Planning Vascular Access in Peritoneal Dialysis-Defining High-Risk Patients

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.

A Service Reconfiguration Bundle for Expanding Access to Peritoneal Dialysis Including for Older Frailer Patients

INTRODUCTION

Rates of peritoneal dialysis (PD) have been traditionally low in Northern Ireland. With rising numbers of patients reaching end-stage kidney disease, PD is a more cost-effective treatment than haemodialysis and aligns with international goals to increase home-based dialysis options. The aim of our study was to highlight how a service reconfiguration bundle expanded access to PD in Northern Ireland.

METHODS

The service reconfiguration bundle consisted of the appointment of a surgical lead, a dedicated interventional radiologist for fluoroscopically guided PD catheter insertion, and a nephrology-led ultrasound-guided PD catheter insertion service in an area of particular need. All patients in Northern Ireland who had a PD catheter inserted in the year following service reconfigurations were included and prospectively followed up for one-year. Patient demographics, PD catheter insertion technique, setting of procedure, and outcome data were summarised.

RESULTS

The number of patients receiving PD catheter insertion doubled to 66 in the year following service reconfigurations. The range of approaches to PD catheter insertion (laparoscopic n = 41, percutaneous n = 24 and open n = 1) allowed a wide range of patients to benefit from PD. Six patients had emergency PD catheter insertion, with four receiving urgent or early start PD. Nearly half (48%, 29/60) of the PD catheters inserted electively were in smaller elective hubs rather than the regional unit. A total of 97% of patients successfully started PD. Patients who experienced percutaneous PD catheter insertion were older [median age 76 (range 37-88) vs. 56 (range 18-84), p < 0.0001] and had less previous abdominal surgery than patients who experienced laparoscopic PD catheter insertion (25%, 6/24 vs. 54%, 22/41, p = 0.05).

DISCUSSION

Through a service reconfiguration bundle, we were able to double our annual incident PD population. This study highlights how flexible models of service delivery introduced as a bundle can quickly deliver expanded access to PD and home therapy.

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.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices in Hemodialysis and Chronic Kidney Disease Patients-An Experience-Based Narrative Review

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are a standard therapy utilized for different cardiac conditions. They are implanted in a growing number of patients, including those with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Cardiovascular diseases, including heart failure and malignant arrhythmia, remain the leading cause of mortality among CKD patients, especially in ESKD. CIED implantation procedures are considered minor surgery, typically with transvenous leads inserted via upper central veins, followed by an impulse generator introduced subcutaneously. A decision regarding optimal hemodialysis (HD) modality and the choice of permanent vascular access (VA) could be particularly challenging in CIED recipients. The potential consequences of arteriovenous access on the CIED side are related to (1) venous hypertension from lead-related central vein stenosis and (2) the risk of systemic infection. Therefore, when creating permanent vascular access, the clinical scenario may be complicated by the CIED presence on one side and the lack of suitable vessels for arteriovenous fistula on the contralateral arm. These factors suggest the need for an individualized approach according to different clinical situations: (1) CIED in a CKD patient; (2) CIED in a patient on hemodialysis CIED; and (3) VA in a patient with CIED. This complex clinical conundrum creates the necessity for close cooperation between cardiologists and nephrologists.

Hemodialysis vascular access affects heart function and outcomes: Tips for choosing the right access for the individual patient

Chronic kidney disease is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. A well-functioning vascular access is associated with improved survival and among the available types of vascular access the arterio-venous (AV) fistula is the one associated with the best outcomes. However, AV access may affect heart function and, in some patients, could worsen the clinical status. This review article focuses on the specific cardiovascular hemodynamics of dialysis patients and how it is affected by the AV access; the effects of an excessive increase in AV access flow, leading to high-output heart failure; congestive heart failure in CKD patients and the contraindications to AV access; pulmonary hypertension. In severe heart failure, peritoneal dialysis (PD) might be the better choice for cardiac health, but if contraindicated suggestions for vascular access selection are provided based on the individual clinical presentation. Management of the AV access after kidney transplantation is also addressed, considering the cardiovascular benefit of AV access ligation compared to the advantage of having a functioning AVF as backup in case of allograft failure. In PD patients, who need to switch to hemodialysis, vascular access should be created timely. The influence of AV access in patients undergoing cardiac surgery for valvular or ischemic heart disease is also addressed. Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices are increasingly implanted in dialysis patients, but when doing so, the type and location of vascular access should be considered.

Outcomes of patients commencing peritoneal dialysis with and without back-up arteriovenous fistulas

BACKGROUND

Transitions from peritoneal dialysis (PD) to haemodialysis (HD) are often unpredictable and central venous catheters (CVCs) are frequently required. Early studies found few back-up arteriovenous fistulas (bAVFs) were ever used. The PD population's characteristics have changed over time which may have altered the likelihood of bAVFs being used. This study aimed to report use of, and outcomes associated with, bAVFs in a contemporary cohort of peritoneal dialysis patients.

METHOD

A single-centre, retrospective study of PD patients commencing dialysis between 2006-2016, stratified according to presence/absence of bAVF.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-six patients were included-82 with bAVF, 94 without bAVF-of whom 156 transitioned off PD. Transitions were to HD (49%), transplantation (23%), death (15%) and renal-recovery (1%). 51% of bAVFs were successfully used and 82% of bAVFs were patent when required. Median time from creation to bAVF use was 2.5 years. More patients with a bAVF transitioned to HD (62 vs 38%, p < 0.005). However, CVC requirement at the time of transition to HD was much less common in the bAVF group (18 vs 83%, p < 0.0001), such that the overall risk of requiring a CVC was significantly lower in the bAVF group (11 vs 31%, p < 0.005). Rates of returning to PD amongst patients who transitioned to HD with a CVC or an AVF were similar (19 vs 26%, p = 0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of PD patients, utilisation of back-up arteriovenous fistulas was higher than previously reported, and presence of a back-up arteriovenous fistula was associated with a lower rate of future CVC use.

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.