Nutritional Status in Nocturnal Hemodialysis Patients - A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Modified creatinine index for predicting prognosis in hemodialysis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, several studies have explored the association between the modified creatinine index (mCI) and prognosis in patients on hemodialysis (HD). However, some of their results are contradictory. Therefore, this study was conducted to comprehensively assess the role of mCI in predicting prognosis in HD patients through meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched and screened literature from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from their establishment until March 2024. Relevant data were extracted. The statistical analysis was performed using Stata 15.0, RevMan 5.4, and Meta DiSc 1.4 software.

RESULTS

The results showed a positive association between mCI and nutritional status in HD patients (BMI r = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.1-0.28, p = .000; albumin r = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.33-0.39, p = .000; normalized protein catabolic rate (nPCR) r = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.13-0.38, p = .000). In addition, mCI in deceased HD patients was significantly lower than that in HD survivors (SMD = -0.94, 95% CI: -1.46 to -0.42, p = .000). A low mCI was associated with an increased risk of all-cause death in HD patients (HR = 1.95, 95% CI: 1.57-2.42, p = .000). In addition, a low mCI was significantly associated with decreased overall survival (OS) in HD patients (HR = 3.01, 95% CI: 2.44-3.70, p = .000). mCI showed moderate diagnostic accuracy for sarcopenia in both male and female HD patients (male AUC = 0.7891; female AUC = 0.759).

CONCLUSIONS

The mCI can be used as a prognostic marker for HD patients, and monitoring mCI may help to optimize the management of HD and improve overall prognosis in patients.

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.

Factors affecting presenteeism in workers with nocturnal hemodialysis: A two-center cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Presenteeism and work dysfunction in dialysis patients should be assessed to improve disease management and work productivity. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the prevalence and factors surrounding presenteeism and work dysfunction in workers with nocturnal hemodialysis.

METHODS

This multicenter cross-sectional study included 42 workers with nocturnal hemodialysis. Presenteeism was measured in patients using the Work Functioning Impairment Scale (WFun), employment status, exercise habit, and exercise self-efficacy (SE).

RESULTS

The WFun score was 12.5 ± 6.3 points, and patients with mild presenteeism were 12 (28.6%), moderate was 2 (4.8%), and severe was 1 (2.4%). Multiple regression analysis, which was adjusted for few confounding factors, showed that WFun had a significant relationship with lower exercise SE (r = -0.32) and normalized protein catabolism rate (r = 0.31).

CONCLUSIONS

Working patients with nocturnal hemodialysis had presenteeism and a significant correlation with exercise SE and nPCR. This study provides a framework to prevent work dysfunction in nocturnal hemodialysis patients.

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.

Subjective global assessment of nutrition, dialysis quality, and the theory of the scientific method in Nephrology practice

In an era of evidence-based medicine and dialysis performance measures, there is strong motivation to find specific, objective, quantifiable, and reproducible parameters to characterize the clinical condition of chronic kidney disease patients and to present population-wide statistics that may describe quality of care in dialysis centers. Yet, in the last three decades, several studies demonstrated that while parameters including Kt/V urea, serum phosphorus, parathyroid hormone, serum cholesterol fulfill all these criteria, efforts to optimize these lab parameters failed to improve survival on dialysis. However, subjective assessments of nutrition including subjective global assessment and malnutrition-inflammation score, while not ideally suited for statistical analysis and not optimal from the point of view of scientific methodology due to their general, semi-quantifiable, subjective nature have, nevertheless, proved themselves as some of the strongest predictors of clinical outcomes in the dialysis population. Where does this paradox leave us? We propose that a deeper understanding of relevance of these variables in the dialysis population may improve appreciation of the clinical situation of individual patients and may result in a paradigm shift from dialysis adequacy to quality dialysis.

Renal Association Clinical Practice Guideline on Haemodialysis

This guideline is written primarily for doctors and nurses working in dialysis units and related areas of medicine in the UK, and is an update of a previous version written in 2009. It aims to provide guidance on how to look after patients and how to run dialysis units, and provides standards which units should in general aim to achieve. We would not advise patients to interpret the guideline as a rulebook, but perhaps to answer the question: "what does good quality haemodialysis look like?"The guideline is split into sections: each begins with a few statements which are graded by strength (1 is a firm recommendation, 2 is more like a sensible suggestion), and the type of research available to back up the statement, ranging from A (good quality trials so we are pretty sure this is right) to D (more like the opinion of experts than known for sure). After the statements there is a short summary explaining why we think this, often including a discussion of some of the most helpful research. There is then a list of the most important medical articles so that you can read further if you want to - most of this is freely available online, at least in summary form.A few notes on the individual sections: 1. This section is about how much dialysis a patient should have. The effectiveness of dialysis varies between patients because of differences in body size and age etc., so different people need different amounts, and this section gives guidance on what defines "enough" dialysis and how to make sure each person is getting that. Quite a bit of this section is very technical, for example, the term "eKt/V" is often used: this is a calculation based on blood tests before and after dialysis, which measures the effectiveness of a single dialysis session in a particular patient. 2. This section deals with "non-standard" dialysis, which basically means anything other than 3 times per week. For example, a few people need 4 or more sessions per week to keep healthy, and some people are fine with only 2 sessions per week - this is usually people who are older, or those who have only just started dialysis. Special considerations for children and pregnant patients are also covered here. 3. This section deals with membranes (the type of "filter" used in the dialysis machine) and "HDF" (haemodiafiltration) which is a more complex kind of dialysis which some doctors think is better. Studies are still being done, but at the moment we think it's as good as but not better than regular dialysis. 4. This section deals with fluid removal during dialysis sessions: how to remove enough fluid without causing cramps and low blood pressure. Amongst other recommendations we advise close collaboration with patients over this. 5. This section deals with dialysate, which is the fluid used to "pull" toxins out of the blood (it is sometimes called the "bath"). The level of things like potassium in the dialysate is important, otherwise too much or too little may be removed. There is a section on dialysate buffer (bicarbonate) and also a section on phosphate, which occasionally needs to be added into the dialysate. 6. This section is about anticoagulation (blood thinning) which is needed to stop the circuit from clotting, but sometimes causes side effects. 7. This section is about certain safety aspects of dialysis, not seeking to replace well-established local protocols, but focussing on just a few where we thought some national-level guidance would be useful. 8. This section draws together a few aspects of dialysis which don't easily fit elsewhere, and which impact on how dialysis feels to patients, rather than the medical outcome, though of course these are linked. This is where home haemodialysis and exercise are covered. There is an appendix at the end which covers a few aspects in more detail, especially the mathematical ideas. Several aspects of dialysis are not included in this guideline since they are covered elsewhere, often because they are aspects which affect non-dialysis patients too. This includes: anaemia, calcium and bone health, high blood pressure, nutrition, infection control, vascular access, transplant planning, and when dialysis should be started.

Survival Comparisons of Home Dialysis Versus In-Center Hemodialysis: A Narrative Review

Purpose of review:

Many observational studies have demonstrated a survival benefit with home dialysis compared with in-center dialysis; however, results have been conflicting. The purpose of this review was to identify pitfalls and limitations in existing literature and examine the challenges of studying home and in-center dialysis populations.

Sources of information:

Original research articles were identified from MEDLINE using search terms “in-center hemodialysis,” “home hemodialysis,” “conventional hemodialysis,” “nocturnal hemodialysis,” and “short daily hemodialysis.”

Methods:

A focused review and critical appraisal of existing home versus in-center hemodialysis survival literature was conducted to identify potential causes for variability in the observed survival outcomes.

Key findings:

The controversy in existing literature stems from the challenges of randomizing patients to home versus in-center hemodialysis modalities, and therefore a reliance on observational comparisons for study. In many cases, these observational analyses have been limited by selection bias (variabilities in populations included, inclusion of both incident and prevalent cohorts, and variabilities in dialysis intensity), as well as residual confounding. Furthermore, the studies that do exist lack generalizability in many cases.

Limitations:

There are few randomized controlled trials examining the survival benefit of home versus in-center hemodialysis and existing observational studies are often limited by bias and reduced generalizability. These limitations comprise the body of this review.

Implications:

This review examines challenges surrounding survival comparisons with home versus in-center hemodialysis and identify important directions for future study.

Effect of nocturnal hemodialysis on sleep parameters in patients with end-stage renal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Recently, a small but growing literature has depicted the beneficial effects of nocturnal hemodialysis (NHD) over conventional hemodialysis (CHD) in the fields of sleep disorders such as sleep apnea. The impact of various dialysis models on sleep disorders, however, has not been determined. The objective of our meta-analysis is to examine the potential effects of NHD, compared with CHD, on sleep disorders in HD patients.

Methods

Several electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and CNKI were searched, using the search terms “nocturnal” (or “nightly”) and “dialysis” (or “hemodialysis” or “renal dialysis”) from the earliest available date of indexing to March 2018. Two authors independently extracted data, evaluated the study quality, and conducted random-effects meta-analyses using STATA 12.0.

Results

Of 1789 potentially relevant citations, 9 fulfilled eligibility criteria, consisting of 6 single-arm studies (comparing pre- and post-intervention outcomes), 1 observational study, and 2 randomized controlled trials (a total of 286 participants). Regarding objective sleep assessments, conversion from CHD to NHD resulted in a significant reduction in the AHI (Mean difference was -14.90; 95% CI, -20.12 to -9.68), a significant increase of SaO2 (Mean difference was 1.38%; 95% CI, 0.35% to 2.42%), and a significant decrease of TST (Mean difference was -0.31; 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.15). The trends were even stronger in the HD patients with sleep disorders. However, regarding subjective sleep assessments, improved sleep quality was found in the prospective pre-post intervention studies and cohort studies, while no significant improvements were found in the randomized controlled trials.

Conclusion

Although a significant improvement of sleep apnea was observed by switching from CHD to NHD, it may not yield a net benefit in overall subjective sleep quality.

The Diet and Haemodialysis Dyad: Three Eras, Four Open Questions and Four Paradoxes. A Narrative Review, Towards a Personalized, Patient-Centered Approach

The history of dialysis and diet can be viewed as a series of battles waged against potential threats to patients' lives. In the early years of dialysis, potassium was identified as "the killer", and the lists patients were given of forbidden foods included most plant-derived nourishment. As soon as dialysis became more efficient and survival increased, hyperphosphatemia, was identified as the enemy, generating an even longer list of banned aliments. Conversely, the "third era" finds us combating protein-energy wasting. This review discusses four questions and four paradoxes, regarding the diet-dialysis dyad: are the "magic numbers" of nutritional requirements (calories: 30-35 kcal/kg; proteins > 1.2 g/kg) still valid? Are the guidelines based on the metabolic needs of patients on "conventional" thrice-weekly bicarbonate dialysis applicable to different dialysis schedules, including daily dialysis or haemodiafiltration? The quantity of phosphate and potassium contained in processed and preserved foods may be significantly different from those in untreated foods: what are we eating? Is malnutrition one condition or a combination of conditions? The paradoxes: obesity is associated with higher survival in dialysis, losing weight is associated with mortality, but high BMI is a contraindication for kidney transplantation; it is difficult to limit phosphate intake when a patient is on a high-protein diet, such as the ones usually prescribed on dialysis; low serum albumin is associated with low dialysis efficiency and reduced survival, but on haemodiafiltration, high efficiency is coupled with albumin losses; banning plant derived food may limit consumption of "vascular healthy" food in a vulnerable population. Tailored approaches and agreed practices are needed so that we can identify attainable goals and pursue them in our fragile haemodialysis populations.