difference in the risk of transfer for assisted PD (cs-HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.75-1.44) or HHD (cs-HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.77-1.48) compared with autonomous PD.

Conclusions

Unlike results from other countries, where nurse assistance is not fully available for PD-associated care, there was no difference in technique survival between autonomous PD, nurse-assisted PD, and HHD in France. This discrepancy may be attributed to our inclusion of a broader spectrum of patients who derive significant benefits from assisted PD.

Integrated home dialysis model: facilitating home-to-home transition

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD) are the two home dialysis modalities offered to patients. They promote patient autonomy, enhance independence, and are generally associated with better quality of life compared to facility hemodialysis. PD offers some advantages (enhanced flexibility, ability to travel, preservation of residual kidney function, and vascular access sites) but few patients remain on PD indefinitely due to peritonitis and other complications. By contrast, HHD incurs longer and more intensive training combined with increased upfront health costs compared to PD, but is easier to sustain in the long term. As a result, the integrated home dialysis model was proposed to combine the advantages of both home-based dialysis modalities. In this paradigm, patients are encouraged to initiate dialysis on PD and transfer to HHD after PD termination. Available evidence demonstrates the feasibility and safety of this approach and some observational studies have shown that patients who undergo the PD-to-HHD transition have clinical outcomes comparable to patients who initiate dialysis directly on HHD. Nevertheless, the prevalence of PD-to-HHD transfers remains low, reflecting the multiple barriers that prevent the full uptake of home-to-home transitions, notably a lack of awareness about the model, home-care "burnout," clinical inertia after a transfer to facility HD, suboptimal integration of PD and HHD centers, and insufficient funding for home dialysis programs. In this review, we will examine the conceptual advantages and disadvantages of integrated home dialysis, present the evidence that underlies it, identify challenges that prevent its success and finally, propose solutions to increase its adoption.

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.

Patient Preference Trade-offs for Next-Generation Kidney Replacement Therapies

BACKGROUND

Next-generation implantable and wearable KRTs may revolutionize the lives of patients undergoing dialysis by providing more frequent and/or prolonged therapy along with greater mobility compared with in-center hemodialysis. Medical device innovators would benefit from patient input to inform product design and development. Our objective was to determine key risk/benefit considerations for patients with kidney failure and test how these trade-offs could drive patient treatment choices.

METHODS

We developed a choice-based conjoint discrete choice instrument and surveyed 498 patients with kidney failure. The choice-based conjoint instrument consisted of nine attributes of risk and benefit pertinent across KRT modalities. Attributes were derived from literature reviews, patient/clinician interviews, and pilot testing. The risk attributes were serious infection, death within 5 years, permanent device failure, surgical requirements, and follow-up requirements. The benefit attributes were fewer diet restrictions, improved mobility, pill burden, and fatigue. We created a random, full-profile, balanced overlap design with 14 choice pairs plus five fixed tasks to test validity. We used a mixed-effects regression model with attribute levels as independent predictor variables and choice decisions as dependent variables.

RESULTS

All variables were significantly important to patient choice preferences, except follow-up requirements. For each 1% higher risk of death within 5 years, preference utility was lower by 2.22 ( β =-2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.52 to -1.91), while for each 1% higher risk of serious infection, utility was lower by 1.38 ( β =-1.46; 95% CI, -1.77 to -1.00) according to comparisons of the β coefficients. Patients were willing to trade a 1% infection risk and 0.5% risk of death to gain complete mobility and freedom from in-center hemodialysis ( β =1.46; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.64).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite an aversion to even a 1% higher risk of death within 5 years, serious infection, and permanent device rejection, patients with kidney failure suggested that they would trade these risks for the benefit of complete mobility.

Outcomes of Integrated Home Dialysis Care: Results From the Canadian Organ Replacement Register

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

The integrated home dialysis model proposes the initiation of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) with peritoneal dialysis (PD) and a timely transition to home hemodialysis (HHD) after PD ends. We compared the outcomes of patients transitioning from PD to HHD with those initiating KRT with HHD.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational analysis of the Canadian Organ Replacement Register (CORR).

SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS

All patients who initiated PD or HHD within the first 90 days of KRT between 2005 and 2018.

EXPOSURE

Patients transitioning from PD to HHD (PD+HHD group) versus patients initiating KRT with HHD (HHD group).

OUTCOME

(1) A composite of all-cause mortality and modality transfer (to in-center hemodialysis or PD for 90 days) and (2) all hospitalizations (considered as recurrent events).

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

A propensity score analysis for which PD+HHD patients were matched 1:1 to (1) incident HHD patients ("incident-match" analysis) or (2) HHD patients with a KRT vintage at least equivalent to the vintage of PD+HHD patients at the transition time ("vintage-matched" analysis). Cause-specific hazards models (composite outcome) and shared frailty models (hospitalization) were used to compare groups.

RESULTS

Among 63,327 individuals in the CORR, 163 PD+HHD patients (median of 1.9 years in PD) and 711 HHD patients were identified. In the incident-match analysis, compared to the HHD patients, the PD+HHD group had a similar risk of the composite outcome (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.58-1.32]) and hospitalizations (HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.76-1.41]). In the vintage-match analysis, PD+HHD patients had a lower hazard for the composite outcome (HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.40-0.94]) but a similar hospitalization risk (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.59-1.24]).

LIMITATIONS

Risk of survivor bias in the PD+HHD cohort and residual confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

Controlling for KRT vintage, the patients transitioning from PD to HHD had better clinical outcomes than the incident HHD patients. These data support the use of integrated home dialysis for patients initiating home-based KRT.

PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY

The integrated home dialysis model proposes the initiation of dialysis with peritoneal dialysis (PD) and subsequent transition to home hemodialysis (HHD) once PD is no longer feasible. It allows patients to benefit from initial lifestyle advantages of PD and to continue home-based treatments after its termination. However, some patients may prefer to initiate dialysis with HHD from the outset. In this study, we compared the long-term clinical outcomes of both approaches using a large Canadian dialysis register. We found that both options led to a similar risk of hospitalization. In contrast, the PD-to-HHD model led to improved survival when controlling for the duration of kidney failure.

Patient Survival With Extended Home Hemodialysis Compared to In-Center Conventional Hemodialysis

Introduction

More frequent and/or longer hemodialysis (HD) has been associated with improvements in numerous clinical outcomes in patients on dialysis. Home HD (HHD), which allows more frequent and/or longer dialysis with lower cost and flexibility in treatment planning, is not widely used worldwide. Although, retrospective studies have indicated better survival with HHD, this issue remains controversial. In this multicenter study, we compared thrice-weekly extended HHD with in-center conventional HD (ICHD) in a large patient population with a long-term follow-up.

Methods

We matched 349 patients starting HHD between 2010 and 2014 with 1047 concurrent patients on ICHD by using propensity scores. Patients were followed-up with from their respective baseline until September 30, 2018. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were technique survival; hospitalization; and changes in clinical, laboratory, and medication parameters.

Results

The mean duration of dialysis session was 418 ± 54 minutes in HHD and 242 ± 10 minutes in patients on ICHD. All-cause mortality rate was 3.76 and 6.27 per 100 patient-years in the HHD and the ICHD groups, respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, HHD was associated with a 40% lower risk for all-cause mortality than ICHD (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.80; P < 0.001). In HHD, the 5-year technical survival was 86.5%. HHD treatment provided better phosphate and blood pressure (BP) control, improvements in nutrition and inflammation, and reduction in hospitalization days and medication requirement.

Conclusion

These results indicate that extended HHD is associated with higher survival and better outcomes compared to ICHD.

The NightLife study - the clinical and cost-effectiveness of thrice-weekly, extended, in-centre nocturnal haemodialysis versus daytime haemodialysis using a mixed methods approach: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In-centre nocturnal haemodialysis (INHD) offers extended-hours haemodialysis, 6 to 8 h thrice-weekly overnight, with the support of dialysis specialist nurses. There is increasing observational data demonstrating potential benefits of INHD on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There is a lack of randomised controlled trial (RCT) data to confirm these benefits and assess safety.

METHODS

The NightLife study is a pragmatic, two-arm, multicentre RCT comparing the impact of 6 months INHD to conventional haemodialysis (thrice-weekly daytime in-centre haemodialysis, 3.5-5 h per session). The primary outcome is the total score from the Kidney Disease Quality of Life tool at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include sleep and cognitive function, measures of safety, adherence to dialysis and impact on clinical parameters. There is an embedded Process Evaluation to assess implementation, health economic modelling and a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention to understand factors that influence recruitment and retention. Adults (≥ 18 years old) who have been established on haemodialysis for > 3 months are eligible to participate.

DISCUSSION

There are 68,000 adults in the UK that need kidney replacement therapy (KRT), with in-centre haemodialysis the treatment modality for over a third of cases. HRQoL is an independent predictor of hospitalisation and mortality in individuals on maintenance dialysis. Haemodialysis is associated with poor HRQoL in comparison to the general population. INHD has the potential to improve HRQoL. Vigorous RCT evidence of effectiveness is lacking. The NightLife study is an essential step in the understanding of dialysis therapies and will guide patient-centred decisions regarding KRT in the future.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration number: ISRCTN87042063. Registered: 14/07/2020.

Nephrologists' Perspectives of the Potential Utilization of Home Hemodialysis in Saudi Arabia

Home hemodialysis (HD) is an attractive renal replacement modality that has been shown to provide several benefits to the patient and health-care system. However, home HD programs have not been well-established in Saudi Arabia. We aimed to explore the perspectives of adult nephrology consultants in Saudi Arabia about the potential utilization of home HD via a survey-based cross-sectional study. The survey was distributed via email to all adult nephrology consultants practicing in Saudi Arabia and registered in the Saudi Society of Nephrology and Transplantation. Out of 236 invited consultants, 151 (64%) participated in the study. Half of the participants defined home HD as a trained patient who can independently perform his/her HD sessions at home. Eighty-one (54%) consultants have never managed a patient on home HD during their nephrology training period. More than 70% of participants believed that home HD provides advantages over in-center HD, and that its utilization in Saudi Arabia would be feasible. Although 40% of participants worked in centers with no accredited nephrology training program, most of the remaining participants believed that the local training program did not provide enough teaching about home HD to trainees. Patients' refusal, the nephrologists' lack of motivation and experience, a lack of administrative support, and the lack of infrastructure and nursing support were identified by most participants as the major barriers to the utilization of home HD in Saudi Arabia. Addressing these barriers would be the first step to facilitate initiatives aiming to establish home HD programs in this country.

Living Well With Kidney Disease and Effective Symptom Management: Consensus Conference Proceedings

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) confers a high burden of uremic symptoms that may be underrecognized, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. Unpleasant symptoms, such as CKD-associated pruritus and emotional/psychological distress, often occur within symptom clusters, and treating 1 symptom may potentially alleviate other symptoms in that cluster. The Living Well with Kidney Disease and Effective Symptom Management Consensus Conference convened health experts and leaders of kidney advocacy groups and kidney networks worldwide to discuss the effects of unpleasant symptoms related to CKD on the health and well-being of those affected, and to consider strategies for optimal symptom management. Optimizing symptom management is a cornerstone of conservative and preservative management which aim to prevent or delay dialysis initiation. In persons with kidney dysfunction requiring dialysis (KDRD), incremental transition to dialysis and home dialysis modalities offer personalized approaches. KDRD is proposed as the preferred term given the negative connotations of "failure" as a kidney descriptor, and the success stories in CKD journeys. Engaging persons with CKD to identify and prioritize their personal values and individual needs must be central to ensure their active participation in CKD management, including KDRD. Person-centered communication and care are required to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion; education/awareness that considers the health literacy of persons with CKD; and shared decision-making among the person with CKD, care partners, and providers. By putting the needs of people with CKD, including effective symptom management, at the center of their treatment, CKD can be optimally treated in a way that aligns with their goals.

Exploring stakeholders and their requirements in the process of home hemodialysis: A literature review

Providing home hemodialysis (HHD) therapy is a complex process that not only requires the use of a complex technology but also involves a diverse group of stakeholders, and each stakeholder has their requirements and may not share a common interest. Bringing them together will require the alignment of their interests. A process management perspective can help to accomplish the alignment of their interests. To align their interests, it is crucial to identify interest groups and understand their interests. The main objective of this paper is to identify the stakeholders and represents their interests as a list of requirements in the HHD process. An extensive literature review has been carried out and PubMed was used for literature extraction. In total, 1848 articles were retrieved of which 80 have fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A large array of actors is identified and their interests/requirements at different stages of the HHD process are represented in the form of a list. They have both common and conflicting requirements in the HHD process. If these requirements are aligned and balanced, a stakeholder's driven treatment process will be developed and a real improvement will be achieved in the treatment process.

Intelligent "Internet Plus" services in the first case of home hemodialysis in mainland China

BACKGROUND

Many studies have shown that compared with those who use other dialysis modalities, patients using home hemodialysis (HHD) have an increased rate of survival and better quality of life. It was noted in 2006 that there was opportunity for significant expansion of the use of HHD in many countries. China covers a vast area and has a large amount of end-stage renal failure patients. But in mainland China, all dialysis treatments are in-center, and the number of HHD patients is zero. In 2018, our hospital received the permission of the Shanghai government to carry out HHD.

CASE PRESENTATION

We initiated four incident hemodialysis patients on an HHD regimen, one patient has been dialyzed in the home safely for 8 months. The biochemical parameters of the first patient remained stable on the regimen and he achieved standard Kt/V urea targets. Treatment-related adverse events were not reported during the follow-up. We combined HHD with intelligent "Internet Plus" real-time remote monitoring and introduced the Internet, especially visualization software, to replace traditional telephone and home visit methods. It is more intuitive and quicker to assist patients in performing home hemodialysis and improve the safety of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

HHD can be performed by selected trained patients in mainland China. Combined with the internet, visualization software, and traditional telephone and home visits, it is intuitive and quick to assist patients in carrying out HHD and improve the safety of treatment. HHD broadens the choices for uremia patients in China.

What can a home hemodialysis program offer to patients in a nursing home setting? A case series and feasibility analysis

INTRODUCTION

Over the last decades, the number of elderly patients on dialysis has rapidly grown on account of increased life expectancy, improved care and reduced mortality rate. Therefore, cooperation between geriatricians and nephrologists has become mandatory for co-managing kidney disease in these patients. Based on renewed interest in home hemodialysis (HHD), elderly patients may benefit from not being transported from their home for therapy.

METHODS

Here, we report our experience with HHD involving three elderly patients who were followed-up over a 15-months period in a nursing home.

FINDINGS

Our experience demonstrates that hospitalization abruptly dropped from 40 days to zero days, the need for erythropoietin stimulating agents (ESAs) diminished, transportation-related costs for home treatments decreased, and quality of life (QoL) improved. This was confirmed by a questionnaire administered to our patients at the start and again after 6 months of HHD which evaluated the Physical Health Component Score (PCS) and the Mental Health Component Score (MCS).

DISCUSSION

Home hemodialysis may represent an important way to improve social, mental, and physical recovery, while also eliminating the cost of transportation and the discomfort of abandoning their "homes" and daily habits. Home hemodialysis is an effective alternative to in-center HD or peritoneal dialysis (PD) that should be offered to elderly patients when a home caregiver is not available, nonetheless, nursing assistance is required. Moreover, HHD allows patients to stay at home, thereby avoiding several weekly trips to the dialysis center, and may be useful in reducing infections, especially in times of the COVID-19 pandemic, as demonstrated by our experience.

Home haemodialysis: Providing opportunities to reimagine haemodialysis care

There has been a resurgence in home haemodialysis over the last decade and interest in its implementation in gaining momentum with advances in technology and healthcare policy initiatives. Both increasing haemodialysis frequency and treatment time have several potential benefits in improving dialysis efficiency and are ideally placed in the home setting. The paper describes the rationale, current status, controversies, challenges and future avenues for home haemodialysis.

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.

Comparison of physical activity and quality of life in home haemodialysis (HHD) patients versus conventional in-centre haemodialysis (ICHD) patients: the observational, longitudinal, prospective, international, multicentric SeCoIA study protocol

BACKGROUND

Home haemodialysis (HHD), has shown improved clinical outcomes, as well as a better quality of life, compared to conventional in-centre haemodialysis (ICHD) but still has a global low prevalence among end-stage renal disease patients. Haemodialysis (HD) patients tend to be sedentary but only few studies, mainly in North American ICHD patients, have evaluated the level of activity in HD patients.

METHODS

SeCoIA is an observational, longitudinal, prospective, international, multicentric, study, conducted in metropolitan France and Belgium. The main objective of the study is to quantify the physical activity measured by the total daily number of steps, in HHD patients compared to ICHD patients. The SeCoIA study will include 80 HHD patients and 80 ICHD patients,. Secondary objectives will be to characterize the HHD population and to confirm HHD efficiency on clinical parameters, as well as quality of life (QoL), in current practice. Physical activity will be measured by a 3-axis accelerometer. Accelerometers have been shown to provide accurate information, on both physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Patients will be instructed to wear the device and complete a patient diary 7 consecutive days after inclusion and the first week of each month for 12 months. Decision to undergo HDD or ICHD is independent of the study and follow-up frequency remains at the discretion of the physician/centre. QoL and quality of sleep will be respectively assessed by the Kidney Disease Quality of Life 1.2 (KDQOL™) and the Pittsburg Sleep Quality index (PSQI) questionnaires at inclusion, 6- and 12-month visits. Patients presenting a restless leg syndrome (RLS) will also complete the International Restless Legs Syndrome rating scale (IRLS) questionnaire.

DISCUSSION

The SeCoIA study will be the first large cohort study (160 patients) evaluating physical activity, objectively measured with a 3-axis accelerometer, in HHD versus ICHD patients. The present study will also include a comparison of QoL with a focus on RLS between HHD and ICHD. It is anticipated that HHD patients will have an improved physical activity and QoL which should encourage physicians to further promote HHD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trial NCT03737578 study registered on November 9, 2018 (Retrospectively registered).

A longitudinal analysis of the relationship between serum uric acid and residual renal function loss in peritoneal dialysis patients

Background: Hyperuricemia occurs frequently in patients with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). This study aimed to evaluate the impact of serum uric acid (UA) over time on residual renal function (RRF) loss in a cohort of patients with CAPD.Methods: A total of 201 patients who started CAPD therapy between January 1, 2008 and April 30, 2016 were included in this single-center, retrospective cohort study. All patients were followed up until December 31, 2016. The median follow-up time was 23.43 ± 16.60 months. RRF loss was represented as the time to anuria.Results: Eighty-six patients developed anuria within 5 years. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that time-averaged serum UA and peritonitis were independent risk factors for RRF loss, while weekly Kt/V urea was a protective factor. Cox proportional hazard regression models showed that both patients with time-averaged uric acid (TA-UA) < 6.77 mg/dL [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.165, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.054-1.387; p < 0.05] and those with TA-UA≥ 7.64 mg/dL (HR = 1.184, 95% CI 1.045-2.114; p < 0.05) had a higher risk of RRF than those with TA-UA in the range of 6.77-7.64 mg/dL. Penalized spline smoothing also showed a U-shaped relationship between continuous UA and RRF loss.Conclusion: The present study demonstrated that both high and low serum UA over time were associated with RRF loss in patients with CAPD.

Flow balance optimization and fluid removal accuracy with the Quanta SC+ hemodialysis system

BACKGROUND

Fluid management is integral to hemodialysis, both to correct abnormalities in a patient's plasma composition and to maintain fluid balance. Consequently, accurate net fluid removal during treatment is a critical design element of hemodialysis machines. As dialyzers have evolved, with increased ranges of ultrafiltration coefficients available, it has become more challenging for dialysis machines to minimize errors in flow balance and net fluid removal.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This paper describes the design, evaluation and experimental performance of the flow balance and ultrafiltration module of the SC+ system to deliver clinically specified fluid removal with both passive and active control measures, in laboratory conditions designed to simulate a wide range of therapies.

RESULTS

The use of passive and active control allows the errors to be minimized across a wider dynamic range of conditions. For the SC+ system, the average flow balance error was 1 mL/hr with an SD of 19 mL/hr and with ultrafiltration it was 13 mL/hr and an SD of 20 ml/hr across all conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper demonstrates that the SC+ hemodialysis system, a small, simple and versatile CE marked device, operates within the limits required by international standards across a wide range of experimental conditions.

Enhancement of solute clearance using pulsatile push-pull dialysate flow for the Quanta SC+: A novel clinic-to-home haemodialysis system

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The SC+ haemodialysis system developed by Quanta Dialysis Technologies is a small, easy-to-use dialysis system designed to improve patient access to self-care and home haemodialysis. A prototype variant of the standard SC+ device with a modified fluidic management system generating a pulsatile push-pull dialysate flow through the dialyser during use has been developed for evaluation. It was hypothesized that, as a consequence of the pulsatile push-pull flow through the dialyser, the boundary layers at the membrane surface would be disrupted, thereby enhancing solute transport across the membrane, modifying protein fouling and maintaining the surface area available for mass and fluid transport throughout the whole treatment, leading to solute transport (clearance) enhancement compared to normal haemodialysis (HD) operation.

METHODS

The pumping action of the SC+ system was modified by altering the sequence and timings of the valves and pumps associated with the flow balancing chambers that push and pull dialysis fluid to and from the dialyser. Using this unique prototype device, solute clearance performance was assessed across a range of molecular weights in two related series of laboratory bench studies. The first measured dialysis fluid moving across the dialyser membrane using ultrasonic flowmeters to establish the validity of the approach; solute clearance was subsequently measured using fluorescently tagged dextran molecules as surrogates for uraemic toxins. The second study used human blood doped with uraemic toxins collected from the spent dialysate of dialysis patients to quantify solute transport. In both, the performance of the SC+ prototype was assessed alongside reference devices operating in HD and pre-dilution haemodiafiltration (HDF) modes.

RESULTS

Initial testing with fluorescein-tagged dextran molecules (0.3 kDa, 4 kDa, 10 kDa and 20 kDa) established the validity of the experimental pulsatile push-pull operation in the SC+ system to enhance clearance and demonstrated a 10 to 15% improvement above the current HD mode used in clinic today. The magnitude of the observed enhancement compared favourably with that achieved using pre-dilution HDF with a substitution fluid flow rate of 60 mL/min (equivalent to a substitution volume of 14.4 L in a 4-hour session) with the same dialyser and marker molecules. Additional testing using human blood indicated a comparable performance to pre-dilution HDF; however, in contrast with HDF, which demonstrated a gradual decrease in solute removal, the clearance values using the pulsatile push-pull method on the SC+ system were maintained over the entire duration of treatment. Overall albumin losses were not different.

CONCLUSIONS

Results obtained using an experimental pulsatile push-pull dialysis flow configuration with an aqueous blood analogue and human blood ex vivo demonstrate an enhancement of solute transport across the dialyser membrane. The level of enhancement makes this approach comparable with that achieved using pre-dilution HDF with a substitution fluid flow rate of 60 mL/min (equivalent to a substitution volume of 14.4 L in a 4-hour session). The observed enhancement of solute transport is attributed to the disruption of the boundary layers at the fluid-membrane interface which, when used with blood, minimizes protein fouling and maintains the surface area.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Home Dialysis Patients Compared to In-Center Hemodialysis Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Dialysis patients judge health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as an essential outcome. Remarkably, little is known about HRQoL differences between home dialysis and in-center hemodialysis (HD) patients worldwide.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING & STUDY POPULATIONS

Search strategies were performed on the Cochrane Library, Pubmed, and EMBASE databases between 2007 and 2019. Home dialysis was defined as both peritoneal dialysis and home HD.

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES

Randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared HRQoL in home dialysis patients versus in-center HD patients.

DATA EXTRACTION

The data extracted by 2 authors included HRQoL scores of different questionnaires, dialysis modality, and subcontinent.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Data were pooled using a random-effects model and results were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was explored using subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

Forty-six articles reporting on 41 study populations were identified. Most studies were cross-sectional in design (90%), conducted on peritoneal dialysis patients (95%), and used the 12-item or 36-item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaires (83%). More than half the studies showed moderate or high risk of bias. Pooled analysis of 4,158 home dialysis patients and 7,854 in-center HD patients showed marginally better physical HRQoL scores in home dialysis patients compared with in-center HD patients (SMD, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.24), although heterogeneity was high (I 2>80%). In a subgroup analysis, Western European home dialysis patients had higher physical HRQoL scores (SMD, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.61), while home dialysis patients from Latin America had lower physical scores (SMD, -0.20; 95% CI, -0.28 to -0.12). Mental HRQoL showed no difference in all analyses.

LIMITATIONS

No randomized controlled trials were found and high heterogeneity among studies existed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although pooled data showed marginally better physical HRQoL for home dialysis patients, the quality of design of the included studies was poor. Large prospective studies with adequate adjustments for confounders are necessary to establish whether home dialysis results in better HRQoL.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 95985.

Human factors testing of the Quanta SC+ hemodialysis system: An innovative system for home and clinic use

INTRODUCTION

Uptake rates of home hemodialysis are the lowest among all modality types, despite providing patients with clinical and quality of life benefits at a lower cost to providers. Currently, there is a need to develop dialysis systems that are appealing to patients while also being suitable for use across the continuum of care. The SC+ hemodialysis system was developed by Quanta Dialysis Technologies Ltd. to provide patients with a dialysis system that is small, simple to use, and powerful enough to deliver acceptable dialysis adequacy.

METHODS

As part of the SC+ design validation, human factors testing was performed with 17 Healthcare Professionals (nephrology nurses and healthcare assistants) and 15 Home Users (patients and caregivers). To assess usability and safety, the human factors testing involved between 4.5 and 6 hours of training and, after a period of training decay, a subsequent test session in which participants independently performed tasks on SC+.

FINDINGS

Between the two user groups, there were only 29 errors observed out of 1216 opportunities for errors, despite minimal training. Errors that did occur were minor and attributed to an initial lack of familiarity with the device; none were safety related.

DISCUSSION

Among prevalent dialysis patients and healthcare professionals, the SC+ hemodialysis system was easy to use, even with minimal training and a learning decay period, and had a high level of use safety. By taking into account human factors to optimize the user experience, SC+ has the potential to address systemic and patient barriers, allowing for wider self-care and home hemodialysis adoption.