The impact of nocturnal hemodialysis on sexual function

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.

Improving Sexual Function in People With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Narrative Review of an Unmet Need in Nephrology Research

Purpose of review:

Sexual dysfunction occurs commonly in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and has been recognized as a research priority. We sought to evaluate the current state of the literature addressing sexual dysfunction in people with CKD and identify barriers and strategies to improve our management of this important symptom.

Sources of information:

OVID Medline and Google Scholar were searched for English, peer-reviewed studies using keywords and terms related to “Chronic Kidney Disease,” “sexuality,” and “sexual dysfunction OR function.”

Methods:

In this narrative review, we describe definitions of sexual dysfunction and contributors exacerbated by CKD, barriers to researching sexual dysfunction in people with CKD, and possible avenues for future research.

Key findings:

Sexual dysfunction is common in people with CKD and results from a combination of kidney disease itself, as well as its associated physical (ie, comorbidities) and nonphysical factors. Barriers to the study of sexual dysfunction in CKD include inconsistent disease definitions, stigma, variable efficacy and safety of established therapies, and evolving gender roles in sexual function. Potential avenues for future research to improve the sexual function in people with CKD may include evaluating the safety and efficacy of established therapies in people with CKD using a variety of observational and interventional study designs, engaging people with CKD and multidisciplinary team members in research, and using implementation science methods to translate what is known about sexual function into clinical practice. Concerted efforts are required to break down barriers and improve sexual function in people with CKD. Patients have identified this as an important research priority, and national networks need to direct efforts to reduce symptom burden.

Limitations:

This narrative review was limited by a paucity of high-quality studies examining sexual dysfunction specifically in people with kidney disease.

Is dialysis adequacy a useful predictor for sexual function in males and females with end-stage renal disease?

INTRODUCTION

The development of sexual dysfunction (SD) in dialysis patients is multifactorial. We aimed to evaluate whether adequate dialysis had an effect on the development of SD in male and female patients undergoing dialysis due to end stage renal disease. Anxiety, depression, health-related quality of life and the other risk factors related to dialysis were also evaluated in terms of SD.

METHODS

Seventy men and 57 women undergoing haemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD) and 65 healthy male volunteers and 48 healthy female volunteers, age-matched, were included in the study. The International Index of Erectile Function, Female Sexual Function Index, Beck Depression Inventory, Beck Anxiety Inventory and The Short Form-36 Health Survey were applied to all participants. The cut off value of Kt/V was determined as 1.3 for HD and 1.7 for PD to assess dialysis adequacy. Per gender, all the participants were divided into three groups as control, adequate dialysis and non-adequate dialysis.

RESULTS

Dialysis adequacy [OR: 3.225, 95%CI (1.213-8.620), p=.019] was found as a more decisive factor for male SD, while dialysis adequacy [OR: 3.015, 95%CI (.991-7.250), p=.041] and depression [OR: 4.280, 95%CI (1.705-10.747), p=.002] were more significant for female SD. In addition, a strong relationship was found between male SD and physical functioning (r: .524, p=.032), social functioning (r: .565, p=.042), general health (r: .693, p=.037) perception, while female SD was found to be strongly associated with anxiety (r: -.697, p=.002) and depression (r: -.738, p=.001).

DISCUSSION

Dialysis adequacy was found to be the most important factor in reducing SD. Non-adequate dialysis resulted in worse sexual function, higher levels of depression and anxiety. Its negative effect on health-related quality of life was only seen in men.

Phosphate Removal During Long Nocturnal Hemodialysis/Hemodiafiltration: A Study With Total Dialysate Collection

The aim of our prospective study was to quantify phosphate removal during long nocturnal high-flux hemodialysis or hemodiafiltration (HD) with total dialysate collection. Eight patients (two women) were studied for the first-in-the-week HD session that lasted 7-8 h. Total dialysate was collected. Serum and collected dialysate phosphate concentrations were measured every hour. Phosphate removal as assessed from the serum concentration was most important during the first 2 h of HD, and then a plateau was reached. The highest average phosphate concentration in the total dialysate was in the 1(st) hour, thereafter the concentration decreased but remained stable. The average total removed mass of phosphate quantified from hourly collected dialysate was 5195.7 ± 1898 mg. Phosphate had been removed in a consistent manner during the whole duration of nocturnal HD as assessed through dialysate (despite stable serum phosphate concentration). This could indicate phosphate transfer from intracellular space. The total removed phosphate quantified from the total dialysate collection was higher than previously reported and exceeded the normal phosphate food intake.

The Impact of Hemodialysis on Sexual Function in Male Patients using the International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire (IIEF)

Introduction

Routine hemodialysis is one of the preferred treatment methods in patients with chronic kidney disease. It seems that routine hemodialysis can be effective in improving sexual function in these patients. This study aimed to determine the effect of routine dialysis sessions over a six-month period on the status of sexual function in men with chronic renal failure using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaire.

Methods

The cross-sectional study was conducted from November 2015 to November 2016 on patients with chronic renal failure who were first-time candidates for routine hemodialysis and who were referred to Imam Reza Hospital of Mashhad. All of the patients completed the IIEF questionnaire before their first hemodialysis. Afterwards, all of the patients underwent routine dialysis sessions over a six-month period and completed the IIEF questionnaire again at the end of the sixth month. The prevalence of sexual dysfunction was assessed before and after hemodialysis. The scores on the two IIEF questionnaires were compared according to five domains, i.e., erectile function, orgasmic function, sexual desire, intercourse satisfaction, and overall satisfaction. The comparisons were done before and after hemodialysis using the paired-samples t-test. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 19.

Results

The study included 30 men with a mean age of 40.2 ± 8.2. The prevalence of sexual dysfunctions in the order of their frequency was as follows: intercourse satisfaction (100%), overall satisfaction (100%), sexual desire (96.7%), orgasmic function (93.3%), and erectile function (90%). After six months of treatment with hemodialysis, the ratings of all areas of sexual dysfunction were improved significantly (p-value = 0.00 for all domains).

Conclusion

According to the results of this study, it seems that a six-month course of hemodialysis can improve erectile function, orgasmic function, sexual desire, intercourse satisfaction, and overall satisfaction in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Timing of dialysis initiation, duration and frequency of hemodialysis sessions, and membrane flux: a systematic review for a KDOQI clinical practice guideline

BACKGROUND

In 2006, NKF-KDOQI (National Kidney Foundation-Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative) published clinical practice guidelines for hemodialysis adequacy. Recent studies evaluating hemodialysis adequacy as determined by initiation timing, frequency, duration, and membrane type and prompted an update to the guideline.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and evidence synthesis.

SETTING & POPULATION

Patients with advanced chronic kidney disease receiving hemodialysis.

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES

We screened publications from 2000 to March 2014, systematic reviews, and references and consulted the NKF-KDOQI Hemodialysis Adequacy Work Group members. We included randomized or controlled clinical trials in patients undergoing long-term hemodialysis if they reported outcomes of interest.

INTERVENTIONS

Early versus late dialysis therapy initiation; more frequent (>3 times a week) or longer duration (>4.5 hours) compared to conventional hemodialysis; low- versus high-flux dialyzer membranes.

OUTCOMES

All-cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalizations, quality of life, depression or cognitive function scores, blood pressure, number of antihypertensive medications, left ventricular mass, interdialytic weight gain, and harms or complications related to vascular access or the process of dialysis.

RESULTS

We included 32 articles reporting on 19 trials. Moderate-quality evidence indicated that earlier dialysis therapy initiation (at estimated creatinine clearance [eClcr] of 10-14mL/min) did not reduce mortality compared to later initiation (eClcr of 5-7mL/min). More than thrice-weekly hemodialysis and extended-length hemodialysis during a short follow-up did not improve clinical outcomes compared to conventional hemodialysis and resulted in a greater number of vascular access procedures (very low-quality evidence). Hemodialysis using high-flux membranes did not reduce all-cause mortality, but reduced cardiovascular mortality compared to hemodialysis using low-flux membranes (moderate-quality evidence).

LIMITATIONS

Few studies were adequately powered to evaluate mortality. Heterogeneity of study designs and interventions precluded pooling data for most outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited data indicate that earlier dialysis therapy initiation and more frequent and longer hemodialysis did not improve clinical outcomes compared to conventional hemodialysis.

Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments for Physical Symptoms Among Patients Receiving Maintenance Dialysis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) receiving dialysis have poor health-related quality of life. Physical symptoms are highly prevalent among dialysis-dependent patients and play important roles in health-related quality of life. A range of symptom assessment tools have been used in dialysis-dependent patients, but there has been no previous systematic assessment of the existing symptom measures' content, validity, and reliability.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of the literature.

SETTINGS & POPULATION

Patients with ESRD on maintenance dialysis therapy.

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES

Instruments with 3 or more physical symptoms previously used in dialysis-dependent patients and evidence of validity or reliability testing.

INTERVENTION

Patient-reported physical symptom assessment instrument.

OUTCOMES

Instrument symptom-related content, validity, and reliability.

RESULTS

From 3,148 screened abstracts, 89 full-text articles were eligible for review. After article exclusion and further article identification by reference reviews, 58 articles on 23 symptom assessment instruments with documented reliability or validity testing were identified. Of the assessment instruments, 43.5% were generic and 56.5% were ESRD specific. Symptoms most frequently assessed were fatigue, shortness of breath, insomnia, nausea and vomiting, and appetite. Instruments varied widely in respondent time burden, recall period, and symptom attributes. Few instruments considered recall periods less than 2 weeks and few assessed a range of symptom attributes. Psychometric testing was completed for congruent validity (70%), known-group validity (25%), responsiveness (30%), internal consistency (78%), and test-retest reliability (65%). Content validity was assessed in dialysis populations in 57% of the 23 instruments.

LIMITATIONS

Consideration of physical symptoms only and exclusion of single symptom-focused instruments.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of available instruments focused exclusively on physical symptoms in dialysis patients is limited. Few symptom-containing instruments have short recall periods, assess diverse symptom attributes, and have undergone comprehensive psychometric testing. Improved symptom-focused assessment tools are needed to improve symptom evaluation and symptom responsiveness to intervention among dialysis-dependent patients.

Home versus in-centre haemodialysis for end-stage kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Home haemodialysis is associated with improved survival and quality of life in uncontrolled studies. However, relative benefits and harms of home versus in-centre haemodialysis in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of home haemodialysis versus in-centre haemodialysis in adults with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register was searched up to 31 October 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs of home versus in-centre haemodialysis in adults with ESKD were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by two investigators independently. Study risk of bias and other patient-centred outcomes were extracted. Insufficient data were available to conduct meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a single cross-over RCT (enrolling 9 participants) that compared home haemodialysis (long hours: 6 to 8 hours, 3 times/week) with in-centre haemodialysis (short hours: 3.5 to 4.5 hours, 3 times/weeks) for 8 weeks in prevalent home haemodialysis patients. Outcome data were limited and not available for the end of the first phase of treatment in this cross-over study which was at risk of bias due to differences in dialysate composition between the two treatment comparisons.Overall, home haemodialysis reduced 24 hour ambulatory blood pressure and improved uraemic symptoms, but increased treatment-related burden of disease and interference in social activities. Insufficient data were available for mortality, hospitalisation or dialysis vascular access complications or treatment durability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Insufficient randomised data were available to determine the effects of home haemodialysis on survival, hospitalisation, and quality of life compared with in-centre haemodialysis. Given the consistently observed benefits of home haemodialysis on quality of life and survival in uncontrolled studies, and the low prevalence of home haemodialysis globally, randomised studies evaluating home haemodialysis would help inform clinical practice and policy.

Changes in fertility and hormone replacement therapy in kidney disease

Infertility is common among men and women with CKD and fertility is usually restored with successful kidney transplantation. There are many causes of infertility in those on dialysis, including sexual dysfunction and impaired spermatogenesis and ovulation resulting from an altered hormonal milieu. There is little information about infertility in CKD, but it is clear that ESRD results in low rates of pregnancy in women. Early reports of increased pregnancy rates in women on nocturnal hemodialysis suggest that this modality may improve the abnormal reproductive hormonal milieu of ESRD; small studies of men on dialysis also suggest this. Just as the specific causes of infertility in men and women with CKD/ESRD are unknown, we also lack information about the appropriateness of hormone replacement in these patients. This paper reviews these linked issues, pointing out the lack of data upon which to base clinical decision-making about these quality-of-life issues in our CKD/ESRD patients.