Home-to-home dialysis transition: A 24-year single-centre experience

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.

Personalized peritoneal dialysis prescription-beyond clinical or analytical values

Traditionally, dialysis adequacy has been assessed primarily by determining the clearance of a single small solute, urea. Nevertheless, it has become increasingly evident that numerous other factors play a crucial role in the overall well-being, outcomes and quality of life of dialysis patients. Consequently, in recent years, there has been a notable paradigm shift in guidelines and recommendations regarding dialysis adequacy. This shift represents a departure from a narrow focus only on the removal of specific toxins, embracing a more holistic, person-centered approach. This new perspective underscores the critical importance of improving the well-being of individuals undergoing dialysis while simultaneously minimizing the overall treatment burden. It is based on a double focus on both clinical outcomes and a comprehensive patient experience. To achieve this, a person-centered approach must be embraced when devising care strategies for each individual. This requires a close collaboration between the healthcare team and the patient, facilitating an in-depth understanding of the patient's unique goals, priorities and preferences while striving for the highest quality of care during treatment. The aim of this publication is to address the existing evidence on this all-encompassing approach to treatment care for patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis and provide a concise overview to promote a deeper understanding of this person-centered approach.

Systems Innovations to Increase Home Dialysis Utilization

Globally, there is an interest to increase home dialysis utilization. The most recent United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data report that 13.3% of incident dialysis patients in the United States are started on home dialysis, while most patients continue to initiate KRT with in-center hemodialysis. To effect meaningful change, a multifaceted innovative approach will be needed to substantially increase the use of home dialysis. Patient and provider education is the first step to enhance home dialysis knowledge awareness. Ideally, one should maximize the number of patients with CKD stage 5 transitioning to home therapies. If this is not possible, infrastructures including transitional dialysis units and community dialysis houses may help patients increase self-care efficacy and eventually transition care to home. From a policy perspective, adopting a home dialysis preference mandate and providing financial support to recuperate increased costs for patients and providers have led to higher uptake in home dialysis. Finally, respite care and planned home-to-home transitions can reduce the incidence of transitioning to in-center hemodialysis. We speculate that an ecosystem of complementary system innovations is needed to cause a sufficient change in patient and provider behavior, which will ultimately modify overall home dialysis utilization.

Predicting transfer to haemodialysis using the peritoneal dialysis surprise question

BACKGROUND

People on peritoneal dialysis (PD) at risk of transfer to haemodialysis (HD) need support to remain on PD or ensure a safe transition to HD. Simple point-of-care risk stratification tools are needed to direct limited dialysis centre resources. In this study, we evaluated the utility of collecting clinicians' identification of patients at high risk of transfer to HD using a single point of care question.

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, we included 1275 patients undergoing PD in 35 home dialysis programmes. We modified the palliative care 'surprise question' (SQ) by asking the registered nurse and treating nephrologist: 'Would you be surprised if this patient transferred to HD in the next six months?' A 'yes' or 'no' answer indicated low and high risk, respectively. We subsequently followed patient outcomes for 6 months. Cox regression model estimated the hazard ratio (HR) of transfer to HD.

RESULTS

Patients' mean age was 59 ± 16 years, 41% were female and the median PD vintage was 20 months (interquartile range: 9-40). Responses were received from nurses for 1123 patients, indicating 169 (15%) as high risk and 954 (85%) as low risk. Over the next 6 months, transfer to HD occurred in 18 (11%) versus 29 (3%) of the high and low-risk groups, respectively (HR: 3.92, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.17-7.05). Nephrologist responses were obtained for 692 patients, with 118 (17%) and 574 (83%) identified as high and low risk, respectively. Transfer to HD was observed in 14 (12%) of the high-risk group and 14 (2%) of the low-risk group (HR: 5.56, 95% CI: 2.65-11.67). Patients in the high-risk group experienced higher rates of death and hospitalisation than low-risk patients, with peritonitis events being similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The PDSQ is a simple point of care tool that can help identify patients at high risk of transfer to HD and other poor clinical outcomes.

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.

Peritoneal dialysis discontinuation: to the root of the problem

As the global burden of chronic kidney disease continues to increase, the use of peritoneal dialysis is often advocated as the preferred initial dialysis modality. Observational studies suggest a survival advantage for peritoneal dialysis over hemodialysis for the initial 2-3 years of dialysis. Peritoneal dialysis has been associated with better graft survival after kidney transplantation and has a reduced cost burden compared to hemodialysis. However, several medical and non-medical reasons may limit access to peritoneal dialysis, and less than 20% of patients with end-stage kidney disease are treated with peritoneal dialysis worldwide. In this narrative review, we sought to summarize the recent medical literature on risk factors for peritoneal dialysis discontinuation, distinguishing the early and the late phase after peritoneal dialysis initiation. Although the definition of clinically relevant outcomes varies among studies, we observed that center size, older age, and the presence of many comorbidities are risk factors associated with peritoneal dialysis discontinuation, regardless of the phase after peritoneal dialysis initiation. On the contrary, poor technique training and late referral to nephrology care, as opposed to the need for a caregiver, patient burnout and frequent hospitalizations, are related to early and late peritoneal dialysis drop-out, respectively. The aim of the review is to provide an overview of the most relevant parameters to be considered when advising patients in the selection of the most appropriate dialysis modality and in the clinical management of peritoneal dialysis patients. In addition, we wish to provide the readers with a critical appraisal of current literature and a call for a consensus on the definition of clinically relevant outcomes in peritoneal dialysis to better address patients' needs.

Home dialysis: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference

Home dialysis modalities (home hemodialysis [HD] and peritoneal dialysis [PD]) are associated with greater patient autonomy and treatment satisfaction compared with in-center modalities, yet the level of home-dialysis use worldwide is low. Reasons for limited utilization are context-dependent, informed by local resources, dialysis costs, access to healthcare, health system policies, provider bias or preferences, cultural beliefs, individual lifestyle concerns, potential care-partner time, and financial burdens. In May 2021, KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) convened a controversies conference on home dialysis, focusing on how modality choice and distribution are determined and strategies to expand home-dialysis use. Participants recognized that expanding use of home dialysis within a given health system requires alignment of policy, fiscal resources, organizational structure, provider incentives, and accountability. Clinical outcomes across all dialysis modalities are largely similar, but for specific clinical measures, one modality may have advantages over another. Therefore, choice among available modalities is preference-sensitive, with consideration of quality of life, life goals, clinical characteristics, family or care-partner support, and living environment. Ideally, individuals, their care-partners, and their healthcare teams will employ shared decision-making in assessing initial and subsequent kidney failure treatment options. To meet this goal, iterative, high-quality education and support for healthcare professionals, patients, and care-partners are priorities. Everyone who faces dialysis should have access to home therapy. Facilitating universal access to home dialysis and expanding utilization requires alignment of policy considerations and resources at the dialysis-center level, with clear leadership from informed and motivated clinical teams.

Managing Transition between dialysis modalities: a call for Integrated care In Dialysis Units

Summary Patients with chronic kidney disease have three main possible groups of dialysis techniques: in-center hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and home hemodialysis. Home dialysis techniques have been associated with clinical outcomes that are equivalent and sometimes superior to those of in-center hemodialysisTransitions between treatment modalities are crucial moments. Transition periods are known as periods of disruption in the patient’s life associated with major complications, greater vulnerability, greater mortality, and direct implications for quality of life. Currently, it is imperative to offer a personalized treatment adapted to the patient and adjusted over time.An integrated treatment unit with all dialysis treatments and a multidisciplinary team can improve results by establishing a life plan, promoting health education, medical and psychosocial stabilization, and the reinforcement of health self-care. These units will result in gains for the patient’s journey and will encourage home treatments and better transitions.Peritoneal dialysis as the initial treatment modality seems appropriate for many reasons and the limitations of the technique are largely overcome by the advantages (namely autonomy, preservation of veins, and preservation of residual renal function).The transition after peritoneal dialysis can (and should) be carried out with the primacy of home treatments. Assisted dialysis must be considered and countries must organize themselves to provide an assisted dialysis program with paid caregivers.The anticipation of the transition is essential to improve outcomes, although there are no predictive models that have high accuracy; this is particularly important in the transition to hemodialysis (at home or in-center) in order to plan autologous access that allows a smooth transition.

Transitions between dialysis modalities

Thanks to the progress of dialysis, survival of patients with end-stage renal disease is increasing. For those patients who cannot benefit from a kidney transplantation, several dialysis alternatives exist, but the transition between dialysis techniques may be difficult. Home dialysis offers many advantages but requires personal commitment from the patients and the caregivers. How can we ensure smooth transitioning to the best dialysis technique at the right time for the right person? One of the main caveats of peritoneal dialysis is its limited technique survival, however, it combines the advantages of preserving residual kidney function, avoiding the need for a vascular access, or preserving it, when present, while providing good cost-effectiveness. On the other hand, home hemodialysis has excellent long-term technique survival. The home integrated model of peritoneal dialysis followed by home hemodialysis has been described as the ideal pathway of care. Eventually, in-center hemodialysis can be provided according to several schedules to adapt to the needs of the patients. The issue of technique survival and the possible need to switch to another technique should be part of the initial discussion, when the patient needs to choose the first dialysis modality. Unplanned transfers are associated with poor outcomes and unwanted shifts to in-center hemodialysis. Therefore, transfers from home-based techniques should be anticipated as much as possible in order to establish a shared decision modality process and to choose the desired new modality. Dialysis units dedicated to "transition care" should answer the needs of patients and smooth the transition process between dialysis modalities.

Mortality Trends after Transfer from Peritoneal Dialysis to Hemodialysis

Introduction

Transition to hemodialysis (HD) is a common outcome in peritoneal dialysis (PD), but the associated mortality risk is poorly understood. This study sought to identify rates of and risk factors for mortality after transitioning from PD to HD.

Methods

Patients with incident PD (between 2000 and 2014) who transferred to HD for ≥1 day were identified, using data from Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplantation registry (ANZDATA), Canadian Organ Replacement Register (CORR), Europe Renal Association (ERA) Registry, and the United States Renal Dialysis System (USRDS). Crude mortality rates were calculated for the first 180 days after transfer. Separate multivariable Cox models were built for early (<90 days), medium (90–180 days), and late (>180 days) periods after transfer.

Results

Overall, 6683, 5847, 21,574, and 80,459 patients were included from ANZDATA, CORR, ERA Registry, and USRDS, respectively. In all registries, crude mortality rate was highest during the first 30 days after a transfer to HD declining thereafter to nadir at 4 to 6 months. Crude mortality rates were lower for patients transferring in the most recent years (than earlier). Older age, PD initiation in earlier cohorts, and longer PD vintage were associated with increased risk of death, with the strongest associations during the first 90 days after transfer and attenuating thereafter. Mortality risk was lower for men than women <90 days after transfer, but higher after 180 days.

Conclusion

In this multinational study, mortality was highest in the first month after a transfer from PD to HD and risk factors varied by time period after transfer. This study highlights the vulnerability of patients at the time of modality transfer and the need to improve transitions.