A systematic review of the effect of nocturnal hemodialysis on blood pressure, left ventricular hypertrophy, anemia, mineral metabolism, and health-related quality of life

BACKGROUND

Nocturnal hemodialysis is a novel form of dialysis where patients perform dialysis 6 nights per week while they sleep. Multiple publications report significant improvements in selected clinical outcomes, although the strength of these results is limited by shortcomings in study design. A systematic review of the current available literature was undertaken to examine the effect of nocturnal hemodialysis on key health outcomes.

METHODS

An inclusive search of medical databases was undertaken to identify all nocturnal hemodialysis studies. These results were manually reviewed for relevance to nocturnal hemodialysis and its impact on the following predefined health outcomes: blood pressure control, left ventricular hypertrophy, anemia, mineral metabolism, and health related quality of life. Case reports, short-term studies (<4 weeks), studies without comparator groups, and studies not reporting data in a quantitative fashion were excluded. The results of the remaining studies were reported in tabular format.

RESULTS

Of the initial 270 studies identified, only 14 met inclusion/exclusion criteria. No studies examining the impact of nocturnal hemodialysis on mortality were identified. All studies reported improved blood pressure control after conversion to nocturnal hemodialysis. Data regarding the other health outcomes of interest revealed mixed results.

CONCLUSION

Nocturnal hemodialysis is a potential alternative to conventional intermittent hemodialysis. Before significant resources are invested in initiating nocturnal hemodialysis programs, further data on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity, preferably from randomized clinical trials, are required.

The quality of life and cost utility of home nocturnal and conventional in-center hemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Home nocturnal hemodialysis is an intensive form of hemodialysis, where patients perform their treatments at home for about 7 hours approximately 6 nights a week. Compared with in-center conventional hemodialysis, home nocturnal hemodialysis has been shown to improve physiologic parameters and reduce health care costs; however, the effects on quality of life and cost utility are less clear. We hypothesized that individuals performing home nocturnal hemodialysis would have a higher quality of life and superior cost utility than in-center hemodialysis patients.

METHODS

Home nocturnal hemodialysis patients and a demographically similar group of in-center hemodialysis patients from a hospital without a home hemodialysis program underwent computer-assisted interviews to assess their utility score for current health by the standard gamble method.

RESULTS

Nineteen in-center hemodialysis and 24 home nocturnal hemodialysis patients were interviewed. Mean annual costs for home nocturnal hemodialysis were about 10,000 dollars lower for home nocturnal hemodialysis (55,139 dollars +/- 7651 dollars for home nocturnal hemodialysis vs. 66,367 dollars +/- 17,502 dollars for in-center hemodialysis, P = 0.03). Home nocturnal hemodialysis was associated with a higher utility score than in-center hemodialysis (0.77 +/- 0.23 vs. 0.53 +/- 0.35, P = 0.03). The cost utility for home nocturnal hemodialysis was 71,443 dollars/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), while for in-center hemodialysis it was 125,845 dollars/QALY. Home nocturnal hemodialysis was the dominant strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -45,932 dollars. The 95% CI for the ICER, and 2500 bootstrap iterations of the ICER all fell below the cost-effectiveness ceiling of 50,000 dollars. The net monetary benefit of home nocturnal hemodialysis ranged from 11,227 dollars to 35,669 dollars.

CONCLUSION

Home nocturnal hemodialysis is associated with a higher quality of life and a superior cost utility when compared to in-center hemodialysis.

A time for rediscovery: chronic hemofiltration for end-stage renal disease

Provision of maintenance renal replacement therapy (MRRT) is becoming increasingly challenging. The number of patients requiring MRRT is growing rapidly, while the number of nephrologists, nurses, and other staff available to provide therapy is not increasing at a similar rate. Patients are now older and have more comorbid conditions, which magnifies the complexity of their RRT and makes it increasingly difficult to maintain the quality of care within the limitations of constrained economic resources. The two most commonly used MRRTs are hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD). A third modality of MRRT, hemofiltration, is not currently in widespread use in North America. In hemofiltration, plasma is filtered through a highly permeable, biocompatible synthetic membrane and waste products are removed by convection and solvent drag as the filtrate moves across the membrane. Hemofiltration equipment constantly monitors the rate of plasma removal and administers a sterile, nonpyrogenic replacement solution at an appropriate rate to replace the waste-laden ultrafiltrate and avoid vdume depletion in the patient. Hemofiltration may offer some potential clinical advantages to the MRRT patient, including better hemodynamic and cardiovascular stability, enhanced removal of middle molecular weight toxins, increased comfort, and therapy preference. Some reports indicate possible reduced morbidity and mortality and reduced risk of bacterial contamination and inflammation as a result of the use of sterile, ultrapure replacement fluids. Chronic hemofiltration is a relatively simple MRRT option that may offer significant benefits for many patients who have end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and deserves closer consideration for these patients.

Cost savings of home nocturnal versus conventional in-center hemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Home nocturnal hemodialysis (HNHD) can improve clinical and biochemical factors in people with renal failure, but its cost-effectiveness relative to conventional in-center hemodialysis (IHD) is uncertain. We hypothesized that HNHD would provide more dialysis treatments at a lower total cost than IHD.

METHODS

A prospective one-year descriptive costing study was performed at two centers in Toronto, Canada, involving patients enrolled from a HNHD program (N = 33), and a matched cohort from an IHD program (N = 23). All costs are expressed as mean weekly amount in Canadian year 2000 dollars. A projected mean annual cost (PMA) was calculated also.

RESULTS

The mean number of treatments per week was much higher with HNHD (5.7 vs. 3.0, P = 0.004). Cost categories found to be less expensive for HNHD were staffing (weekly $210 vs. $423, P < 0.001, PMA $10,932 vs. $22,056) and overhead and support (weekly $80 vs. $238, P < 0.001, PMA $4179 vs. $12,393). There was a trend toward lower costs for hospital admissions and procedures (weekly $23 vs. $134, P = 0.355, PMA $1173 vs. $6997) and for medications ($172 vs. $231, P = 0.082, PMA $8989 vs. $12,029). Costs found to be more expensive for HNHD were the cost of direct hemodialysis materials (weekly $318 vs. $126, P < 0.001, PMA $16,587 vs. $6575) and capital costs (weekly $118 vs. $17, P < 0.001, PMA $6139 vs. $871), with a trend toward higher cost for laboratory tests (weekly $33 vs. $26, P = 0.094, PMA $1744 vs. $1364). Physician costs were the same at $128 per week (PMA $6650). The weekly mean total cost for health care delivery was 20% less for HNHD ($1082 vs. $1322, P = 0.006), with projected mean annual costs more than $10,000 lower ($56,394 vs. $68,935).

CONCLUSIONS

HNHD provides about three times as many treatment hours at nearly a one-fifth lower cost, with savings evident even when only program and funding-specific costs are considered.