Patient-stated preferences regarding volume-related risk mitigation strategies for hemodialysis

Patient Preferences for Longer or More Frequent In-Center Hemodialysis Regimens: A Multicenter Discrete Choice Study

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Longer and more frequent hemodialysis sessions are associated with both benefits and harms. However, their relative importance to patients and how they influence acceptability for patients have not been quantified.

STUDY DESIGN

Discrete-choice experiment in which a scenario followed by 12 treatment choice sets were presented to patients in conjunction with varying information about the clinical impact of the treatments offered.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Patients with kidney failure treated with maintenance dialysis for≥1 year in 5 UK kidney centers.

PREDICTORS

Length and frequency of hemodialysis sessions and their prior reported associations with survival, quality of life, need for fluid restriction, hospitalization, and vascular access complications.

OUTCOME

Selection of longer (4.5 hours) or more frequent (4 sessions per week) hemodialysis regimens versus remaining on 3 sessions per week with session lengths of 4 hours.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Multinomial mixed effects logistic regression estimating the relative influence of different levels of the predictors on the selection of longer and more frequent dialysis, controlling for patient demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 183 prevalent in-center hemodialysis patients (mean age of 63.7 years, mean dialysis vintage of 4.7 years), 38.3% (70 of 183) always chose to remain on regimens of 3 sessions per week with session duration of 4 hours. Depicted associations of increasing survival and quality of life, reduced need for fluid restriction, and avoiding additional access complications were all significantly associated with choosing longer or more frequent treatment regimens. Younger age, fatigue, previous experience of vascular access complications, absence of heart failure, and shorter travel time to dialysis centers were associated with preference for 4 sessions per week. Patients expressed willingness to trade up to 2 years of life to avoid regimens of 4 sessions per week or access complications. After applying estimated treatment benefits and harms from existing literature, the fully adjusted model revealed that 27.1% would choose longer regimens delivered 3 times per week and 34.3% would choose 4 hours 4 times per week. Analogous estimates for younger fatigued patients living near their unit were 23.5% and 62.5%, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Estimates were based on stated preferences rather than observed behaviors. Predicted acceptance of regimens was derived from data on treatment benefits and harms largely sourced from observational studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Predicted acceptance of longer and more frequent hemodialysis regimens substantially exceeds their use in current clinical practice. These findings underscore the need for robust data on clinical effectiveness of these more intensive regimens and more extensive consideration of patient choice in the selection of dialysis regimens.

Proportion of Hemodialysis Treatments with High Ultrafiltration Rate and the Association with Mortality

Background

Rapid fluid removal during hemodialysis has been associated with increased mortality. The limit of ultrafiltration rate (UFR) monitored by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is 13 ml/kg per hour. It is not clear if the proportion of treatments with high UFR is associated with higher mortality. We examined the association of proportion of dialysis treatments with high UFR and mortality in end stage kidney failure patients receiving hemodialysis.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of incident patients initiating hemodialysis between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, at Emory dialysis centers. The proportion of treatments with high UFR (>13 ml/kg per hour) per patient was calculated using data from the initial 3 months of dialysis therapy. Patients were categorized on the basis of quartiles of proportion of dialysis sessions with high UFR. Risk of death and survival probabilities were calculated and compared for all quartiles.

Results

Of 1050 patients eligible, the median age was 59 years, 56% were men, and 91% were Black. The median UFR was 6.5 ml/kg per hour, and the proportion of sessions with high UFR was 5%. Thirty-one percent of patients never experienced high UFR. Being a man, younger age, shorter duration of hemodialysis sessions, lower weight, diabetic status, higher albumin, and history of heart failure were associated with a higher proportion of sessions with high UFR. Patients in the higher quartile (26% dialysis with high UFR, average UFR 9.8 ml/kg per hour, median survival of 5.6 years) had a higher risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.54; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.10) compared with those in the lower quartile (0% dialysis with high UFR, average UFR 4.7 ml/kg per hour, median survival 8.8 years).

Conclusions

Patients on hemodialysis who did not experience frequent episodes of elevated UFR during the first 3 months of their dialysis tenure had a significantly lower risk of death compared with patients with frequent episodes of high UFR.

Clair Russell J, Heisler M, Villalba L, Perry T, Cavanaugh KL. Peer mentorship to improve outcomes in patients on hemodialysis (PEER-HD): a randomized controlled trial protocol

Background

Patients receiving in-center hemodialysis experience disproportionate morbidity and incur high healthcare-related costs. Much of this cost stems from potentially avoidable hospitalizations. Peer mentorship has been used effectively to improve outcomes for patients with complex chronic diseases. We propose testing the efficacy of peer mentorship on hospitalization rates among patients receiving hemodialysis.

Methods

This is a multicenter parallel group randomized controlled pragmatic trial of patients treated at hemodialysis facilities in Bronx, NY and Nashville, TN. The study has two phases. Phase 1 will enroll and train 16 hemodialysis patients (10 in Bronx, NY and 6 in Nashville TN) to be mentors using a program focused on enhancing self-efficacy, dialysis self-management and autonomy-supportive communication skills. Phase 2 will enroll 200 high risk adults receiving hemodialysis (140 in Bronx, NY and 60 in Nashville, TN), half of whom will be randomized to intervention and half to usual care. Intervention participants are assigned to weekly telephone calls with trained mentors (see Phase 1) for a 3-month period.

The primary outcome of Phase 1 will be engagement of mentors with training and change in knowledge scores and autonomy skills from pre- to post-training. The primary outcome of Phase 2 will be the composite count of ED visits and hospitalizations at the end of study follow-up in patient participants assigned to intervention as compared to those assigned to usual care. Secondary outcomes for Phase 2 include the change over the trial period in validated survey scores measuring perception of social support and self-efficacy, and dialysis adherence metrics, among intervention participants as compared to usual care participants.

Discussion

The PEER-HD study will test the feasibility and efficacy of a pragmatic peer-mentorship program designed for patients receiving hemodialysis on ED visit and hospitalization rates. If effective, peer-mentorship holds promise as a scalable patient-centered intervention to decrease hospital resource utilization, and by extension morbidity and cost, for patients receiving maintenance in-center hemodialysis.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03595748; 7/23/2018.

Trial sponsor

National Institutes of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Disease (NIDDK) 5R18DK118471.

Funding

Funding for this study was provided by the National Institutes of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Disease: R18DK118471.

Study status

This is an ongoing study and not complete. We are still collecting data for observational follow-up on participants.

Related articles

No related articles for this study have been submitted to any journal.

The study sponsor and funders had no role in the design, analysis or interpretation of this data. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

A breakthrough series collaborative to increase patient participation with hemodialysis tasks: A stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Compared to in-centre, home hemodialysis is associated with superior outcomes. The impact on patient experience and clinical outcomes of consistently providing the choice and training to undertake hemodialysis-related treatment tasks in the in-centre setting is unknown.

METHODS

A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial in 12 UK renal centres recruited prevalent in-centre hemodialysis patients with sites randomised into early and late participation in a 12-month breakthrough series collaborative that included data collection, learning events, Plan-Study-Do-Act cycles, and teleconferences repeated every 6 weeks, underpinned by a faculty, co-production, materials and a nursing course. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients undertaking five or more hemodialysis-related tasks or home hemodialysis. Secondary outcomes included independent hemodialysis, quality of life, symptoms, patient activation and hospitalisation. ISRCTN Registration Number 93999549.

RESULTS

586 hemodialysis patients were recruited. The proportion performing 5 or more tasks or home hemodialysis increased from 45.6% to 52.3% (205 to 244/449, difference 6.2%, 95% CI 1.4 to 11%), however after analysis by step the adjusted odds ratio for the intervention was 1.63 (95% CI 0.94 to 2.81, P = 0.08). 28.3% of patients doing less than 5 tasks at baseline performed 5 or more at the end of the study (69/244, 95% CI 22.2-34.3%, adjusted odds ratio 3.71, 95% CI 1.66-8.31). Independent or home hemodialysis increased from 7.5% to 11.6% (32 to 49/423, difference 4.0%, 95% CI 1.0-7.0), but the remaining secondary endpoints were unaffected.

CONCLUSIONS

Our intervention did not increase dialysis related tasks being performed by a prevalent population of centre based patients, but there was an increase in home hemodialysis as well as an increase in tasks among patients who were doing fewer than 5 at baseline. Further studies are required that examine interventions to engage people who dialyse at centres in their own care.

Patient perspectives of target weight management and ultrafiltration in haemodialysis: a multi-center survey

Background

Decisions around planned ultrafiltration volumes are the only part of the haemodialysis prescription decided upon at every session. Removing too much fluid or too little is associated with both acute symptoms and long-term outcomes. The degree to which patients engage with or influence decision-making is not clear. We explored patient perspectives of prescribing ultrafiltration volumes, their understanding of the process and engagement with it.

Methods

A questionnaire developed for this study was administered to 1077 patients across 10 UK Renal Units. Factor analysis reduced the dataset into factors representing common themes. Relationships between survey results and factors were investigated using regression models. ANCOVA was used to explore differences between Renal Units.

Results

Patients generally felt in control of their fluid management and that they were given the final say on planned ultrafiltration volumes. Around half of the respondents reported they take an active role in their treatment. However, respondents were largely unable to relate signs and symptoms to fluid management practice and a third said they would not report common signs and symptoms to clinicians. A fifth of patients reported not to know how ultrafiltration volumes were calculated. Patients responded positively to questions relating to healthcare staff, though with significant variation between units, highlighting differences in perception of care.

Conclusions

Despite a lack of formal acknowledgement in fluid management protocols, patients have significant involvement in decisions regarding fluid removal during dialysis. Furthermore, substantial gaps remain in patient knowledge and engagement. Formalizing the role of patients in these decisions, including patient education, may improve prescription and achievement of target weights.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-021-02399-7.

Dietary Adherence, Self-Regulatory Fatigue and Trait Self-Control Among Chinese Patients with Peritoneal Dialysis: A Cross-Sectional Study

PURPOSE

Little is known about factors that predict dietary adherence among Chinese patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis. We investigated whether self-regulatory fatigue and trait self-control influence dietary adherence among Chinese patients with peritoneal dialysis.

METHODS

A total of 192 Chinese patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis were recruited at two peritoneal dialysis centers. The dietary adherence, trait self-control and self-regulatory fatigue of these patients were assessed using self-administered questionnaires. Clinical data were extracted from the hospital medical records. The significance of several social demographic factors on dietary adherence was analyzed using One-way ANOVA was used to analyze, whereas the association between dietary adherence and self-regulatory fatigue as well as trait self-control were analyzed using Pearson correlation. The independence association between dietary adherence and other influencing factors was assessed using Multivariable linear regression analyses.

RESULTS

We found that peritoneal dialysis patients only moderately adhere to dietary prescriptions. The top three least adherences were observed for salt intake (1.89±0.36), face of difficulty (2.86±0.26) and fluid restriction adherence intake (2.97±0.30). Multivariable linear regression analysis revealed that education level (β=0.339, P<0.001), residence (β=-0.151, P=0.015), self-regulatory fatigue (β= -0.648, P<0.001), and trait self-control (β=0.118, P=0.022) were independent predictors of dietary adherence.

CONCLUSION

Education level and residence strongly influence dietary adherence among Chinese peritoneal dialysis patients. On the other hand, Self-regulatory fatigue and trait self-control are independent predictors of dietary adherence among peritoneal dialysis patients. These findings can guide the enhancement of dietary adherence of peritoneal dialysis patients.

Survival on four compared with three times per week haemodialysis in high ultrafiltration patients: an observational study

Background

The harm caused by the long interdialytic interval in three-times-per-week haemodialysis regimens (3×WHD) may relate to fluid accumulation and associated high ultrafiltration rate (UFR). Four-times-per-week haemodialysis (4×WHD) may offer a solution, but its impact on mortality, hospitalization and vascular access complications is unknown.

Methods

From the AROii cohort of incident in-centre haemodialysis patients, 3×WHD patients with a UFR >10 mL/kg/h were identified. The hazard for the outcomes of mortality, hospitalization and vascular access complications in those who switched to 4×WHD compared with staying on 3×WHD was estimated using a marginal structural Cox proportional hazards model. Adjustment included baseline patient and treatment characteristics with inverse probability weighting used to adjust for time-varying UFR and cardiovascular comorbidities.

Results

From 10 637 European 3×WHD patients, 3842 (36%) exceeded a UFR >10 mL/kg/h. Of these, 288 (7.5%) started 4×WHD and at baseline were more comorbid. Event rates while receiving 4×WHD compared with 3×WHD were 12.6 compared with 10.8 per 100 patient years for mortality, 0.96 compared with 0.65 per year for hospitalization and 14.7 compared with 8.0 per 100 patient years for vascular access complications. Compared with 3×WHD, the unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for mortality on 4×WHD was 1.05 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78–1.42]. Following adjustment for baseline demographics, time-varying treatment probability and censoring risks, this HR was 0.73 (95% CI 0.50–1.05; P = 0.095). Despite these adjustments on 4×WHD, the HR for hospitalization remained elevated and vascular access complications were similar to 3×WHD.

Conclusions

This observational study was not able to demonstrate a mortality benefit in patients switched to 4×WHD. To demonstrate the true benefits of 4×WHD requires a large, well-designed clinical trial. Our data may help in the design of such a study.

The Fluid Intake Appraisal Inventory for low fluid intake among patients on haemodialysis: Translation and psychometric evaluation of the Danish version

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To translate and evaluate the psychometric properties of a Danish version of the Fluid Intake Appraisal Inventory (Da-FIAI) regarding reliability and validity.

BACKGROUND

Patients on haemodialysis are advised to restrict their fluid intake, which often requires patients to change their way of life and health behaviour.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

The FIAI was translated to Danish by two sets of target translations and two sets of back-translations (n = 4). One hundred and ninety-five patients on haemodialysis needing ultrafiltration completed the questionnaire for the evaluation study of the Da-FIAI, and psychometric properties were evaluated.

RESULTS

Criterion validity was supported, and the Da-FIAI had an excellent internal consistency; known-groups validity and the factor structure could not be confirmed in the Danish sample.

CONCLUSIONS

We have shown that the Da-FIAI is useful in a Danish haemodialysis population to score the patient's ability to avoid drinking in specific situations.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Using the Da-FIAI in the continuing nurse-patient communication, nurses have a validated instrument to evaluate patients' self-efficacy in fluid intake management and systematically identify and advise patients who need additional support.

Predictive modeling of blood pressure during hemodialysis: a comparison of linear model, random forest, support vector regression, XGBoost, LASSO regression and ensemble method

BACKGROUND

Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is commonly occurred and links to higher mortality among patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD). Its early prediction and prevention will dramatically improve the quality of life. However, predicting the occurrence of IDH clinically is not simple. The aims of this study are to develop an intelligent system with capability of predicting blood pressure (BP) during HD, and to further compare different machine learning algorithms for next systolic BP (SBP) prediction.

METHODS

This study presented comprehensive comparisons among linear regression model, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), tree-based ensemble machine learning models (random forest [RF] and extreme gradient boosting [XGBoost]), and support vector regression to predict the BP during HD treatment based on 200 and 48 maintenance HD patients containing a total of 7,180 and 2,065 BP records for the training and test dataset, respectively. Ensemble method also was computed to obtain better predictive performance. We compared the developed models based on R², root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE).

RESULTS

We found that RF (R²=0.95, RMSE=6.64, MAE=4.90) and XGBoost (R²=1.00, RMSE=1.83, MAE=1.29) had comparable predictive performance on the training dataset. However, RF (R²=0.49, RMSE=16.24, MAE=12.14) had more accurate than XGBoost (R²=0.41, RMSE=17.65, MAE=13.47) on testing dataset. Among these models, the ensemble method (R²=0.50, RMSE=16.01, MAE=11.97) had the best performance on testing dataset for next SBP prediction.

CONCLUSIONS

We compared five machine learning and an ensemble method for next SBP prediction. Among all studied algorithms, the RF and the ensemble method have the better predictive performance. The prediction models using ensemble method for intradialytic BP profiling may be able to assist the HD staff or physicians in individualized care and prompt intervention for patients' safety and improve care of HD patients.

The association between longer haemodialysis treatment times and hospitalization and mortality after the two-day break in individuals receiving three times a week haemodialysis

BACKGROUND

On the first haemodialysis (HD) day after the 2-day break in three times a week (3×W) in-centre HD, mortality and hospitalization are higher. If longer HD sessions prescribed 3×W is associated with a reduction in these events is unknown.

METHODS

HD session length in 19 557 prevalent European in-centre 3×W HD patients participating in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (1998-2011) were categorized into <200, 200-225, 226-250 or >250 min. Standardized event rates on the first (HD1) versus the second (HD2) HD day after the 2-day break, with supporting Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for patient and dialysis characteristics, were generated for all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization, out-of-hospital death and fluid overload hospitalization.

RESULTS

By comparing HD1 with HD2, increased rates of all endpoints were observed (all P < 0.002). As HD session lengthened across the four groups, all-cause mortality per 100 patient-years on the HD1 (23.0, 20.4, 16.4 and 14.6) and HD2 (26.1, 13.3, 13.4 and 12.1) reduced. Similar improvements were observed for out-of-hospital death but were less marked for hospitalization endpoints. However, even patients dialysing >250 min were at significantly greater risk on HD1 when compared with their HD2 for out-of-hospital death [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.1, 95% CI 1.0-4.3], all-cause hospitalization (HR = 1.3, 95% CI 1.2-1.4) and fluid overload hospitalization (HR = 3.2, 95% CI 1.8-6.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the association between reduced mortality across all dialysis days in patients performing longer sessions, elevated risk on the first dialysis day relative to the second persists even in patients dialysing 4.5 h 3×W.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Adults With Kidney Disease: Current Measures, Ongoing Initiatives, and Future Opportunities for Incorporation Into Patient-Centered Kidney Care

Tools that measure patients' experiences and perceptions of disease are increasingly being recognized as important components of a multidisciplinary personalized approach to care. These patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have the ability to provide clinicians, researchers, and policymakers with valuable insights into patients' symptoms and experiences that are unable to be ascertained by laboratory markers alone. If developed rigorously, studied systematically, and used judiciously, PROMs can effectively incorporate the patient voice into clinical care, clinical trials, and health care policy. PROMs have continued to gain attention and interest within the nephrology community, but key challenges and opportunities for their seamless uptake and integration remain. In this narrative overview, we provide nephrologists with a comprehensive list of existing PROMs developed for adults with kidney disease with information on their gaps and limitations; a rationale to support the continued incorporation of PROMs into nephrology clinical trials, clinical care, and health care policy; and a summary of ongoing initiatives and future opportunities to do so.

Ultrafiltration-profiled hemodialysis to reduce dialysis-related cardiovascular stress: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Rapid fluid removal (ultrafiltration, UF) is associated with higher cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among individuals receiving maintenance hemodialysis (HD). Fluid removal rates that exceed vascular refill rates can result in hemodynamic instability, end-organ damage to the heart, kidneys, gut and brain, among other organs, and patient symptoms. There are no known evidence-based HD treatment strategies to reduce harm from higher UF rates. Ultrafiltration profiling, the practice of varying UF rates to maximize fluid removal during periods of greatest hydration and plasma oncotic pressure, has been proposed as an HD treatment intervention that may reduce UF rate-related complications. This study is a randomized 4-phase cross-over trial in which participants are successively alternated between study arms with intervening washout periods, and treatment order is randomized. After 4-week screening and 6-week baseline periods, participants are randomized to HD with conventional UF or HD with UF profiling for a period of 3 weeks followed by a 1-week washout period before crossing over. Participants cross into conventional UF and UF profiling phases twice (2 phases per arm). The primary outcomes of interest are intradialytic hypotension (nadir intradialytic systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg), pre-to post-HD change in troponin T (expressed as a percentage), change in left ventricular global longitudinal strain (an echocardiographic measure of left ventricular systolic function), and development of intradialytic left ventricular stunning (worsening of contractile function in ≥2 segments). This study will determine the impact of UF profiling on UF rate-related cardiovascular complications in prevalent, maintenance HD patients.

Higher ultrafiltration rate is associated with right ventricular mechanical dispersion

Objective:

Ultrafiltration rate is one of the major determinants of adverse outcomes in patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD) therapy. Previous studies have focused on the impact of HD on right ventricular (RV) peak strain values. However, the influence of HD on the temporal characteristics of deformation has not been reported yet. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of high ultrafiltration rate (HUR) on RV mechanical dyssynchrony.

Methods:

Echocardiographic images focused on the RV and left ventricle (LV) were obtained from 60 patients (49.2±17.3 years, 22 female) before and after HD. Patients were divided into two groups according to ultrafiltration rate. Changes in echocardiographic parameters with HD were examined. Two-dimensional speckle-tracking strain analysis was used to assess deformation. Mechanical dispersion was measured as the standard deviation of time to peak longitudinal strain of six segments for RV and 18 segments for LV.

Results:

The average ultrafiltrated volume and ultrafiltration rate were 3000.1±1007.9 mL and 11.4±2.9 mL/kg/h, respectively. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) of the RV and LV decreased after HD in both groups. A significant difference was observed in RV mechanical dispersion with HD for patients in the high ultrafiltration group. A mild statistically insignificant increase in LV mechanical dispersion was also observed after HD.

Conclusion:

HUR has a substantial impact on LV and RV GLS and RV dyssynchrony. Ultrafiltration rates and volumes should be kept as low as possible to achieve hemodynamic stability and tolerability.

Patients' perceptions of their experience, control and knowledge of fluid management when receiving haemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Person-centred care is increasingly promoted, empowering patients to become more involved in their treatment rather than being passive recipients of care (Barnes et al. 2013). Haemodialysis is typically required three times a week, with fluid management decision-making occurring at each treatment session (Ahmed et al. 2017). However, no research has yet explored how haemodialysis patients' perceptions of their fluid management may impact upon this decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to explore patients' perceptions of their fluid management.

METHOD

DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS & APPROACH: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 patients undergoing in-hospital haemodialysis treatment. These were digitally recorded one-to-one interviews to allow for verbatim transcription. The data was analysed by thematic analysis, generating thematic patterns across patients' experiences, control and knowledge of their fluid management.

RESULTS

Five themes were produced: determining who has the expertise, impediments affecting patients' lifestyle, additional difficulty of experiencing comorbidities, perceived quality of care, and establishing consistency.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite varied levels of patient participation in their treatment, overall there appears to be a limited understanding of specific areas of fluid management. The implications for further research and the development of shared-care are discussed.

The effect of blood flow rate on dialysis recovery time in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis: A prospective, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

A majority of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on in-center hemodialysis (HD) require several hours to recover from an HD session. Patients and caregivers identify fatigue as a high priority for improvement. However, evidence for practical interventions to improve recovery time from conventional in-center HD is lacking. The effect of blood flow rate reduction on dialysis recovery time (DRT) is unknown.

METHODS

Multicenter, single-blinded, randomized, parallel-design controlled trial of blood flow rate reduction vs. usual care. One-hundred two patients with ESRD undergoing maintenance HD in 18 centers with baseline DRT of greater than 6 hours were included as subjects. The intervention was a blood flow rate reduction of 100 mL/min, to a minimum of 300 mL/min. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in change in DRT. Secondary outcomes were changes in London Evaluation of Illness (LEVIL) survey responses from baseline.

FINDINGS

Baseline median DRT was 720 (IQR 360-1013) minutes in controls and 720 (IQR 360-1106) minutes in the intervention group. DRT decreased in both groups. Mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) at Week 4 in the study was -324 (-473, -175) minutes in the control group and -120 (-329, 90) minutes in the intervention group. The change from baseline was more profound in the control group (P = 0.05). Secondary outcomes of measures of quality of life reported on the LEVIL survey showed more improvement in patients' feelings of general well-being in the control group (P = 0.01). Differences between groups in pain, feeling washed out or drained, sleep quality, shortness of breath, and appetite were not statistically significant.

DISCUSSION

Blood flow rate reduction did not improve DRT over usual care. Though more work needs to be done to address patient-reported fatigue, a significant positive impact may not be achieved without substantial changes in dialysis prescription.

Intradialytic hypotension, blood pressure changes and mortality risk in incident hemodialysis patients

Background

Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) occurs frequently in maintenance hemodialysis (HD) patients and may be associated with higher mortality. We hypothesize that nadir intradialytic systolic blood pressure (niSBP) is inversely related to death risk while iSBP change (Δ) and IDH frequency are incrementally associated with all-cause mortality.

Methods

In a US-based cohort of 112 013 incident HD patients over a 5-year period (2007-11), using niSBP, ΔiSBP (pre-HD SBP minus niSBP) and IDH frequency (proportion of HD treatments with niSBP <90 mmHg) within the first 91 days of HD, we examined mortality-predictability at 1, 2 and 5 years using Cox models and restricted cubic splines adjusted for case-mix, comorbidities and laboratory covariates.

Results

We observed that niSBP of <90 and ≥140 mmHg had a 5-year mortality hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval) of 1.57 (1.47-1.67) and 1.25 (1.18-1.33), respectively, compared with niSBP 110 to <120 mmHg. ΔiSBP of <15 and ≥50 compared with 21-30 mmHg had mortality HR of 1.31 (1.26-1.37) and 1.32 (1.24-1.39), respectively. Among patients with >40% IDH frequency, we observed a mortality HR of 1.49 (1.42-1.57) compared with 0% IDH frequency in fully adjusted models. These associations were robust at 1 and 2 years of follow-up.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we observed a U-shaped association between niSBP and ΔiSBP and mortality and a direct linear relationship between IDH frequency and mortality. Our findings lend some prognostic insight of HD blood pressure and hemodynamics, and have the potential to guide blood pressure management strategies among the HD population.

Fostering Innovation in Symptom Management among Hemodialysis Patients: Paths Forward for Insomnia, Muscle Cramps, and Fatigue

Individuals receiving in-center maintenance hemodialysis bear a high burden of both physical and mood symptoms. More than half of patients on hemodialysis report sleep disturbance, muscle cramps, and fatigue. Patients describe symptoms as having a deleterious effect on their quality of life, suggesting that symptom alleviation may meaningfully improve patient-reported outcomes. Moreover, patients on hemodialysis have identified symptom management as a key area for research and innovation, prioritizing symptom alleviation over other health outcomes such as mortality and biochemical indices. Despite the importance of symptoms to patients, there has been little research explicitly geared toward improving patient symptoms, and therefore minimal innovation in symptom management. In general, the physiologic underpinnings of symptoms are poorly understood, hampering the development of targeted therapies. In fact, there have been few drugs or devices approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the indication of improving any patient-reported outcomes for patients on hemodialysis. Recognizing this gap in innovation, the Kidney Health Initiative, a public-private partnership between the American Society of Nephrology and US Food and Drug Administration, convened a workgroup to first prioritize symptoms for the development of therapeutic interventions, and then identify near-term actionable research goals for the prioritized physical symptoms of insomnia, muscle cramps, and fatigue. This paper summarizes the pathophysiology of the three prioritized symptoms, identifies key knowledge gaps, acknowledges factors that challenge development of new therapies, and offers the nephrology community actionable research goals for insomnia, muscle cramps, and fatigue.

Patient-Centered Approach for Hypertension Management in End-Stage Kidney Disease: Art or Science?

Hypertension is present in most patients with end-stage kidney disease initiating dialysis and management of hypertension is a routine but challenging task in everyday dialysis care. End-stage kidney disease patients are uniquely heterogeneous individuals with significant variations in demographic characteristics, functional capacity, and presence of concomitant comorbid conditions and their severity. Therefore, these patients require personalized approaches in addressing not only hypertension but related illnesses, while also accounting for overall prognosis and projected longevity. There are only limited clinical trial data to guide individualized blood pressure management and current guidelines are based predominantly on observational evidence and expert opinions. Inthis review, we reflect on the shortcomings of peridialytic blood pressure recordings and discuss an important paradigm shift toward using out-of-dialysis blood pressure for evaluating hypertension control and for making treatment decisions. In addition, we provide our personal view on blood pressure goals and summarize nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment options for individualized management of hypertension in end-stage kidney disease.

Intradialytic hypotension

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review focuses on recent advances in our understanding of intradialytic hypotension (IDH) and measures that may reduce its frequency.

RECENT FINDINGS

The frequency and severity of IDH predict the risk for adverse clinical outcomes. The highest mortality risks associated with IDH were observed when the intradialytic systolic blood pressure (SBP) nadirs were <90 and <100 mmHg and the predialysis SBP were ≤159 mmHg or ≥160 mmHg, respectively. Interdialytic weight gain (IDWG) ≥3 kg occurs more frequently among patients with IDH. Prolonged and possibly more frequent dialysis, use of biofeedback devices, dialysate cooling and limiting sodium loading are useful measures to reduce the frequency of IDH.

SUMMARY

Frequent IDH is associated with high IDWGs and a poor prognosis. Studies on prolonged dialysis, biofeedback devices and cooled dialysate have yielded promising results. Intradialytic relative blood volume monitoring devices have been investigated in preventing IDH but results are mixed. Administration of a sodium/hydrogen exchange isoform 3 inhibitor increases stool sodium but has not been shown to decrease IDWG. IDH continues to be a significant dialysis complication deserving of further investigation.

Volume Balance and Intradialytic Ultrafiltration Rate in the Hemodialysis Patient

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Volume management in hemodialysis patients is often challenging. Assessing volume status and deciding how much fluid to remove during hemodialysis, the so-called ultrafiltration rate (UFR), has remained a conundrum.

RECENT FINDINGS

To date there is no objective assessment tool to determine the needed UFR during each hemodialysis session. Higher volume overload or higher UFR is associated with poor outcomes including worse mortality and unfavorable clinical outcomes. We suggest combined use of the following criteria to determine UFR or post-dialysis target dry weight: pre-hemodialysis blood pressure and its intradialytic changes, muscle cramps, dyspnea from pulmonary vascular congestion, peripheral edema, tachycardia or palpitation, headache or lightheadedness, perspiration, and post-dialysis fatigue. Restricting fluid and salt intake-and high-dose loop diuretic use in cases of residual kidney function-can be helpful in controlling fluid gains. More frequent and more severe hypotensive episodes are associated with poor outcomes including higher death risk.

Target weight achievement and ultrafiltration rate thresholds: potential patient implications

BACKGROUND

Higher ultrafiltration (UF) rates and extracellular hypo- and hypervolemia are associated with adverse outcomes among maintenance hemodialysis patients. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently considered UF rate and target weight achievement measures for ESRD Quality Incentive Program inclusion. The dual measures were intended to promote balance between too aggressive and too conservative fluid removal. The National Quality Forum endorsed the UF rate measure but not the target weight measure. We examined the proposed target weight measure and quantified weight gains if UF rate thresholds were applied without treatment time (TT) extension or interdialytic weight gain (IDWG) reduction.

METHODS

Data were taken from the 2012 database of a large dialysis organization. Analyses considered 152,196 United States hemodialysis patients. We described monthly patient and dialysis facility target weight achievement patterns and examined differences in patient characteristics across target weight achievement status and differences in facilities across target weight measure scores. We computed the cumulative, theoretical 1-month fluid-related weight gain that would occur if UF rates were capped at 13 mL/h/kg without concurrent TT extension or IDWG reduction.

RESULTS

Target weight achievement patterns were stable over the year. Patients who did not achieve target weight (post-dialysis weight ≥ 1 kg above or below target weight) tended to be younger, black and dialyze via catheter, and had shorter dialysis vintage, greater body weight, higher UF rate and more missed treatments compared with patients who achieved target weight. Facilities had, on average, 27.1 ± 9.7% of patients with average post-dialysis weight ≥ 1 kg above or below the prescribed target weight. In adjusted analyses, facilities located in the midwest and south and facilities with higher proportions of black and Hispanic patients and higher proportions of patients with shorter TTs were more likely to have unfavorable facility target weight measure scores. Without TT extension or IDWG reduction, UF rate threshold (13 mL/h/kg) implementation led to an average theoretical 1-month, fluid-related weight gain of 1.4 ± 3.0 kg.

CONCLUSIONS

Target weight achievement patterns vary across clinical subgroups. Implementation of a maximum UF rate threshold without adequate attention to extracellular volume status may lead to fluid-related weight gain.

Treatment tolerance and patient-reported outcomes favor online hemodiafiltration compared to high-flux hemodialysis in the elderly

Large cohort studies suggest that high convective volumes associated with online hemodiafiltration may reduce the risk of mortality/morbidity compared to optimal high-flux hemodialysis. By contrast, intradialytic tolerance is not well studied. The aim of the FRENCHIE (French Convective versus Hemodialysis in Elderly) study was to compare high-flux hemodialysis and online hemodiafiltration in terms of intradialytic tolerance. In this prospective, open-label randomized controlled trial, 381 elderly chronic hemodialysis patients (over age 65) were randomly assigned in a one-to-one ratio to either high-flux hemodialysis or online hemodiafiltration. The primary outcome was intradialytic tolerance (day 30-day 120). Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, cardiovascular risk biomarkers, morbidity, and mortality. During the observational period for intradialytic tolerance, 85% and 84% of patients in high-flux hemodialysis and online hemodiafiltration arms, respectively, experienced at least one adverse event without significant difference between groups. As exploratory analysis, intradialytic tolerance was also studied, considering the sessions as a statistical unit according to treatment actually received. Over a total of 11,981 sessions, 2,935 were complicated by the occurrence of at least one adverse event, with a significantly lower occurrence in online hemodiafiltration with fewer episodes of intradialytic symptomatic hypotension and muscle cramps. By contrast, health-related quality of life, morbidity, and mortality were not different in both groups. An improvement in the control of metabolic bone disease biomarkers and β2-microglobulin level without change in serum albumin concentration was observed with online hemodiafiltration. Thus, overall outcomes favor online hemodiafiltration over high-flux hemodialysis in the elderly.

Nephrologists' Perspectives on Defining and Applying Patient-Centered Outcomes in Hemodialysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Patient centeredness is widely advocated as a cornerstone of health care, but it is yet to be fully realized, including in nephrology. Our study aims to describe nephrologists' perspectives on defining and implementing patient-centered outcomes in hemodialysis.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Face-to-face, semistructured interviews were conducted with 58 nephrologists from 27 dialysis units across nine countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Singapore, and New Zealand. Transcripts were thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

We identified five themes on defining and implementing patient-centered outcomes in hemodialysis: explicitly prioritized by patients (articulated preferences and goals, ascertaining treatment burden, defining hemodialysis success, distinguishing a physician-patient dichotomy, and supporting shared decision making), optimizing wellbeing (respecting patient choice, focusing on symptomology, perceptible and tangible, and judging relevance and consequence), comprehending extensive heterogeneity of clinical and quality of life outcomes (distilling diverse priorities, highly individualized, attempting to specify outcomes, and broadening context), clinically hamstrung (professional deficiency, uncertainty and complexity in measurement, beyond medical purview, specificity of care, mechanistic mindset [focused on biochemical targets and comorbidities], avoiding alarm, and paradoxical dilemma), and undermined by system pressures (adhering to overarching policies, misalignment with mandates, and resource constraints).

CONCLUSIONS

Improving patient-centered outcomes is regarded by nephrologists to encompass strategies that address patient goals and improve wellbeing and treatment burden in patients on hemodialysis. However, efforts are hampered by ambiguities about how to prioritize, measure, and manage the plethora of critical comorbidities and broader quality of life outcomes in a care setting that is technically demanding and driven by biochemical targets. Identifying critical patient-important outcomes and mechanisms for integrating them into practice may help to deliver patient-centered care in hemodialysis and other chronic disease settings.

Ultrafiltration Rate and Mortality in Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients

BACKGROUND

Observational data have demonstrated an association between higher ultrafiltration rates and greater mortality among hemodialysis patients. Prior studies were small and did not consider potential differences in the association across body sizes and other related subgroups. No study has investigated ultrafiltration rates normalized to anthropometric measures beyond body weight. Also, potential methodological shortcomings in prior studies have led to questions about the veracity of the ultrafiltration rate-mortality association.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

118,394 hemodialysis patients dialyzing in a large dialysis organization, 2008 to 2012.

PREDICTORS

Mean 30-day ultrafiltration rates were dichotomized at 13 and 10mL/h/kg, separately and categorized using various cutoff points. Ultrafiltration rates normalized to body weight, body mass index, and body surface area were investigated.

OUTCOMES

All-cause mortality.

MEASUREMENTS

Multivariable survival models were used to estimate the association between ultrafiltration rate and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

At baseline, 21,735 (18.4%) individuals had ultrafiltration rates > 13mL/h/kg and 48,529 (41.0%) had ultrafiltration rates > 10mL/h/kg. Median follow-up was 2.3 years, and the mortality rate was 15.3 deaths/100 patient-years. Compared with ultrafiltration rates ≤ 13mL/h/kg, ultrafiltration rates > 13mL/h/kg were associated with greater mortality (adjusted HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.28-1.34). Compared with ultrafiltration rates ≤ 10mL/h/kg, ultrafiltration rates > 10mL/h/kg were associated with greater mortality (adjusted HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.20-1.24). Findings were consistent across subgroups of sex, race, dialysis vintage, session duration, and body size. Higher ultrafiltration rates were associated with greater mortality when normalized to body weight, body mass index, and body surface area.

LIMITATIONS

Residual confounding cannot be excluded given the observational study design.

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of the threshold implemented, higher ultrafiltration rate was associated with greater mortality in the overall study population and across key subgroups. Randomized controlled trials are needed to investigate whether ultrafiltration rate reduction improves clinical outcomes.

Rapid ultrafiltration rates and outcomes among hemodialysis patients: re-examining the evidence base

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review critically summarizes the evidence linking ultrafiltration rates to adverse outcomes among hemodialysis patients and provides research recommendations to address knowledge gaps.

RECENT FINDINGS

Growing evidence suggests that fluid-related factors play important roles in hemodialysis patient outcomes. Ultrafiltration rate - the rate of fluid removal during hemodialysis - is one such factor. Existing observational data suggest a robust association between greater ultrafiltration rates and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, and such findings are supported by plausible physiologic rationale. Potential mechanistic pathways include ultrafiltration-related ischemia to the heart, brain, and gut, and volume overload-precipitated cardiac stress from reactive measures to ultrafiltration-induced hemodynamic instability. Inter-relationships among ultrafiltration rates and other fluid measures, such as interdialytic weight gain and chronic volume expansion, render the specific role of ultrafiltration rates in adverse outcomes difficult to study. Randomized trials must be conducted to confirm epidemiologic findings and examine the effect of ultrafiltration rate reduction on clinical and patient-centered outcomes.

SUMMARY

Compelling observational data demonstrate an association between more rapid ultrafiltration rates and adverse clinical outcomes. Before translating these findings into clinical practice, randomized trials are needed to verify observational data results and to identify effective strategies to mitigate ultrafiltration-related risk.

Ultrafiltration Rates and the Quality Incentive Program: Proposed Measure Definitions and Their Potential Dialysis Facility Implications

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Rapid ultrafiltration rates are associated with adverse outcomes among patients on hemodialysis. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is considering an ultrafiltration rate quality measure for the ESRD Quality Incentive Program. Two measure developers proposed ultrafiltration rate measures with different selection criteria and specifications. We aimed to compare the proposed ultrafiltration rate measures and quantify dialysis facility operational burden if treatment times were extended to lower ultrafiltration rates.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Data were taken from the 2012 database of a large dialysis organization. Analyses of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services measure considered 148,950 patients on hemodialysis, and analyses of the Kidney Care Quality Alliance measure considered 151,937 patients. We described monthly patient and facility ultrafiltration rates and examined differences in patient characteristics across ultrafiltration rate thresholds and differences in facilities across ultrafiltration rate measure scores. We computed the additional treatment time required to lower ultrafiltration rates <13 ml/h per kilogram.

RESULTS

Ultrafiltration rates peaked in winter and nadired in summer. Patients with higher ultrafiltration rates were younger; more likely to be women, nonblack, Hispanic, and lighter in weight; and more likely to have histories of heart failure compared with patients with lower ultrafiltration rates. Facilities had, on average, 20.8%±10.3% (July) to 22.8%±10.6% (February) of patients with ultrafiltration rates >13 ml/h per kilogram by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services monthly measure. Facilities had, on average, 15.8%±8.2% of patients with ultrafiltration rates ≥13 ml/h per kilogram by the Kidney Care Quality Alliance annual measure. Larger facilities (>100 patients) would require, on average, 33 additional treatment hours per week to lower all facility ultrafiltration rates <13 ml/h per kilogram when total treatment time is capped at 4 hours.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrafiltration rates vary seasonally and across clinical subgroups. Extension of treatment time as a strategy to lower ultrafiltration rates may pose facility operational challenges. Prospective studies of ultrafiltration rate threshold implementation are needed.

Ultrafiltration Rate Thresholds in Maintenance Hemodialysis: An NKF-KDOQI Controversies Report

High hemodialysis ultrafiltration rate (UFR) is increasingly recognized as an important and modifiable risk factor for mortality among patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis. Recently, the Kidney Care Quality Alliance (KCQA) developed a UFR measure to assess dialysis unit care quality. The UFR measure was defined as UFR≥13mL/kg/h for patients with dialysis session length less than 240 minutes and was endorsed by the National Quality Forum as a quality measure in December 2015. Despite this, implementation of a UFR threshold remains controversial. In this NKF-KDOQI (National Kidney Foundation-Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative) Controversies Report, we discuss the concept of the UFR, which is governed by patients' interdialytic weight gain, body weight, and dialysis treatment time. We also examine the potential benefits and pitfalls of adopting a UFR threshold as a clinical performance measure and outline several aspects of UFR thresholds that require further research.

Intradialytic Blood Pressure Abnormalities: The Highs, The Lows and All That Lies Between

BACKGROUND

Frequent blood pressure (BP) measurements are necessary to ensure patient safety during hemodialysis treatments. Intradialytic BPs are not optimal tools for hypertension diagnosis and cardiovascular risk stratification, but they do have critical clinical and prognostic significance. We present evidence associating intradialytic BP phenomena including fall, rise and variability with adverse clinical outcomes and review related pathophysiologic mechanisms and potential management strategies.

SUMMARY

Observational studies demonstrate associations between intradialytic hypotension, hypertension and BP variability and mortality. Lack of consensus regarding diagnostic criteria has hampered data synthesis, and prospective studies investigating optimal management strategies for BP phenomena are lacking. Mechanistic data suggest that cardiac, gut, kidney and brain ischemia may lie on the causal pathway between intradialytic hypotension and mortality, and endothelial cell dysfunction, among other factors, may be an important mediator of intradialytic hypertension and adverse outcomes. These plausible pathophysiologic links present potential therapeutic targets for future inquiry. The phenomenon of intradialytic BP variability has not been adequately studied, and practical clinical measures and treatment strategies are lacking.

KEY MESSAGES

Intradialytic BP phenomena have important prognostic bearing. Clinical practice guidelines for both intradialytic hypotension and hypertension exist, but their underlying evidence is weak overall. Further research is needed to develop consensus diagnostic criteria for intradialytic hypotension, hypertension and BP variability and to elucidate optimal treatment and prevention strategies for each BP manifestation.

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.