Choice of the Dialysis Modality: Practical Considerations

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Developing a haemodialysis acuity tool (the HAT study): A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Haemodialysis units are now managing an increasing number of patients with varying needs and levels of acuity. To maintain safety, haemodialysis patients must be placed in the most appropriate dialysis unit that has the required human and physical resources to care for them. The first step towards achieving these goals is to develop a tool specific to haemodialysis units to effectively measure patient acuity.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a haemodialysis acuity tool, utilising a focus group approach, in assessing patient's suitability for a specific dialysis location thus ensuring patient safety.

DESIGN

This is a cross-sectional qualitative study via a focus group approach.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were nurse unit managers and team leaders of a District Renal Service.

APPROACH

Participants were interviewed to explore their views on the elements and measures identified in the research aims. Themes for interviews were informed by current literature on acuity tools for haemodialysis patients' admission to the dialysis units. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and progressively analysed using a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Ten nurse unit managers/team leaders (100%) were interviewed and thematic analysis of the transcripts was conducted utilising the deductive approach. Five themes were identified which will form the main categories in the development of the tool, namely: Age/frailty; co-morbidity; physical; dialysis; and psychosocial.

CONCLUSION

This study is instrumental in the development of the haemodialysis acuity tool which can be used in allocating dialysis location specific to patient's needs and available resources. The tool can also be used in analysing patient care processes and resource requirements based on the patients' and unit's profile.

Patient screening and assessment for home dialysis therapies: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Home dialysis therapies have limited uptake in most regions despite recognized benefits such as increasing patients' independence, and several domains of quality of life with cost savings in some systems.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a scoping review of published literature to identify tools and guides used in systematically screening and assessing patient suitability for home dialysis. A secondary objective was to explore barriers and enablers associated with the home dialysis assessment process. It is important to identify gaps in current research to pose pertinent questions for future work in the field.

DESIGN

Online databases Embase, Medline (Ovid), and CINAHL were used to identify articles published between January 2007 to May 2023. A total of 23 peer-reviewed primary and secondary studies that investigated screening or selection for patients > 18 years old with kidney failure for home dialysis met the study inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The studies consisted of secondary studies (n = 10), observational studies (n = 8), and survey-based studies (n = 5). The major themes identified that influence patient screening and assessment for home dialysis candidacy included: screening tools and guidelines (n = 8), relative contraindications (n = 4), patient or program education (n = 9), and socioeconomic factors (n = 2).

LIMITATIONS

Consistent with the scoping review methodology, the methodological quality of included studies was not assessed. The possible omission of evidence in languages other than English is a limitation.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review identified tools and factors that potentially guide the assessment process for home dialysis candidacy. Patient screening and assessment for home dialysis requires a comprehensive evaluation of clinical, psychosocial, and logistical factors. Further research is required to validate and refine existing tools to establish standardized patient screening criteria and evaluation processes. Up-to-date training and education for healthcare providers and patients are needed to improve the utilization of home dialysis and ensure optimal outcomes.