Optimization of Dialysis Modality Transitions for Improved Patient Care

Risk factors and outcomes in patients who switched from peritoneal dialysis to physician-oriented or patient-oriented kidney replacement therapy

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare the cardiovascular events and mortality in patients who underwent either physician-oriented or patient-oriented kidney replacement therapy (KRT) conversion due to discontinuation of peritoneal dialysis (PD).

METHODS

Patients with end-stage kidney disease who were receiving PD and required a switch to an alternative KRT were included. They were divided into physician-oriented group or patient-oriented group based on the decision-making process. Logistic regression analysis was used to explore the influencing factors related to KRT conversion in PD patients. The association of physician-oriented or patient-oriented KRT conversion with outcomes after the conversion was assessed by using Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

A total of 257 PD patients were included in the study. The median age at catheterization was 35 years. 69.6% of the participants were male. The median duration of PD was 20 months. 162 participants had patient-oriented KRT conversion, while 95 had physician-oriented KRT conversion. Younger patients, those with higher education levels, higher income, and no diabetes were more likely to have patient-oriented KRT conversion. Over a median follow-up of 39 months, 40 patients experienced cardiovascular events and 16 patients died. Physician-oriented KRT conversion increased nearly 3.8-fold and 4.0-fold risk of cardiovascular events and death, respectively. After adjusting for confounders, physician-oriented KRT conversion remained about a 3-fold risk of cardiovascular events.

CONCLUSION

Compared to patient-oriented KRT conversion, PD patients who underwent physician-oriented conversion had higher risks of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. Factors included age at catheterization, education level, annual household income, and history of diabetes mellitus.

The integrated care model: facilitating initiation of or transition to home dialysis

A proportion of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients require kidney replacement therapy to maintain clinical stability. Home dialysis therapies offer convenience, autonomy and potential quality of life improvements, all of which were heightened during the COVID-19 pandemic. While the superiority of specific modalities remains uncertain, patient choice and informed decision-making remain crucial. Missed opportunities for home therapies arise from systemic, programmatic and patient-level barriers. This paper introduces the integrated care model which prioritizes the safe and effective uptake of home therapies while also emphasizing patient-centered care, informed decision-making, and comprehensive support. The integrated care framework addresses challenges in patient identification, assessment, eligibility determination, education and modality transitions. Special considerations for urgent dialysis starts are discussed, acknowledging the unique barriers faced by this population. Continuous quality improvement is emphasized, with the understanding that local challenges may require tailored solutions. Overall, the integrated care model aims to create a seamless and beneficial transition to home dialysis therapies, promoting flexibility and improved quality of life for ESKD patients globally.

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.

Rate and reasons for peritoneal dialysis dropout following haemodialysis to peritoneal dialysis switch: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patient experiences and survival outcomes can be influenced by the circumstances related to dialysis initiation and subsequent modality choices. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore the rate and reasons for peritoneal dialysis (PD) dropout following haemodialysis (HD) to PD switch.

METHOD

This systematic review conducted searches in four databases, including Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (study ID: CRD42023405718). Outcomes included factors leading to the switch from HD to PD, the rate and reasons for PD dropout and mortality difference in two groups (PD first group versus HD to PD group). The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist and the GRADE tool were used to assess quality.

RESULTS

4971 papers were detected, and 13 studies were included. On meta-analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in PD dropout in the PD first group (OR: 0.81; 95%CI: 0.61, 1.09; I2 = 83%; P = 0.16), however, there was a statistically significant reduction in the rate of mortality (OR: 0.48; 95%CI: 0.25, 0.92; I2 = 73%; P = 0.03) compared to the HD to PD group. The primary reasons for HD to PD switch, included vascular access failure, patient preference, social issues, and cardiovascular disease. Causes for PD dropout differed between the two groups, but inadequate dialysis and peritonitis were the main reasons for PD dropout in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared to the PD first group, a previous HD history may not impact PD dropout rates for patients, but it could impact mortality in the HD to PD group. The reasons for PD dropout differed between the two groups, with no statistical differences. Psychosocial reasons for PD dropout are valuable to further research. Additionally, establishing a consensus on the definition of PD dropout is crucial for future studies.

The Burden of Home Dialysis: An Overlooked Challenge

Home dialysis offers several clinical and quality-of-life benefits for patients with kidney failure. However, it is important to recognize that home dialysis may place an increased burden on patients and their care partners. Sources of burden may include concerns about the ability to adequately and safely perform dialysis at home, physical symptoms, impairment of life participation, psychosocial challenges, and care partner burnout. Overlooking or failing to address these issues may lead to adverse events that negatively affect health and quality of life and reduce longevity of home dialysis. This study will explore aspects of home dialysis associated with burden, emphasize the need for increased awareness of potential challenges, and elaborate on strategies to overcome sources of burden. Future research should actively involve patients and care partners to better understand their motivation, experiences, and needs to better inform support strategies.

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.

Health related quality of life during dialysis modality transitions: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Modality transitions represent a period of significant change that can impact health related quality of life (HRQoL). We explored the HRQoL of adults transitioning to new or different dialysis modalities.

METHODS

We recruited eligible adults (≥ 18) transitioning to dialysis from pre-dialysis or undertaking a dialysis modality change between July and September 2017. Nineteen participants (9 incident and 10 prevalent dialysis patients) completed the KDQOL-36 survey at time of transition and three months later. Fifteen participants undertook a semi-structured interview at three months. Qualitative data were thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Four themes and five sub-themes were identified: adapting to new circumstances (tackling change, accepting change), adjusting together, trading off, and challenges of chronicity (the impact of dialysis, living with a complex disease, planning with uncertainty). From the first day of dialysis treatment to the third month on a new dialysis therapy, all five HRQoL domains from the KDQOL-36 (symptoms, effects, burden, overall PCS, and overall MCS) improved in our sample (i.e., those who remained on the modality).

CONCLUSIONS

Dialysis transitions negatively impact the HRQoL of people with kidney disease in various ways. Future work should focus on how to best support people during this time.

Value of an Integrated Home Dialysis Model in the United Kingdom: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine the lifetime cost-effectiveness of increasing home hemodialysis as a treatment option for patients experiencing peritoneal dialysis technique failure compared with the current standard of care.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to assess the lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and cost-effectiveness of increasing the usage an integrated home dialysis model compared with the current patient pathways in the United Kingdom. A secondary analysis was conducted including only the cost difference in treatments, minimizing the impact of the high cost of dialysis during life-years gained. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed, including analyses from a societal rather than a National Health Service perspective.

RESULTS

The base-case probabilistic analysis was associated with incremental costs of £3413 and a quality-adjusted life-year of 0.09, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £36 341. The secondary analysis found the integrated home dialysis model to be dominant. Conclusions on cost-effectiveness did not change under the societal perspective in either analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The base-case analysis found that an integrated home dialysis model compared with current patient pathways is likely not cost-effective. These results were primarily driven by the high baseline costs of dialysis during life-years gained by patients receiving home hemodialysis. When excluding baseline dialysis-related treatment costs, the integrated home dialysis model was dominant. New strategies in kidney care patient pathway management should be explored because, under the assumption that dialysis should be funded, the results provide cost-effectiveness evidence for an integrated home dialysis model.

Choice of the Dialysis Modality: Practical Considerations

Chronic kidney disease and the need for kidney replacement therapy have increased dramatically in recent decades. Forecasts for the coming years predict an even greater increase, especially in low- and middle-income countries, due to the rise in metabolic and cardiovascular diseases and the aging population. Access to kidney replacement treatments may not be available to all patients, making it especially strategic to set up therapy programs that can ensure the best possible treatment for the greatest number of patients. The choice of the "ideal" kidney replacement therapy often conflicts with medical availability and the patient's tolerance. This paper discusses the pros and cons of various kidney replacement therapy options and their real-world applicability limits.

A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of renal replacement therapies, and consequences for decision-making in the end-stage renal disease treatment pathway

OBJECTIVES

Comparative economic assessments of renal replacement therapies (RRT) are common and often used to inform national policy in the management of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). This study aimed to assess existing cost-effectiveness analyses of dialysis modalities and consider whether the methods applied and results obtained reflect the complexities of the real-world treatment pathway experienced by ESRD patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify cost-effectiveness studies of dialysis modalities from 2005 onward by searching Embase, MEDLINE, EBM reviews, and EconLit. Economic evaluations were included if they compared distinct dialysis modalities (e.g. in-centre haemodialysis [ICHD], home haemodialysis [HHD] and peritoneal dialysis [PD]).

RESULTS

In total, 19 cost-effectiveness studies were identified. There was considerable heterogeneity in perspectives, time horizon, discounting, utility values, sources of clinical and economic data, and extent of clinical and economic elements included. The vast majority of studies included an incident dialysis patient population. All studies concluded that home dialysis treatment options were cost-effective interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite similar findings across studies, there are a number of uncertainties about which dialysis modalities represent the most cost-effective options for patients at different points in the care pathway. Most studies included an incident patient cohort; however, in clinical practice, patients may switch between different treatment modalities over time according to their clinical need and personal circumstances. Promoting health policies through financial incentives in renal care should reflect the cost-effectiveness of a comprehensive approach that considers different RRTs along the patient pathway; however, no such evidence is currently available.

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.

Switch from Hemodialysis to Peritoneal Dialysis: Does the Time Spent on Hemodialysis Impact Outcomes in Peritoneal Dialysis?

INTRODUCTION

Switch from hemodialysis (HD) to peritoneal dialysis (PD) is unfrequent, but incentive strategies to perform PD can lead to an increase of these transitions. However, data on transitioning from HD to PD are scarce. We hypothesized that time spent on HD before transfer to PD would impact PD outcomes.

METHODS

This registry-based, nationwide study analyzed patients transferred from HD to PD. Patients who began HD between January 2008 and December 2016 were included. Cox and Fine and Gray regression models were used to explore the relationship between time spent on HD before PD and outcomes in PD: PD cessation for death or retransfer to HD (composite endpoint); for death; and for retransfer to HD.

RESULTS

Over the study period, 1,985 of the 77,587 HD starters (3%) were transferred to PD. The median time spent on HD before transfer to PD was 1.94 months (interquartile range [IQR] 1.02-4.01). The median survival time on PD after this transition was 20 months (IQR 18-21). Time spent on HD before PD was associated with increased risk of death or retransfer to HD (cause-specific hazard ratio [cs-HR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1-1.02 for a 1-month increase) and death (cs-HR 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.03) but not with retransfer to HD censored on death (cs-HR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.99-1.01). The results were similar when considering competing events.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

Switch from HD to PD is rare in France. Time spent on HD before transfer is associated with patient survival but not with retransfer to HD.

Variation in Peritoneal Dialysis Time on Therapy by Country: Results from the Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Quantifying contemporary peritoneal dialysis time on therapy is important for patients and providers. We describe time on peritoneal dialysis in the context of outcomes of hemodialysis transfer, death, and kidney transplantation on the basis of the multinational, observational Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (PDOPPS) from 2014 to 2017.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Among 218 randomly selected peritoneal dialysis facilities (7121 patients) in the PDOPPS from Australia/New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, we calculated the cumulative incidence from peritoneal dialysis start to hemodialysis transfer, death, or kidney transplantation over 5 years and adjusted hazard ratios for patient and facility factors associated with death and hemodialysis transfer.

RESULTS

Median time on peritoneal dialysis ranged from 1.7 (interquartile range, 0.8-2.9; the United Kingdom) to 3.2 (interquartile range, 1.5-6.0; Japan) years and was longer with lower kidney transplantation rates (range: 32% [the United Kingdom] to 2% [Japan and Thailand] over 3 years). Adjusted hemodialysis transfer risk was lowest in Thailand, but death risk was higher in Thailand and the United States compared with most countries. Infection was the leading cause of hemodialysis transfer, with higher hemodialysis transfer risks seen in patients having psychiatric disorder history or elevated body mass index. The proportion of patients with total weekly Kt/V ≥1.7 at a facility was not associated with death or hemodialysis transfer.

CONCLUSIONS

Countries in the PDOPPS with higher rates of kidney transplantation tended to have shorter median times on peritoneal dialysis. Identification of infection as a leading cause of hemodialysis transfer and patient and facility factors associated with the risk of hemodialysis transfer can facilitate interventions to reduce these events.

PODCAST

This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2022_05_31_CJN16341221.mp3.

Characteristics, practices, and outcomes in a Belgian cohort of incident home hemodialysis patients: A 6-year experience

BACKGROUND

Home hemodialysis (HHD) remains underused in patients with kidney failure. Current literature on HHD mostly originates from non-European countries, making generalization difficult. The present study describes patients' profile and practice patterns from a Belgian HHD center, and assesses patient and technique survival and complications associated with HHD.

METHODS

We analyzed data from all our incident patients during a 6-year period. The patient's characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Transition to another therapeutic modality, estimated using a risk model with death and transplantation as competing events, episodes of respite cares and hospitalizations, and access complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

Eighty patients (mean age: 47 years; male: 64%) met the inclusion criteria. Fifty-one percent of patients initiated dialysis with a central venous catheter (CVC) and 96% were not assisted. Arterio-venous fistula (AVF) cannulation was performed using buttonhole technique. Standard-frequent HD (47%) and short-frequent low-flow dialysate HD (34%) were mostly used at HHD initiation. Cumulative incidences of technique failure and death were 15%, 24%, and 32% at 1, 2, and 5 years. Incidence rates for respite dialysis and hospitalizations were 2.39 and 0.54 per patient-year of HHD. In comparison with AVF, incidence rate ratios of overall access complications and access-related infections for CVC were 4.3 (95% CI: 3.1-6, p < 0.01) and 4.4 (95% CI: 2.1-10, p < 0.01), respectively. Buttonhole cannulation was complicated by 0.26 (95% CI: 0.15-0.46) infections per 1000 AVF-days.

CONCLUSIONS

This present study provides important information about patient's profile and practice patterns and safety in a cohort of 80 incident Belgian HHD patients, with encouraging techniques and patient survival.

Survival comparisons in home hemodialysis: Understanding the present and looking to the future

A number of studies have compared relative survival for home hemodialysis patients (including longer hours/more frequent schedules) and other forms of renal replacement therapy. While informative, many of these studies have been limited by issues pertaining to their observational design including selection bias and residual confounding. Furthermore the few randomized controlled trials that have been conducted have been underpowered to detect a survival difference. Finally, in the face of a growing recognition of the value of patient-important outcomes beyond survival, the focus of comparisons between dialysis modalities may be changing. In this review, we will discuss the determinants of survival for patients receiving home hemodialysis and address the various studies that have compared relative survival for differing home hemodialysis schedules to each of in-center hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis and transplantation. We will conclude this review by discussing whether there is an ongoing role for survival analyses in home hemodialysis.

Physical Infrastructure and Integrated Governance Structure for Home Hemodialysis

In view of the growing enthusiasm for home dialysis use, new dialysis centers may build or expend their home hemodialysis program in the next few years. This review will discuss the main challenges faced by small and large home hemodialysis programs in terms of physical spaces, human resource, training considerations, and overall governance. We will elaborate on the inclusion of home hemodialysis in the kidney replacement therapy care continuum, with a specific interest for collaboration and transition between peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis programs.

Quantifying Missed Opportunities for Recruitment to Home Dialysis Therapies

Background:

Despite the recognized benefits of home therapies for patients and the health care system, most individuals with kidney failure in Canada continue to be initiated on in-center hemodialysis. To optimize recruitment to home therapies, there is a need for programs to better understand the extent to which potential candidates are not successfully initiated on these therapies.

Objective:

We aimed to quantify missed opportunities to recruit patients to home therapies and explore where in the modality selection process this occurs.

Design:

Retrospective observational study.

Setting:

British Columbia, Canada.

Patients:

All patients aged >18 years who started chronic dialysis in British Columbia between January 01, 2015, and December 31, 2017. The sample was further restricted to include patients who received at least 3 months of predialysis care. All patients were followed for a minimum of 12 months from the start of dialysis to capture any transition to home therapies.

Methods:

Cases were defined as a “missed opportunity” if a patient had chosen a home therapy, or remained undecided about their preferred modality, and ultimately received in-center hemodialysis as their destination therapy. These cases were assessed for: (1) documentation of a contraindication to home therapies; and (2) the type of dialysis education received. Differences in characteristics among patients classified as an appropriate outcome or a missed opportunity were examined using Wilcoxon rank-sum test or χ² test, as appropriate.

Results:

Of the 1845 patients who started chronic dialysis during the study period, 635 (34%) were initiated on a home therapy. A total of 320 (17.3%) missed opportunities were identified, with 165 (8.9%) having initially chosen a home therapy and 155 (8.4%) being undecided about their preferred modality. Compared with patients who chose and initiated or transitioned to a home therapy, those identified as a missed opportunity tended to be older with a higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease. A contraindication to both peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis was documented in 8 “missed opportunity” patients. General modality orientation was provided to most (71%) patients who had initially chosen a home therapy but who ultimately received in-center hemodialysis. These patients received less home therapy–specific education compared with patients who chose and subsequently started a home therapy (20% vs 35%, P < .001).

Limitations:

Contraindications to home therapies were potentially under-ascertained, and the nature of contraindications was not systematically captured.

Conclusions:

Even within a mature home therapy program, we discovered a substantial number of missed opportunities to recruit patients to home therapies. Better characterization of modality contraindications and enhanced education that is specific to home therapies may be of benefit. Mapping the recruitment pathway in this way can define the magnitude of missed opportunities and identify areas that could be optimized. This is to be encouraged, as even small incremental improvements in the uptake of home therapies could lead to better patient outcomes and contribute to significant cost savings for the health care system.

Trial Registration:

Not applicable as this was a qualitative study.

Barriers to Peritoneal Dialysis in Saskatchewan Canada: Results From a Province-Wide Survey

Background:

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an underutilized, therapeutic option to in-center hemodialysis (HD), given its similar survival and clinical efficacy but provides lifestyle benefits and cost savings. Despite these advantages, PD prevalence rates remains below 20% in many Canadian jurisdictions.

Objectives:

The primary objective of this study was to identify and assess patient-perceived barriers to PD implementation in Saskatchewan. The secondary objectives were to examine variations in patient-perceived barriers to PD by dialysis units (main dialysis units vs satellite dialysis units) and specific challenges faced by First Nation patients residing on reserves.

Design:

A cross-sectional observational survey study.

Setting:

Two major centers (Regina and Saskatoon) and 5 associated satellite units attached to each center across the province of Saskatchewan.

Patients:

We approached all prevalent in-center HD patients across Saskatchewan, 366 (49%) agreed to participate in the study.

Measurements:

Self-reported barriers to PD were assessed using a 26-question survey which was created after engagement of our multidisciplinary team.

Methods:

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 740 prevalent in-center HD patients within the province of Saskatchewan, Canada, from June 2018 to January 2019. Around 366 (49%) patients agreed to participate in the study. The questionnaire was designed to capture patients’ perceived barriers to PD. Descriptive statistics were used to present the data. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to compare the patients’ responses (main dialysis units vs satellite dialysis units, and First Nation reserves vs nonreserves).

Results:

Of the 366 patients who completed the survey, 284 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. Patient-reported satisfaction with current in-center HD care was the most common barrier to PD uptake (92%), followed by proximity to their HD unit (61%). A lack of understanding of the benefits/risks of PD, fear of family burden (54% each), and unwillingness to dialyze daily and to learn a new technique (51% each) were additional factors. Patients residing on reserves compared to nonreserve residents felt PD had a higher risk of infection compared to HD (54% vs 34%, P = .005), and felt PD led to suboptimal care (47% vs 31%, P = .021).

Limitations:

We used a nonstandardized locally derived questionnaire to quantify barriers, and this prevents inclusion of additional barriers than individual patients may consider important. Cross-sectional data can only be used as a snapshot. Only 366 patients agreed to participate, and the results cannot be generalized to 740 prevalent HD patients. We did not capture data on demographics (age, income, and literacy level), comorbidities, and dialysis vintage, which would have been helpful in interpretation of the results. We did not involve patients, carers, or patients of First Nations heritage, in the design of the survey and the study.

Conclusions:

The results of our survey indicate that the major patient-reported barrier to PD uptake in our province is clinical inertia in patients defaulted to in-center HD at the onset of dialysis. Lack of patient awareness and knowledge of PD as a viable treatment modality also figured prominently, as did fears/concerns surrounding the safety, efficacy, and perceived family burden with PD compared with in-center HD.

Trial Registration:

The study was not registered on a publicly accessible registry because it did not involve any health care intervention on human participants.

A Systematic Approach To Promoting Home Hemodialysis during End Stage Kidney Disease

Home dialysis has garnered much attention since the advent of the Advancing American Kidney Health initiative. For many patients and nephrologists, home dialysis and peritoneal dialysis are synonymous. However, home hemodialysis (HHD) should not be forgotten. Since 2004, HHD has grown more rapidly than other dialytic modalities. The cardinal feature of HHD is customizability of treatment intensity, which can be titrated to address the vexing problems of volume and pressure loading during interdialytic gaps and ultrafiltration intensity during each hemodialysis session. Growing HHD utilization requires commitment to introducing patients to the modality throughout the course of ESKD. In this article, we describe a set of strategies for introducing HHD concepts and equipment. First, patients initiating dialysis may attend a transitional care unit, which offers an educational program about all dialytic modalities during 3-5 weeks of in-facility hemodialysis, possibly using HHD equipment. Second, prevalent patients on hemodialysis may participate in "trial-run" programs, which allow patients to experience increased treatment frequency and HHD equipment for several weeks, but without the overt commitment of initiating HHD training. In both models, perceived barriers to HHD-including fear of equipment, anxiety about self-cannulation, catheter dependence, and the absence of a care partner-can be addressed in a supportive setting. Third, patients on peritoneal dialysis who are nearing a transition to hemodialysis may be encouraged to consider a home-to-home transition (i.e., from peritoneal dialysis to HHD). Taken together, these strategies represent a systematic approach to growing HHD utilization in multiple phenotypes of patients on dialysis. With the feature of facilitating intensive hemodialysis, HHD can be a key not only to satiating demand for home dialysis, but also to improving the health of patients on dialysis.

Transition between peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis in Belgium and France in the RDPLF

A renewed interest in home hemodialysis has emerged in recent years, favored by the availability of new dialysis machines and encouraging publication about  daily hemodialysis. Since 2013, the RDPLF has become a home dialysis registry that records the data of patients treated with peritoneal dialysis and those treated with home hemodialysis, all techniques combined. Nine Belgian centers and fifty seven French centers communicate information about their patients treated by hemodialysis at home. In the RDPLF centers, 56% of Belgian home hemodialysis patients are treated with daily hemodialysis, in France 83% of home patients are on daily dialysis. This French difference however is not representative of the whole country but can be explained through recruitment of new centers already involved in peritoneal dialysis and convinced by the interest of continuaous daily treatment. In both countries, 13% of home hemodialysis patients have been previously treated with peritoneal dialysis with an interim period of in-center hemodialysis or transplantation. The median duration of in center hemodialysis is 10 months with extremes ranging from 2 months to 25 years. PD patients treated secondarily in home hemodialysis are mainly young, non-diabetic and independent patients. Early information in patients who have a risk of peritoneal dialysis failure, and the provision of materials allowing both techniques would reduce or abolish a transient transfer to in center hemodialysis  and would ensure home care in patients who prefer.