Remote Treatment Monitoring on Hospitalization and Technique Failure Rates in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients

Effect of Remote and Virtual Technology on Home Dialysis

In the United States, regulatory changes dictate telehealth activities. Telehealth was available to patients on home dialysis as early as 2019, allowing patients to opt for telehealth with home as the originating site and without geographic restriction. In 2020, coronavirus disease 2019 was an unexpected accelerant for telehealth use in the United States. Within nephrology, remote patient monitoring has most often been applied to the care of patients on home dialysis modalities. The effect that remote and virtual technologies have on home dialysis patients, telehealth and health care disparities, and health care providers' workflow changes are discussed here. Moreover, the future use of remote and virtual technologies to include artificial intelligence and artificial neural network model to optimize and personalize treatments will be highlighted. Despite these advances in technology challenges continue to exist, leaving room for future innovation to improve patient health outcome and equity. Prospective studies are needed to further understand the effect of using virtual technologies and remote monitoring on home dialysis outcomes, cost, and patient engagement.

Variations in provider practices in remote patient monitoring on peritoneal dialysis in the USA and Canada

Automation has allowed clinicians to program PD treatment parameters, all while obtaining extensive individual treatment data. This data populates in a centralized online platform shortly after PD treatment completion. Individual treatment data available to providers includes patients' vital signs, alarms, bypasses, prescribed PD treatment, actual treatment length, individual cycle fill volumes, ultrafiltration volumes, as well as fill, dwell, and drain times. However, there is no guidance about how often or if this data should be assessed by the clinical team members. We set out to determine current practice patterns by surveying members of the home dialysis team managing PD patients across the United States and Canada. A total of 127 providers completed the survey. While 91% of respondents reported having access to a remote monitoring platform, only 31% reported having a standardized protocol for data monitoring. Rating their perceived importance of having a standard protocol for remote data monitoring, on a scale of 0 (not important at all) to 10 (extremely important), the average response was 8 (physicians 7; nurses 9). Most nurses reported reviewing the data multiple times per week, whereas most physicians reported viewing the data only during regular/monthly visits. Although most of the providers who responded have access to remote monitoring data and feel that regular review is important, the degree of its utilization is variable, and the way in which the information is used is not commonly protocolized. Working to standardize data interpretation, testing algorithms, and educating providers to help process and present the data are important next steps.

Use of eHealth and remote patient monitoring: a tool to support home dialysis patients, with an emphasis on peritoneal dialysis

Implementing eHealth requires technological advancement, universal broadband and internet access, and devices to conduct telemedicine and remote patient monitoring in end-stage kidney disease patients receiving home dialysis. Although eHealth was beginning to make inroads in this patient population, the COVID-19 pandemic spurred telemedicine usage when many regulations were waived during the Public Health Emergency to limit the spread of infection by endorsing social distancing. At the same time, two-way communication automatic peritoneal dialysis cyclers were introduced to advance remote patient monitoring. Despite the numerous advantages and potential benefits afforded by both procedures, challenges and untapped resources remain to be addressed. Continuing research to assess the use of eHealth and technological innovation can make eHealth a powerful tool in home dialysis. We review the past, present and future of eHealth and remote patient monitoring in supporting home dialysis.

Delivering Person-Centered Peritoneal Dialysis

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) enables people to have a home-based therapy, permitting greater autonomy for individuals along with enhanced treatment satisfaction compared with in-center dialysis care. The burden of treatment on PD, however, remains considerable and underpins the need for person-centered care. This reflects the need to address the patient as a person with needs and preferences beyond just the medical perspective. Shared decision making is central to the recent International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis recommendations for prescribing PD, balancing the potential benefits of PD on patient well-being with the burden associated with treatment. This review considers the role of high-quality goal-directed prescribing, incremental dialysis, and remote patient monitoring in reducing the burden of dialysis, including an approach to implementing incremental PD. Although patient-related outcomes are important in assessing the response to treatment and, particularly life participation, the corollary of dialysis burden, there are no clear routes to the clinical implementation of patient-related outcome measures. Delivering person-centered care is dependent on treating people both as individuals and as equal partners in their care.

Lab on a Chip Device for Diagnostic Evaluation and Management in Chronic Renal Disease: A Change Promoting Approach in the Patients' Follow Up

Lab-on-a-chip (LOC) systems are miniaturized devices aimed to perform one or several analyses, normally carried out in a laboratory setting, on a single chip. LOC systems have a wide application range, including diagnosis and clinical biochemistry. In a clinical setting, LOC systems can be associated with the Point-of-Care Testing (POCT) definition. POCT circumvents several steps in central laboratory testing, including specimen transportation and processing, resulting in a faster turnaround time. Provider access to rapid test results allows for prompt medical decision making, which can lead to improved patient outcomes, operational efficiencies, patient satisfaction, and even cost savings. These features are particularly attractive for healthcare settings dealing with complicated patients, such as those affected by chronic kidney disease (CKD). CKD is a pathological condition characterized by progressive and irreversible structural or functional kidney impairment lasting for more than three months. The disease displays an unavoidable tendency to progress to End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD), thus requiring renal replacement therapy, usually dialysis, and transplant. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the major cause of death in CKD, with a cardiovascular risk ten times higher in these patients than the rate observed in healthy subjects. The gradual decline of the kidney leads to the accumulation of uremic solutes, with negative effect on organs, especially on the cardiovascular system. The possibility to monitor CKD patients by using non-invasive and low-cost approaches could give advantages both to the patient outcome and sanitary costs. Despite their numerous advantages, POCT application in CKD management is not very common, even if a number of devices aimed at monitoring the CKD have been demonstrated worldwide at the lab scale by basic studies (low Technology Readiness Level, TRL). The reasons are related to both technological and clinical aspects. In this review, the main technologies for the design of LOCs are reported, as well as the available POCT devices for CKD monitoring, with a special focus on the most recent reliable applications in this field. Moreover, the current challenges in design and applications of LOCs in the clinical setting are briefly discussed.

Effect of remote patient monitoring for patients with chronic kidney disease who perform dialysis at home: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of remote patient monitoring (RPM) follow-up compared with standard care, for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who perform dialysis at home.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review in accordance with international guidelines. We performed systematic searches for publications from 2015 to 2021 in five databases (eg, Medline, Cinahl, Embase) and a search for grey literature in reference lists. Included effect measures were quality of life, hospitalisation, technical failure as the cause for transfer to a different dialysis modality, infections and time patients use for travel. Screening of literature, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment and certainty of evidence assessment (using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach) were done by two researchers. We conducted meta-analyses when possible.

RESULTS

Seven studies met the inclusion criteria, of which two were randomised controlled trials and five were retrospective cohort studies with control groups. The studies included 9975 participants from 5 countries, who were a good representation of dialysis patients in high-income and upper-middle-income countries. The patients were on peritoneal dialysis (six studies) or home haemodialysis (one study). There was very low certainty of evidence for the outcomes, except for hospitalisations: there was low certainty evidence from three cohort studies for fewer hospitalisation days in the RPM group. No studies included data for time patients used for travel.

CONCLUSION

We found low to very low certainty evidence that indicate there may be positive effects of RPM follow-up, in comparison to standard care only, for adult patients with CKD who perform dialysis at home. Offering RPM follow-up for home dialysis patients as an alternative or supplement to standard care appears to be safe and provide health benefits such as fewer hospitalisation days. Future implementation should be coupled with robust, high-quality evaluations.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021281779.

Impact of telehealth interventions added to peritoneal dialysis-care: a systematic review

Background

Telehealth could potentially increase independency and autonomy of patients treated with peritoneal dialysis (PD). Moreover, it might improve clinical and economic outcomes. The demand for telehealth modalities accelerated significantly in the recent COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated current literature on the impact of telehealth interventions added to PD-care on quality of life (QoL), clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Methods

An electronic search was performed in Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library in order to find studies investigating associations between telehealth interventions and: i. QoL, including patient satisfaction; ii. Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG)-PD clinical outcomes: PD-related infections, mortality, cardiovascular disease and transfer to hemodialysis (HD); iii. Cost-effectiveness. Studies investigating hospitalizations and healthcare resource utilization were also included as secondary outcomes. Due to the heterogeneity of studies, a meta-analysis could not be performed.

Results

Sixteen reports (N = 10,373) were included. Studies varied in terms of: sample size; design; risk of bias, telehealth-intervention and duration; follow-up time; outcomes and assessment tools. Remote patient monitoring (RPM) was the most frequently studied intervention (11 reports; N = 4982). Telehealth interventions added to PD-care, and RPM in particular, might reduce transfer to HD, hospitalization rate and length, as well as the number of in-person visits. It may also improve patient satisfaction.

Conclusion

There is a need for adequately powered prospective studies to determine which telehealth-modalities might confer clinical and economic benefit to the PD-community.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-022-02869-6.

Comparing the effect of peritoneal dialysis cycler type on patient-reported satisfaction, support needs and treatments

Background

Most patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD) in the United States choose automated PD via cyclers. Cyclers have evolved considerably over time with older versions (e.g. HomeChoice Pro) replaced by more sophisticated and technologically advanced versions (e.g. Amia). Understanding the effect that different cyclers and their features have on patient treatments and support needs is important. 

Methods

Single center study with retrospective and prospective arms. Retrospective arm: Patients > 18 years old, on Amia or HomeChoice Pro (HC) for ≥ 3 months between 8/1/17 and 1/31/18. Number of office/telephone encounters, PD-related emergency room visits/hospitalizations, PD training days, and dialysis adequacy (Kt/V) were recorded.

Prospective arm: Patients > 18 years old, on Amia or HC for ≥ 3 months between 9/1/19 and 2/29/20 were surveyed on their comfort, troubleshooting, satisfaction and reported assistance needed with their cyclers.

Results

Retrospective arm: 43 patients on AMIA and 27 patients on HC. Number of PD training days, Kt/Vs achieved, PD-related telephone/office encounters, and PD-related emergency room visits/hospitalizations were all similar.

Prospective Arm: 32 patients on AMIA and 6 patients on HC. Higher rate of patient comfort with AMIA, but similar overall patient satisfaction with both cyclers. No difference in terms of patient-reported troubleshooting issues requiring assistance.

Conclusions

Despite the difference in features provided between the 2 cyclers, patient overall satisfaction rates were high irrespective of the PD cycler. The HomeChoice Pro and AMIA cycler patients had a similar number of PD training days, PD-related telephone/office encounters, and PD-related emergency room visits/hospitalizations.

Trial registration

This study was approved by the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Institutional Review Board (IRB-17–02704). 

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-022-02854-z.

The case for Increased Peritoneal Dialysis Utilization in Low- and Lower-Middle-Income Countries

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) has several advantages compared to hemodialysis (HD), but there is evidence showing underutilization globally, especially in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs) where kidney replacement therapies (KRT) are often unavailable, inaccessible, and unaffordable. Only 11% of all dialysis patients worldwide use PD, more than 50% of whom live in China, the United States of America, Mexico, or Thailand. Various barriers to increased PD utilization have been reported worldwide including patient preference, low levels of education, and lower provider reimbursement. However, unique but surmountable barriers are applicable to LLMICs including the excessively high cost of providing PD (related to PD fluids in particular), excessive cost of treatment borne by patients (relative to HD), lack of adequate PD training opportunities for doctors and nurses, low workforce availability for kidney care, and challenges related to some PD outcomes (catheter-related infections, hospitalizations, mortality, etc.). This review discusses some known barriers to PD use in LLMICs and leverages data that show a global trend in reducing rates of PD-related infections, reducing rates of modality switches from HD, and improving patient survival in PD to discuss how PD use can be increased in LLMICs. We therefore, challenge the idea that low PD use in LLMICs is unavoidable due to these barriers and instead present opportunities to improve PD utilization in LLMICs.

Point-of-care testing technologies for the home in chronic kidney disease: a narrative review

Point-of-care testing (POCT) performed by the patient at home, paired with eHealth technologies, offers a wealth of opportunities to develop individualized, empowering clinical pathways. The non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD) patient who is at risk of or may already be suffering from a number of the associated complications of CKD represents an ideal patient group for the development of such initiatives. The current coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and drive towards shielding vulnerable individuals have further highlighted the need for home testing pathways. In this narrative review we outline the evidence supporting remote patient management and the various technologies in use in the POCT setting. We then review the devices currently available for use in the home by patients in five key areas of renal medicine: anaemia, biochemical, blood pressure (BP), anticoagulation and diabetes monitoring. Currently there are few devices and little evidence to support the use of home POCT in CKD. While home testing in BP, anticoagulation and diabetes monitoring is relatively well developed, the fields of anaemia and biochemical POCT are still in their infancy. However, patients' attitudes towards eHealth and home POCT are consistently positive and physicians also find this care highly acceptable. The regulatory and translational challenges involved in the development of new home-based care pathways are significant. Pragmatic and adaptable trials of a hybrid effectiveness-implementation design, as well as continued technological POCT device advancement, are required to deliver these innovative new pathways that our patients desire and deserve.

Technique failure in remote patient monitoring program in patients undergoing automated peritoneal dialysis: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Remote patient monitoring (RPM) programs in automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) allow clinical teams to be aware of many aspects and events of the therapy that occur in the home. The present study evaluated the association between RPM use and APD technique failure.

METHODS

A retrospective, multicentre, observational cohort study of 558 prevalent adult APD patients included between 1 October 2016 and 30 June 2017 with follow-up until 30 June 2018 at Renal Therapy Services network in Colombia. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on the RPM use: APD-RPM (n = 148) and APD-without RPM (n = 410). Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of all patients were summarized descriptively. A propensity score was used to create a pseudo-population in which the baseline covariates were well balanced. The association of RPM with technique failure was estimated adjusting for the competing events death and kidney transplant.

RESULTS

Five hundred fifty-eight patients were analyzed. 26.5% had APD-RPM. In the matched sample comprising 148 APD-RPM and 148 APD-without RPM patients, we observed a lower technique failure rate of 0.08 [0.05-0.15] episodes per patient-year in APD-RPM versus 0.18 [0.12-0.26] in APD-without RPM cohort; incidence rate ratio = 0.45 95% confidence interval: [0.22-0.91], p-value = 0.03.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of an RPM program in APD patients may be associated with a lower technique failure rate. More extensive and interventional studies are needed to confirm its potential benefits and to measure other patient-centered outcomes.