Assisted Peritoneal Dialysis as an Alternative to In-Center Hemodialysis

Identifying Major Barriers to Home Dialysis (The IM-HOME Study): Findings From a National Survey of Patients, Care Partners, and Providers

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Developing strategies to improve home dialysis use requires a comprehensive understanding of barriers. We sought to identify the most important barriers to home dialysis use from the perspective of patients, care partners, and providers.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a convergent parallel mixed-methods study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

We convened a 7-member advisory board of patients, care partners, and providers who collectively developed lists of major patient/care partner-perceived barriers and provider-perceived barriers to home dialysis. We used these lists to develop a survey that was distributed to patients, care partners, and providers-through the American Association of Kidney Patients and the National Kidney Foundation. The surveys asked participants to (1) rank their top 3 major barriers (quantitative) and (2) describe barriers to home dialysis (qualitative).

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

We compiled a list of the top 3 patient/care partner-perceived and top 3 provider-perceived barriers (quantitative). We also conducted a directed content analysis of open-ended survey responses (qualitative).

RESULTS

There were 522 complete responses (233 providers; 289 patients/care partners). The top 3 patient/care partner-perceived barriers were fear of performing home dialysis; lack of space; and the need for home-based support. The top 3 provider-perceived barriers were poor patient education; limited mechanisms for home-based support staff, mental health, and education; and lack of experienced staff. We identified 9 themes through qualitative analysis: limited education; financial disincentives; limited resources; high burden of care; built environment/structure of care delivery that favors in-center hemodialysis; fear and isolation; perceptions of inequities in access to home dialysis; provider perspectives about patients; and patient/provider resiliency.

LIMITATIONS

This was an online survey that is subject to nonresponse bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The top 3 barriers to home dialysis for patient/care partners and providers incompletely overlap, suggesting the need for diverse strategies that simultaneously address patient-perceived barriers at home and provider-perceived barriers in the clinic.

PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY

There are many barriers to home dialysis use in the United States. However, we know little about which barriers are the most important to patients and clinicians. This makes it challenging to develop strategies to increase home dialysis use. In this study, we surveyed patients, care partners, and clinicians across the country to identify the most important barriers to home dialysis, namely (1) patients/care partners identified fear of home dialysis, lack of space, and lack of home-based support; and (2) clinicians identified poor patient education, limited support for staff and patients, and lack of experienced staff. These findings suggest that patients and clinicians perceive different barriers and that both sets of barriers should be addressed to expand home dialysis use.

Integrated home dialysis model: facilitating home-to-home transition

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD) are the two home dialysis modalities offered to patients. They promote patient autonomy, enhance independence, and are generally associated with better quality of life compared to facility hemodialysis. PD offers some advantages (enhanced flexibility, ability to travel, preservation of residual kidney function, and vascular access sites) but few patients remain on PD indefinitely due to peritonitis and other complications. By contrast, HHD incurs longer and more intensive training combined with increased upfront health costs compared to PD, but is easier to sustain in the long term. As a result, the integrated home dialysis model was proposed to combine the advantages of both home-based dialysis modalities. In this paradigm, patients are encouraged to initiate dialysis on PD and transfer to HHD after PD termination. Available evidence demonstrates the feasibility and safety of this approach and some observational studies have shown that patients who undergo the PD-to-HHD transition have clinical outcomes comparable to patients who initiate dialysis directly on HHD. Nevertheless, the prevalence of PD-to-HHD transfers remains low, reflecting the multiple barriers that prevent the full uptake of home-to-home transitions, notably a lack of awareness about the model, home-care "burnout," clinical inertia after a transfer to facility HD, suboptimal integration of PD and HHD centers, and insufficient funding for home dialysis programs. In this review, we will examine the conceptual advantages and disadvantages of integrated home dialysis, present the evidence that underlies it, identify challenges that prevent its success and finally, propose solutions to increase its adoption.

Evaluation and outcomes of a 5-year assisted peritoneal dialysis program

BACKGROUND

In 2016, Peritoneal Dialysis Assist (PDA) was implemented in British Columbia, Canada, as a pilot program to allow patients with physical, cognitive and social impairments to access an independent dialysis modality. This is a presentation of the usage and 5-year clinical outcomes of our provincial assisted peritoneal dialysis (PD) program.

METHODS

Patients who utilised long-term or respite PDA services in British Columbia, Canada, from 2016 to 2021 were included in this program evaluation. Incident and prevalent patient numbers were characterised annually as well as indications for PDA and patient demographics both annually and over time. Outcomes of interest included death, transfer to haemodialysis, transplantation and cessation of the PDA program but retention on PD.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-two total patients received services through the PDA program. The percentage of PD patients supported by long-term PDA service has grown to 11.2% in the most recent year. Patients spend a median of 13.6 (95% CI: 11.0, 16.1) months on long-term PDA, prolonging overall patient duration on PD by a little over a year. Of the patients who exited the long-term PDA program, 73 (37.4%) were able to utilise the service until they died.

CONCLUSION

PDA is an accessible, patient-centric service with clear and standardised referral criteria. Through the implementation of a local PDA program, patients have accessed PD and may have extended their PD life span, through avoidance of in-centre haemodialysis, by over 13 months during this 5-year study period. A significant proportion of patients on long-term PDA were able to use their preferred kidney replacement modality at home until they reached end of life.

Assisted peritoneal dialysis in Europe: a strategy to increase and maintain home dialysis

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a form of kidney replacement therapy with the major advantage that it can be performed at home. This has a positive impact on patients' autonomy and quality of life. However, the dialysis population is ageing and physical and/or cognitive impairments are common. These limitations often form a barrier to PD and contribute to the low incidence and prevalence of PD in Europe. Assisted PD can be a solution to this problem. Assisted PD refers to a patient being assisted by a person or device in performing all or part of their dialysis-related tasks, thereby making PD more accessible to elderly but also younger frail patients. In this way, offering an assisted PD program can help lower the threshold for initiating PD. In this review, we provide an overview of the epidemiology of assisted PD in Europe, we discuss the different categories and clinical outcomes of assisted PD, and we present how assisted PD can be implemented in clinical practice as a possible strategy to increase and maintain home dialysis in Europe.

Why are we Not Getting More Patients onto Peritoneal Dialysis? Observations From the United States with Global Implications

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) offers lifestyle advantages over in-center hemodialysis (HD) and is less costly. However, in the United States, less than 12% of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients are maintained on this modality. In this brief review, we discuss some of the factors underlying the low prevalence of PD. These include inadequate patient education, a shortage of sufficiently well-trained medical and nursing personnel, absence of infrastructure to support urgent start PD, and lack of support for assisted PD, among other factors. Understanding and addressing these various issues may help increase the prevalence of PD in the United States and globally.

Choice of the Dialysis Modality: Practical Considerations

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

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

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

Peritoneal dialysis in the modern era

The practice and clinical outcomes of peritoneal dialysis (PD) have demonstrated significant improvement over the past 20 years. The aim of this review is to increase awareness and update healthcare professionals on current PD practice, especially with respect to patient and technique survival, patient modality selection, pathways onto PD, understanding patient experience of care and use prior to kidney transplantation. These improvements have been impacted, at least in part, by greater emphasis on shared decision-making in dialysis modality selection, the use of advanced laparoscopic techniques for PD catheter implantation, developments in PD connecting systems, glucose-sparing strategies, and modernising technology in managing automated PD patients remotely. Evidence-based clinical guidelines such as those prepared by national and international societies such as the International Society of PD have contributed to improved PD practice underpinned by a recognition of the place of continuous quality improvement processes.

Is peritoneal dialysis suitable technique CKD patients over 65 years? A prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is increasing in patients older than 65 years and is related to morbidity, frailty, and dependence. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) has classically been associated with young patients with an active life.

HYPOTHESIS

PD should be offered to patients over 65 years. We search for any unfavorable results that may advice not to recommend PD therapy for this group.

OBJECTIVE

To describe PD treatment and outcomes in patients > 65 years, to compare their results with patients < 65 years and to identify areas with room for improvement in a real-life study.

STUDY

Prospective, observational, and multicenter study performed in incident PD patients, from January 2003 until January 2018.

RESULTS

We included 2,435 PD patients, 31.9% were older than 65 years; there was a difference of 25 years between both groups. Median follow up was 2.1 years. Older than 65 years group had more comorbidity: Diabetes (29.5% vs 17.2%; p < 0.001), previous CV events 34.5% vs 14.0%; p < 0.001), Charlson index (3.8 vs 3.0; p < 0.001). We did not find differences in efficacy and PD adequacy objectives fulfillment, anaemia management or blood pressure during follow-up. Peritonitis rate was higher in older 65 years group (0.65 vs 0.45 episodes/patient/year; p < 0.001), but there was not differences in germs, admission rate and follow up. Mortality was higher in older 65 years group (28.4% vs 9.4%) as expected. PD permanence probability was similar (2.1 years). The main cause of PD withdrawal was transplant in group < 65 years (48.3%) and transfer to HD in group > 65 years. The main reason was caregiver or patient fatigue (20.2%), and not technique failure (7.3%). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed a relation (HR [95%CI]) between mortality and age > 65 years 2.4 [1.9-3.0]; DM 1.6 [1.3-2.1]; CV events 2.1 [1.7-2.7]. Multivariate Cox regression analysis identify a relation between technique failure and age > 65 years 1.5 [1.3-1.9]; DM 1.6 [1.3-1.9] and previous transplant 1.5 [1.2-2.0].

CONCLUSION

Patients older than 65 years fulfilled PD adequacy criteria during the follow up. We believe PD is a valid option for patients older 65 years. It is necessary to try to prevent infections and patient/caregiver fatigue, to avoid HD transfer for reasons not related to technique failure.

Is peritoneal dialysis suitable technique CKD patients over 65 years? A prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is increasing in patients older than 65years and is related to morbidity, frailty, and dependence. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) has classically been associated with young patients with an active life.

HYPOTHESIS

PD should be offered to patients over 65years. We search for any unfavorable results that may advice not to recommend PD therapy for this group.

OBJECTIVE

To describe PD treatment and outcomes in patients >65years, to compare their results with patients <65years and to identify areas with room for improvement in a real-life study.

STUDY

Prospective, observational, and multicenter study performed in incident PD patients, from January 2003 until January 2018.

RESULTS

We included 2,435 PD patients, 31.9% were older than 65years; there was a difference of 25years between both groups. Median follow up was 2.1years. Older than 65years group had more comorbidity: Diabetes (29.5% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), previous CV events 34.5% vs 14.0%; p<0.001), Charlson index (3.8 vs 3.0; p<0.001). We did not find differences in efficacy and PD adequacy objectives fulfillment, anaemia management or blood pressure during follow-up. Peritonitis rate was higher in older 65years group (0.65 vs 0.45 episodes/patient/year; p<0.001), but there was not differences in germs, admission rate and follow up. Mortality was higher in older 65years group (28.4% vs 9.4%) as expected. PD permanence probability was similar (2.1years). The main cause of PD withdrawal was transplant in group <65years (48.3%) and transfer to HD in group >65years. The main reason was caregiver or patient fatigue (20.2%), and not technique failure (7.3%). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed a relation (HR [95%CI]) between mortality and age>65years 2.4 [1.9-3.0]; DM 1.6 [1.3-2.1]; CV events 2.1 [1.7-2.7]. Multivariate Cox regression analysis identify a relation between technique failure and age>65years 1.5 [1.3-1.9]; DM 1.6 [1.3-1.9] and previous transplant 1.5 [1.2-2.0].

CONCLUSION

Patients older than 65years fulfilled PD adequacy criteria during the follow up. We believe PD is a valid option for patients older 65years. It is necessary to try to prevent infections and patient/caregiver fatigue, to avoid HD transfer for reasons not related to technique failure.

Longitudinal Changes in the Use of PD Assistance for Patients Maintained on Peritoneal Dialysis

Background

Home dialysis therapies, such as peritoneal dialysis (PD), offer flexibility and improved well-being, particularly for older individuals. However, a substantial proportion require assistance with personal care and health care-related tasks. We hypothesized that patients and families would require less PD assistance as they became more familiar with PD-related tasks. The study objective was to assess whether the nature of, and need for, PD assistance decreased over time.

Methods

Using a multicentered, prospective, observational study design, patients aged ≥50 years were recruited from those starting PD. Patients underwent formal evaluation using validated components of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment at baseline, and they were followed monthly and administered a questionnaire about the need for assistance with PD-related tasks.

Results

A total of 111 patients (age 69±10 years, 68% men, and 56% diabetic) were followed for a total of 609 patient-months. Of those who needed help, 40% had help from a family member, and 33% were helped by nurses. Both the quantity and nature of help received by patients remained generally stable throughout follow-up and did not vary according to age, frailty, functional dependence, or cognitive impairment (P=0.93). The proportion of patients needing help varied widely across the 13 different tasks but appeared relatively stable across time. The paid-unpaid caregiver ratio for the different tasks did not change over time.

Conclusions

Older patients initiating PD in the outpatient setting have a high need for assistance with PD-related tasks, which seems to persist over the initial 6-month period.

Trends in assisted peritoneal dialysis over the last decade: a cohort study from the French Peritoneal Dialysis Registry

BACKGROUND

There is limited information available on the use of assisted peritoneal dialysis (PD) over time and the impact of economic incentives on its utilization. The aim of this study was to describe the trends in assisted PD utilization and the type of assistance provided. We wanted to estimate if an economic incentive implemented in 2011 in France was associated with an increase in the utilization of nurse-assisted PD.

METHODS

This retrospective, multicentre study, based on data from the French Language Peritoneal Dialysis Registry, analysed 11 987 patients who initiated PD in France between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2015. Adjusted Cox regression with robust variance was used to examine the initiation of assisted PD, both nurse-assisted and family-assisted, accounting for the nonlinear impact of the PD starting time.

RESULTS

There were 6149 (51%) incident patients on assisted PD, 5052 (82%) on nurse-assisted PD and 1097 (18%) on family-assisted PD over the study period. In the adjusted analysis, calendar time was associated with the assisted PD rate: it declined from 2008 until 2013 before flattening out and then it increased after 2014. Nurse-assisted PD utilization increased significantly after 2012, whereas family-assisted PD utilization decreased linearly over time (prevalence ratio = 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.92-0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

The assisted PD rate decreased until 2013, mainly because of a decline in family-assisted PD. The uptake in nurse-assisted PD observed from 2013 reflects the effect of an economic incentive adopted in late 2011 to increase PD utilization.

Meaning of empowerment in peritoneal dialysis: focus groups with patients and caregivers

BACKGROUND

While peritoneal dialysis (PD) can offer patients more independence and flexibility compared with in-center hemodialysis, managing the ongoing and technically demanding regimen can impose a burden on patients and caregivers. Patient empowerment can strengthen capacity for self-management and improve treatment outcomes. We aimed to describe patients' and caregivers' perspectives on the meaning and role of patient empowerment in PD.

METHODS

Adult patients receiving PD (n = 81) and their caregivers (n = 45), purposively sampled from nine dialysis units in Australia, Hong Kong and the USA, participated in 14 focus groups. Transcripts were thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

We identified six themes: lacking clarity for self-management (limited understanding of rationale behind necessary restrictions, muddled by conflicting information); PD regimen restricting flexibility and freedom (burden in budgeting time, confined to be close to home); strength with supportive relationships (gaining reassurance with practical assistance, comforted by considerate health professionals, supported by family and friends); defying constraints (reclaiming the day, undeterred by treatment, refusing to be defined by illness); regaining lost vitality (enabling physical functioning, restoring energy for life participation); and personal growth through adjustment (building resilience and enabling positive outlook, accepting the dialysis regimen).

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the rationale behind lifestyle restrictions, practical assistance and family support in managing PD promoted patient empowerment, whereas being constrained in time and capacity for life participation outside the home undermined it. Education, counseling and strategies to minimize the disruption and burden of PD may enhance satisfaction and outcomes in patients requiring PD.

Peritoneal dialysis patient selection from a comorbidity perspective

Despite many medical and socioeconomic advantages, peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an underutilized dialysis modality that in most countries is used by only 5%-20% of dialysis patients, while the vast majority are treated with in-center hemodialysis. Several factors may explain this paradox, such as lack of experience and infrastructure for training and monitoring of PD patients, organizational issues, overcapacity of hemodialysis facilities, and lack of economic incentives for dialysis centers to use PD instead of HD. In addition, medical conditions that are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as contraindications to PD represent barriers for the use of PD because of their purported potential negative impact on clinical outcomes in patients starting PD. While there are few absolute contraindications to PD, high age, comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, obesity, polycystic kidney disease, heart failure, and previous history of abdominal surgery and renal allograft failure, may be seen (rightly or wrongly) as relative contraindications and thus barriers to initiation of PD. In this brief review, we discuss how the presence of these conditions may influence the strategy of selecting patients for PD, focusing on measures that can be taken to overcome potential problems.

Ensuring Sustainability of Continuous Kidney Replacement Therapy in the Face of Extraordinary Demand: Lessons From the COVID-19 Pandemic

With the exponential surge in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide, the resources needed to provide continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT) for patients with acute kidney injury or kidney failure may be threatened. This article summarizes subsisting strategies that can be implemented immediately. Pre-emptive weekly multicenter projections of CKRT demand based on evolving COVID-19 epidemiology and routine workload should be made. Corresponding consumables should be quantified and acquired, with diversification of sources from multiple vendors. Supply procurement should be stepped up accordingly so that a several-week stock is amassed, with administrative oversight to prevent disproportionate hoarding by institutions. Consumption of CKRT resources can be made more efficient by optimizing circuit anticoagulation to preserve filters, extending use of each vascular access, lowering blood flows to reduce citrate consumption, moderating the CKRT intensity to conserve fluids, or running accelerated KRT at higher clearance to treat more patients per machine. If logistically feasible, earlier transition to intermittent hemodialysis with online-generated dialysate, or urgent peritoneal dialysis in selected patients, may help reduce CKRT dependency. These measures, coupled to multicenter collaboration and a corresponding increase in trained medical and nursing staffing levels, may avoid downstream rationing of care and save lives during the peak of the pandemic.

Supporting and maintaining the frail patient on long-term renal replacement therapy

The number of frail patients reaching end-stage kidney disease is increasing. They have a high level of comorbidity and symptom burden which need to be considered when making management plans. For those who choose renal replacement therapy, it is important to establish goals and ceilings of care and to provide holistic care focusing on optimising quality of life. Advance care planning is the process of documenting the patient's preferences for their treatment in the event they lose capacity to make decisions about their treatment.

Optimization of Dialysis Modality Transitions for Improved Patient Care

Purpose of review:

Initial and subsequent modality decisions are important, impacting both clinical outcomes and quality of life. Transition from chronic kidney disease to dialysis and between dialysis modalities are periods were patients may be especially vulnerable. Reviewing our current knowledge surrounding these critical periods and identifying areas for future research may allow us to develop dialysis strategies beneficial to patients.

Sources of information:

We searched the electronic database PubMed and queried Google Scholar for English peer-reviewed articles using appropriate keywords (non-exhaustive list): dialysis transitions, peritoneal dialysis, home hemodialysis, integrated care pathway, and health-related quality of life. Primary sources were accessed whenever possible.

Methods:

In this narrative review, we aim to expose the controversies surrounding home-dialysis first strategies and examine the evidence underpinning home-dialysis first strategies as well as home-to-home and home-to-in-center transitions.

Key findings:

Diverse factors must be taken into consideration when choosing initial and subsequent dialysis modalities. Given the limitations of available data (and lack of convincing benefit or detriment of one modality over the other), patient-centered considerations may prime over suspected mortality benefits of one modality or another.

Limitations:

Available data stem almost exclusively from retrospective and observational studies, often using large national and international databases, susceptible to bias. Furthermore, this is a narrative review which takes into account the views and opinions of the authors, especially as it pertains to optimal dialysis pathways.

Implications:

Emphasis must be placed on individual patient goals and preferences during modality selection while planning ahead to achieve timely and appropriate transitions limiting discomfort and anxiety for patients. Further research is required to ascertain specific interventions which may be beneficial to patients.

Is Assisted Peritoneal Dialysis a Solution for Northern Manitoba?

Background:

End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) continues to fundamentally impact the lives of First Nations (FN) patients. Home peritoneal dialysis (PD) offers patients more mobility and flexibility, but few Manitoba FNs have availed themselves of this option.

Objective:

This paper discusses Manitoba FNs' experience of PD, to highlight enablers and barriers to expanding the use of PD in rural and remote Manitoba communities.

Methods:

We analyzed interviews of individuals living with ESKD (N = 14), family caregivers (N = 14) and healthcare providers and administrators (N = 27).

Results:

Barriers to PD uptake include medical suitability, patients' distrust of home modalities and fear in their ability to manage. Other factors include limited family support and lack of appropriate housing.

Conclusions:

Assisted peritoneal dialysis (APD) is an emerging model where PD supplies are centrally located, and where a cohort of PD patients can provide mutual support with added assistance from an APD worker. This model could mitigate existing treatment barriers.

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.

Factors associated with nurse assistance among peritoneal dialysis patients: a cohort study from the French Language Peritoneal Dialysis Registry

Background

No information is available regarding nurse-assisted peritoneal dialysis (PD) in non-elderly subjects. This study was carried out to estimate the rate of nurse-assisted PD among non-elderly patients and to assess which individual and centre factors were associated with nurse-assisted PD. The other objective was to estimate the magnitude of the centre effect on the utilization of nurse-assisted PD using hierarchical modelling.

Methods

This was a retrospective study based on data from the French Language Peritoneal Dialysis Registry. Patients incident on PD > 18 and < 65 years of age were included.

Results

There were 2269 incidents of PD initiation between January 2008 and December 2012 in 127 PD centres with 114 (5%) on family-assisted PD and 272 (12%) on nurse-assisted PD. At the individual level, compared with autonomous patients, nurse assistance was associated with age {odds ratio [OR] 1.79 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51-2.13]}, gender [OR 0.47 (95% CI 0.35-0.64)], comorbidities and underlying nephropathy. There was significant heterogeneity between centres in the nurse assistance utilization (variance of random effect 0.12). At the centre level, the type of centre, centre experience, centre organization and private nurse density were not associated with nurse-assisted PD.

Conclusions

The rate of nurse-assisted PD among non-elderly patients was 12%. There was a significant centre effect in the utilization of nurse assistance that was not explained by the centres' characteristics. Nurse-assisted PD utilization in non-elderly patients is associated with patient characteristics and also with centre practices.

Attitudes of nephrologists towards assisted home dialysis in Germany

BACKGROUND

Assisted home dialysis (AHD) is an option to combine the benefits of home dialysis therapy with the needs of dialysis patients who are unable to perform self-treatment at home. While this method is growing in many countries worldwide, no data so far are reported for Germany.

METHODS

A survey was designed to identify the barriers to the implementation of AHD with the focus on attitudes and beliefs concerning AHD. The survey was sent to all 2060 members of the Germany Society of Nephrology.

RESULTS

The response rate was 14% of nephrologists (n = 286), representing 24% of all German centres. AHD was regarded as a highly meaningful option (>90% of all responding nephrologists). Fifty-five percent of the centres practice AHD (preferred peritoneal dialysis). The number of treated patients on AHD was small (77% of the centres treat no more than 10 patients). The nephrologists in centres that performed AHD were of older age and the number of dialysis patients treated in these centres was greater. AHD was offered in 57% of centres at chronic kidney disease Stage 4. Inadequate conventional dialysis and patient's request were reasons for choosing AHD. Barriers for offering AHD were lack of reimbursement, shortage of staff, lack of expertise and lack of team motivation.

CONCLUSIONS

In the view of German nephrologists, AHD is a meaningful method to provide home dialysis care. Inadequate funding and a lack of qualified staff were identified as severe barriers to implementation of AHD. To overcome these barriers and to achieve a higher penetration of AHD, dedicated actions have to be considered. Further studies are needed to prove the AHD concept with regard to outcome effects and cost efficacy.

Renal Association Clinical Practice Guideline on peritoneal dialysis in adults and children

These guidelines cover all aspects of the care of patients who are treated with peritoneal dialysis. This includes equipment and resources, preparation for peritoneal dialysis, and adequacy of dialysis (both in terms of removing waste products and fluid), preventing and treating infections. There is also a section on diagnosis and treatment of encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis, a rare but serious complication of peritoneal dialysis where fibrotic (scar) tissue forms around the intestine. The guidelines include recommendations for infants and children, for whom peritoneal dialysis is recommended over haemodialysis.Immediately after the introduction there is a statement of all the recommendations. These recommendations are written in a language that we think should be understandable by many patients, relatives, carers and other interested people. Consequently we have not reworded or restated them in this lay summary. They are graded 1 or 2 depending on the strength of the recommendation by the authors, and A-D depending on the quality of the evidence that the recommendation is based on.

Reducing the costs of chronic kidney disease while delivering quality health care: a call to action

The treatment of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) imposes substantial societal costs. Expenditure is highest for renal replacement therapy (RRT), especially in-hospital haemodialysis. Redirection towards less expensive forms of RRT (peritoneal dialysis, home haemodialysis) or kidney transplantation should decrease financial pressure. However, costs for CKD are not limited to RRT, but also include nonrenal health-care costs, costs not related to health care, and costs for patients with CKD who are not yet receiving RRT. Even if patients with CKD or ESRD could be given the least expensive therapies, costs would decrease only marginally. We therefore propose a consistent and sustainable approach focusing on prevention. Before a preventive strategy is favoured, however, authorities should carefully analyse the cost to benefit ratio of each strategy. Primary prevention of CKD is more important than secondary prevention, as many other related chronic diseases, such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, liver disease, cancer, and pulmonary disorders could also be prevented. Primary prevention largely consists of lifestyle changes that will reduce global societal costs and, more importantly, result in a healthy, active, and long-lived population. Nephrologists need to collaborate closely with other sectors and governments, to reach these aims.