Transition Between Different Renal Replacement Modalities: Gaps in Knowledge and Care-The Integrated Research Initiative

The integrated care model: facilitating initiation of or transition to home dialysis

A proportion of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients require kidney replacement therapy to maintain clinical stability. Home dialysis therapies offer convenience, autonomy and potential quality of life improvements, all of which were heightened during the COVID-19 pandemic. While the superiority of specific modalities remains uncertain, patient choice and informed decision-making remain crucial. Missed opportunities for home therapies arise from systemic, programmatic and patient-level barriers. This paper introduces the integrated care model which prioritizes the safe and effective uptake of home therapies while also emphasizing patient-centered care, informed decision-making, and comprehensive support. The integrated care framework addresses challenges in patient identification, assessment, eligibility determination, education and modality transitions. Special considerations for urgent dialysis starts are discussed, acknowledging the unique barriers faced by this population. Continuous quality improvement is emphasized, with the understanding that local challenges may require tailored solutions. Overall, the integrated care model aims to create a seamless and beneficial transition to home dialysis therapies, promoting flexibility and improved quality of life for ESKD patients globally.

Personalized peritoneal dialysis prescription-beyond clinical or analytical values

Traditionally, dialysis adequacy has been assessed primarily by determining the clearance of a single small solute, urea. Nevertheless, it has become increasingly evident that numerous other factors play a crucial role in the overall well-being, outcomes and quality of life of dialysis patients. Consequently, in recent years, there has been a notable paradigm shift in guidelines and recommendations regarding dialysis adequacy. This shift represents a departure from a narrow focus only on the removal of specific toxins, embracing a more holistic, person-centered approach. This new perspective underscores the critical importance of improving the well-being of individuals undergoing dialysis while simultaneously minimizing the overall treatment burden. It is based on a double focus on both clinical outcomes and a comprehensive patient experience. To achieve this, a person-centered approach must be embraced when devising care strategies for each individual. This requires a close collaboration between the healthcare team and the patient, facilitating an in-depth understanding of the patient's unique goals, priorities and preferences while striving for the highest quality of care during treatment. The aim of this publication is to address the existing evidence on this all-encompassing approach to treatment care for patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis and provide a concise overview to promote a deeper understanding of this person-centered approach.

Nephrologists' perspectives on communication and decision-making regarding technique survival in peritoneal dialysis: an international qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVES

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) allows patients increased autonomy and flexibility; however, both infectious and non-infectious complications may lead to technique failure, which shortens treatment longevity. Maintaining patients on PD remains a major challenge for nephrologists. This study aims to describe nephrologists' perspectives on technique survival in PD.

DESIGN

Qualitative semistructured interview study. Transcripts were thematically analysed.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

30 nephrologists across 11 countries including Australia, the USA, the UK, Hong Kong, Canada, Singapore, Japan, New Zealand, Thailand, Colombia and Uruguay were interviewed from April 2017 to November 2019.

RESULTS

We identified four themes: defining patient suitability (confidence in capacity for self-management, ensuring clinical stability and expected resilience), building endurance (facilitating access to practical support, improving mental well-being, optimising quality of care and training to reduce risk of complications), establishing rapport through effective communications (managing expectations to enhance trust, individualising care and harnessing a multidisciplinary approach) and confronting fear and acknowledging barriers to haemodialysis (preventing crash landing to haemodialysis, facing concerns of losing independence and positive framing of haemodialysis).

CONCLUSION

Nephrologists reported that technique survival in PD is influenced by patients' medical circumstances, psychological motivation and positively influenced by the education and support provided by treating clinicians and families. Strategies to enhance patients' knowledge on PD and communication with patients about technique survival in PD are needed to build trust, set patient expectations of treatment and improve the process of transition off PD.

Adapting Clinical Practice Guidelines for Chronic Kidney Disease: Blood Pressure Management and Kidney Replacement Therapy in Adults and Children in the Saudi Arabian Context Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation-ADOLOPMENT Methodology

This practice guideline was developed by the chronic kidney disease (CKD) Task Force, which was composed of clinical and methodological experts. The Saudi Arabian Ministry of Health and its health holding company commissioned this guideline project to support the realization of Vision 2030's health-care transformation pillar. The synthesis of these guidelines was guided by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)- ADOLOPMENT methodology. The final guidelines addressed 12 clinical questions on the management of blood pressure in patients with CKD through a set of recommen-dations and performance measures. The recom-mendations included antihypertensive agents in children; renin- angiotensin system inhibition (RASi) versus non-RASi in adults; intensive versus standard blood pressure targets; early versus late assessment for kidney replacement therapy (KRT); late versus early preparation strategies for KRT; CKD symptoms during assessment for KRT or conservative manage-ment; initiation of KRT in patients with deteriorating CKD; choice of KRT modality or conservative management in certain CKD patient groups; changing or discontinuing KRT modalities; the frequency of reviews for KRT or conservative management; and information, education, and support. These conditional recommendations were based on a low to very low certainty of evidence, which highlights the need for high-quality randomized trials com-paring different antihypertensive agents in patients with CKD.

Health related quality of life during dialysis modality transitions: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Modality transitions represent a period of significant change that can impact health related quality of life (HRQoL). We explored the HRQoL of adults transitioning to new or different dialysis modalities.

METHODS

We recruited eligible adults (≥ 18) transitioning to dialysis from pre-dialysis or undertaking a dialysis modality change between July and September 2017. Nineteen participants (9 incident and 10 prevalent dialysis patients) completed the KDQOL-36 survey at time of transition and three months later. Fifteen participants undertook a semi-structured interview at three months. Qualitative data were thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Four themes and five sub-themes were identified: adapting to new circumstances (tackling change, accepting change), adjusting together, trading off, and challenges of chronicity (the impact of dialysis, living with a complex disease, planning with uncertainty). From the first day of dialysis treatment to the third month on a new dialysis therapy, all five HRQoL domains from the KDQOL-36 (symptoms, effects, burden, overall PCS, and overall MCS) improved in our sample (i.e., those who remained on the modality).

CONCLUSIONS

Dialysis transitions negatively impact the HRQoL of people with kidney disease in various ways. Future work should focus on how to best support people during this time.

Home dialysis: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference

Home dialysis modalities (home hemodialysis [HD] and peritoneal dialysis [PD]) are associated with greater patient autonomy and treatment satisfaction compared with in-center modalities, yet the level of home-dialysis use worldwide is low. Reasons for limited utilization are context-dependent, informed by local resources, dialysis costs, access to healthcare, health system policies, provider bias or preferences, cultural beliefs, individual lifestyle concerns, potential care-partner time, and financial burdens. In May 2021, KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) convened a controversies conference on home dialysis, focusing on how modality choice and distribution are determined and strategies to expand home-dialysis use. Participants recognized that expanding use of home dialysis within a given health system requires alignment of policy, fiscal resources, organizational structure, provider incentives, and accountability. Clinical outcomes across all dialysis modalities are largely similar, but for specific clinical measures, one modality may have advantages over another. Therefore, choice among available modalities is preference-sensitive, with consideration of quality of life, life goals, clinical characteristics, family or care-partner support, and living environment. Ideally, individuals, their care-partners, and their healthcare teams will employ shared decision-making in assessing initial and subsequent kidney failure treatment options. To meet this goal, iterative, high-quality education and support for healthcare professionals, patients, and care-partners are priorities. Everyone who faces dialysis should have access to home therapy. Facilitating universal access to home dialysis and expanding utilization requires alignment of policy considerations and resources at the dialysis-center level, with clear leadership from informed and motivated clinical teams.

Care of the hospitalised patient receiving peritoneal dialysis: Your questions answered

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients have higher hospitalisation rates than the general population. The hospitalisations are not always related to dialysis issues, and physicians with little or no experience with PD may be responsible for the care of these hospitalised patients. Furthermore, the hospital may not be familiar with or equipped to manage these patients. This review highlights barriers, knowledge gaps and management strategies to guide the care of hospitalised PD patients.

Peritoneal dialysis catheter removal at the time or after kidney transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

An increasing number of patients treated with peritoneal dialysis eventually undergo kidney transplantation. Owing to opposing reports, we aimed to find evidence about the best time for peritoneal dialysis catheter removal in transplant patients.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and random effects meta-analysis of non-randomized studies of intervention comparing patients with peritoneal dialysis catheters left in place or removed during kidney transplantation in regard to the need for dialysis and occurrence of catheter-related complications. We searched (last update on 8 December 2021) PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for eligible studies. ROBINS-I tool and funnel plot asymmetry analysis were used to assess the quality of included articles.

RESULTS

Eight observational studies were evaluated. Five of them, which involved 338 patients, were included in a meta-analysis. All were at moderate to serious risk of bias. The odds of needing dialysis are more than twice as high for patients with peritoneal dialysis catheters left in situ (pooled odds ratio, 2.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 4.73; I2 = 0%). No statistically significant difference was noted when adult and pediatric subgroups were compared (Q = 0.13, P = .720). More individuals with catheters left in place required dialysis (pooled prevalence, 20.9%; 95% CI, 13.6 to 30.7%; I2 = 59% vs. 12.4%; 95% CI, 5.6 to 25.2%; I2 = 0%) and experienced catheter-related infections.

CONCLUSION

Available evidence is scarce. Unless new data from a randomized controlled trial are available, the dilemma of peritoneal dialysis catheter removal cannot be solved.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Protocol ID: CRD42020207707.

Transitions in an integrated model of renal replacement therapy in a regional health system

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The choice of renal replacement therapy (RRT) is an important decision that determines the quality of life and survival. Most patients change from one RRT modality to another to adapt RRT to clinical and psychosocial needs. This has been called «integrated model of RRT» that implies new questions about the best sequence of techniques.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study describes the impact of transitions between RRT modalities on survival using the Madrid Registry of Renal Patients (2008-2018). This study used the proportional hazards models and competitive risk models to perform an intention-to-treat (ITT), according to their 1st RRT modality and as-treated (AT) analysis, that consider also their 1st transition.

RESULTS

A total of 8971 patients started RRT during this period in Madrid (6.6 Million population): 7207 (80.3%) on hemodialysis (HD), 1401 (15.6%) on peritoneal dialysis (PD) and 363 (4.2%) received a pre-emptive kidney transplantation (KT). Incident HD-patients were older (HD group 65.3 years (SD 15.3) vs PD group 58.1 years (SD 14.8) vs KTX group 52 years (SD 17.2); p < 0.001) and had more comorbidities. They presented higher mortality (HD group 40.9% vs PD group 22.8% vs KTX group 8.3%, p < 0.001) and less access to a transplant (HD group 30.4% vs PD group 51.6%; p < 0.001). Transitions between dialysis techniques define different groups of patients with different clinical outcomes. Those who change from HD to PD do it earlier (HD → PD: 0.7 years (SD 1.1) vs PD → HD: 1.5 years (SD 1.4) p < 0.001), are younger (HD → PD: 53.5 years (SD 16.7) vs PD → HD: 61.6 years (SD 14.6); p < 0.001), presented less mortality (HD → PD: 24.5% vs PD → HD: 32.0%; p < 0.001) and higher access to a transplant (HD → PD: 49.4% vs PD → HD: 31.7%; p < 0.001). Survival analysis by competitive risks is essential for integrated RRT models, especially in groups such as PD patients, where 51.6% of the patients were considered as lost follow-up (received a KTX after during the first 2.5 years on PD). In this analysis, survival of patients who change from one technique to another, is more similar to the destination modality than the origin one.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that transitions between RRT-techniques describes different patients, who associate different risks, and could be analyzed in an integrated manner to define improvement actions. This approach should be incorporated into the analysis and reports of renal registries.

Mortality Trends after Transfer from Peritoneal Dialysis to Hemodialysis

Introduction

Transition to hemodialysis (HD) is a common outcome in peritoneal dialysis (PD), but the associated mortality risk is poorly understood. This study sought to identify rates of and risk factors for mortality after transitioning from PD to HD.

Methods

Patients with incident PD (between 2000 and 2014) who transferred to HD for ≥1 day were identified, using data from Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplantation registry (ANZDATA), Canadian Organ Replacement Register (CORR), Europe Renal Association (ERA) Registry, and the United States Renal Dialysis System (USRDS). Crude mortality rates were calculated for the first 180 days after transfer. Separate multivariable Cox models were built for early (<90 days), medium (90–180 days), and late (>180 days) periods after transfer.

Results

Overall, 6683, 5847, 21,574, and 80,459 patients were included from ANZDATA, CORR, ERA Registry, and USRDS, respectively. In all registries, crude mortality rate was highest during the first 30 days after a transfer to HD declining thereafter to nadir at 4 to 6 months. Crude mortality rates were lower for patients transferring in the most recent years (than earlier). Older age, PD initiation in earlier cohorts, and longer PD vintage were associated with increased risk of death, with the strongest associations during the first 90 days after transfer and attenuating thereafter. Mortality risk was lower for men than women <90 days after transfer, but higher after 180 days.

Conclusion

In this multinational study, mortality was highest in the first month after a transfer from PD to HD and risk factors varied by time period after transfer. This study highlights the vulnerability of patients at the time of modality transfer and the need to improve transitions.

Transitions in an integrated model of renal replacement therapy in a regional health system

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The choice of renal replacement therapy (RRT) is an important decision that determines the quality of life and survival. Most patients change from one RRT modality to another to adapt RRT to clinical and psychosocial needs. This has been called «integrated model of RRT» that implies new questions about the best sequence of techniques.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study describes the impact of transitions between RRT modalities on survival using the Madrid Registry of Renal Patients (2008-2018). This study used the proportional hazards models and competitive risk models to perform an intention-to-treat (ITT), according to their 1st RRT modality and as-treated (AT) analysis, that consider also their 1st transition.

RESULTS

A total of 8971 patients started RRT during this period in Madrid (6.6 Million population): 7207 (80.3%) on hemodialysis (HD), 1401 (15.6%) on peritoneal dialysis (PD) and 363 (4.2%) received a pre-emptive kidney transplantation (KTX). Incident HD-patients were older (HD group 65.3 years (SD 15.3) vs PD group 58.1 years (SD 14.8) vs KTX group 52 years (SD 17.2); p<0.001) and had more comorbidities. They presented higher mortality (HD group 40.9% vs PD group 22.8% vs 8.3% KTX group, p<0.001) and less access to a transplant (HD group 30.4% vs DP group 51.6%; p<0.001). Transitions between dialysis techniques define different groups of patients with different clinical outcomes. Those who change from HD to PD do it earlier (HD→PD: 0.7 years (SD 1.1) vs PD→HD: 1.5 years (SD 1.4) p<0.001), are younger (HD→PD: 53.5 years (SD 16.7) vs PD→HD: 61.6 years (SD 14.6); p<0.001), presented less mortality (HD→PD: 24.5% vs PD→HD: 32.0%; p<0.001) and higher access to a transplant (HD→PD: 49.4% vs PD→HD: 31.7%; p<0.001). Survival analysis by competitive risks is essential for integrated RRT models, especially in groups such as PD patients, where 51.6% of the patients were considered as lost follow-up (received a KTX after during the first 2.5 years on PD). In this analysis, survival of patients who change from one technique to another, is more similar to the destination modality than the origin one.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that transitions between RRT-techniques describes different patients, who associate different risks, and could be analyzed in an integrated manner to define improvement actions. This approach should be incorporated into the analysis and reports of renal registries.

Commentary on the NICE guideline on renal replacement therapy and conservative management

NICE Guideline NG107, “Renal replacement therapy and conservative management” (Renal replacement therapy and conservative management (NG107); 2018:1–33) was published in October 2018 and replaced the existing NICE guideline CG125, “Chronic Kidney Disease (Stage 5): peritoneal dialysis” (Chronic kidney disease (stage 5): peritoneal dialysis | Guidance | NICE; 2011) and NICE Technology Appraisal TA48, “Guidance on home compared with hospital haemodialysis for patients with end-stage renal failure”(Guidance on home compared with hospital haemodialysis for patients with end-stage renal failure (Technology appraisal guideline TA48); 2002) The aim of the NICE guideline (NG107) was to provide guidance on renal replacement therapy (RRT), including dialysis, transplant and conservative care, for adults and children with CKD Stages 4 and 5. The guideline is extremely welcomed by the Renal Association and it offers huge value to patients, clinicians, commissioners and key stakeholders. It overlaps and enhances current guidance published by the Renal Association including “Haemodialysis” (Clinical practice guideline: Haemodialysis; 2019) which was updated in 2019 after the publication of the NICE guideline, “Peritoneal Dialysis in Adults and Children” (Clinical practice guideline: peritoneal Dialysis in adults and children; 2017) and “Planning, Initiation & withdrawal of Renal Replacement Therapy” (Clinical practice guideline: planning, initiation and withdrawal of renal replacement therapy; 2014) (at present there are no plans to update this guideline).

There are several strengths to NICE guideline NG107 and we agree with and support the vast majority of recommendation statements in the guideline. This summary from the Renal Association discusses some of the key highlights, controversies, gaps in knowledge and challenges in implementation. Where there is disagreement with a NICE guideline statement, we have highlighted this and a new suggested statement has been written.

Renal staffs' understanding of patients' experiences of transition from peritoneal dialysis to in-centre haemodialysis and their views on service improvement: A multi-site qualitative study in England and Australia

INTRODUCTION

Many studies have explored patients' experiences of dialysis and other treatments for kidney failure. This is the first qualitative multi-site international study of how staff perceive the process of a patient's transition from peritoneal dialysis to in-centre haemodialysis. Current literature suggests that transitions are poorly coordinated and may result in increased patient morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to understand staff perspectives of transition and to identify areas where clinical practice could be improved.

METHODS

Sixty-one participants (24 UK and 37 Australia), representing a cross-section of kidney care staff, took part in seven focus groups and sixteen interviews. Data were analysed inductively and findings were synthesised across the two countries.

RESULTS

For staff, good clinical practice included: effective communication with patients, well planned care pathways and continuity of care. However, staff felt that how they communicated with patients about the treatment journey could be improved. Staff worried they inadvertently made patients fear haemodialysis when trying to explain to them why going onto peritoneal dialysis first is a good option. Despite staff efforts to make transitions smooth, good continuity of care between modalities was only reported in some of the Australian hospitals where, unlike the UK, patients kept the same consultant. Timely access to an appropriate service, such as a psychologist or social worker, was not always available when staff felt it would be beneficial for the patient. Staff were aware of a disparity in access to kidney care and other healthcare professional services between some patient groups, especially those living in remote areas. This was often put down to the lack of funding and capacity within each hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

This research found that continuity of care between modalities was valued by staff but did not always happen. It also highlighted a number of areas for consideration when developing ways to improve care and provide appropriate support to patients as they transition from peritoneal dialysis to in-centre haemodialysis.

Home-to-home dialysis transition: A 24-year single-centre experience

Home dialysis (peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home haemodialysis (HHD)) are ideal options for kidney replacement therapy (KRT). Occasionally, because of technique failure, patients are required to transition out of home dialysis, and the most common option tends to be to in-centre HD. There are few published studies on home-to-home transition (PD to HHD or HHD to PD) and dynamics during the transition period. We present a retrospective review of 28 patients who transitioned from a home-to-home dialysis modality at our centre over a 24-year period. We observed a total of 911 home dialysis patients with technique failure (826 PD patients and 85 HHD patients) with only 28 patients (3% of the total with technique failure) having successful home-to-home transition. During the transition period, 11 patients (39%) were hospitalized and 13 patients (46%) required variable periods of in-centre HD. After a median follow-up of 48 months following dialysis modality transition, four patients switched to in-centre HD permanently (home dialysis technique survival of 86% censored for death and kidney transplantation) and four patients died resulting in a patient survival of 86% (censored for switch to in-centre HD and transplantation). In our centre, home-to-home transition is a feasible strategy with comparable patient and technique survival. A significant proportion of patients switching from a home-to-home dialysis modality required variable intervals of hospitalization and in-centre HD during transitions. Future efforts should be directed towards assessment and home dialysis education during the entire process of dialysis transition.

Survival comparisons in home hemodialysis: Understanding the present and looking to the future

A number of studies have compared relative survival for home hemodialysis patients (including longer hours/more frequent schedules) and other forms of renal replacement therapy. While informative, many of these studies have been limited by issues pertaining to their observational design including selection bias and residual confounding. Furthermore the few randomized controlled trials that have been conducted have been underpowered to detect a survival difference. Finally, in the face of a growing recognition of the value of patient-important outcomes beyond survival, the focus of comparisons between dialysis modalities may be changing. In this review, we will discuss the determinants of survival for patients receiving home hemodialysis and address the various studies that have compared relative survival for differing home hemodialysis schedules to each of in-center hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis and transplantation. We will conclude this review by discussing whether there is an ongoing role for survival analyses in home hemodialysis.

The concept of justifiable healthcare and how big data can help us to achieve it

Over the last decades, the face of health care has changed dramatically, with big improvements in what is technically feasible. However, there are indicators that the current approach to evaluating evidence in health care is not holistic and hence in the long run, health care will not be sustainable. New conceptual and normative frameworks for the evaluation of health care need to be developed and investigated. The current paper presents a novel framework of justifiable health care and explores how the use of artificial intelligence and big data can contribute to achieving the goals of this framework.

Physical Infrastructure and Integrated Governance Structure for Home Hemodialysis

In view of the growing enthusiasm for home dialysis use, new dialysis centers may build or expend their home hemodialysis program in the next few years. This review will discuss the main challenges faced by small and large home hemodialysis programs in terms of physical spaces, human resource, training considerations, and overall governance. We will elaborate on the inclusion of home hemodialysis in the kidney replacement therapy care continuum, with a specific interest for collaboration and transition between peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis programs.

How do patients and their family members experience the transition from peritoneal dialysis to incentre haemodialysis? A multisite qualitative study in England and Australia

BACKGROUND

While numerous studies have explored the patient experience of dialysis or other end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) treatments, few have explored the process of transitioning between dialysis modalities. This study aimed to develop an in-depth understanding of patient and caregiver perceptions and experiences of the transition from peritoneal to haemodialysis (HD) and to identify ways in which transitions can be optimised.

METHODS

Fifty-four in-depth, semi-structured interviews were undertaken at six study sites across the West Midlands, UK (n = 23), and Queensland, Australia (n = 31). Thirty-nine participants were patients with ESKD; the remainder were family members. An inductive analytical approach was employed, with findings synthesised across sites to identify themes that transcended country differences.

RESULTS

Of the 39 patient transitions, only 4 patients reported a wholly negative transition experience. Three cross-cutting themes identified common transition experiences and areas perceived to make a difference to the treatment transition: resistance to change and fear of HD; transition experience shared with family; and bodily adjustment and sense of self.

CONCLUSION

Although each transition is unique to the individual and their circumstances, kidney care services could optimise the process by recognising these patient-led themes and developing strategies that engage with them. Kidney care services should consider ways to keep patients aware of potential future treatment options and present them objectively. There is potential value in integrating expert support before and during treatment transitions to identify and address patient and family concerns.

Home Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis Patient and Technique Survival in Canada

INTRODUCTION

As interest for home dialysis is growing, knowledge of comparative clinical outcomes between peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD) would help to better inform shared decision making with patients and caregivers during modality discussion. This study aimed to assess differences in risk of mortality and technique failure in an incident home dialysis cohort and, specifically, to assess change in this association through eras.

METHODS

All adults patients initiating PD or HHD, in Canada (excluding Quebec), within 365 days after kidney replacement therapy (KRT) initiation between 2000 and 2013 were included (administrative censoring 31 December 2014). Mortality and treatment failure (transfer to another modality for >90 days or death) were assessed in a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model, with prespecified stratification based on the year of KRT initiation.

RESULTS

The study included 959 HHD and 15,469 PD patients. Compared with incident PD, incident HHD was associated with a lower risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.53-0.78), and treatment failure (aHR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.45-0.60). These lower risks of mortality with HHD were more pronounced for older cohorts (2000-2005: aHR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.31-0.70; 2006-2010: aHR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.54-0.89) and not significantly different in the most recent era (2011-2013: aHR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.51-1.47).

CONCLUSION

In Canadian incident KRT patients, HHD was associated with appreciably lower risks of mortality and treatment failure compared to PD, although this association appeared to be attenuated in the most contemporary era.

Patients' experiences of transitioning between different renal replacement therapy modalities: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Different kidney replacement therapy modalities are available to manage end-stage kidney disease, such as home-based dialysis, in-center hemodialysis, and kidney transplantation. Although transitioning between modalities is common, data on how patients experience these transitions are scarce. This study explores patients' perspectives of transitioning from a home-based to an in-center modality.

METHODS

Patients transitioning from peritoneal dialysis to in-center hemodialysis were purposively selected. Semi-structured interviews were performed, digitally recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis, consistent with Charmaz' constructivist approach of grounded theory was performed.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients (10 males; mean age 62 years) participated. The conditions of the transitioning process impacted the participants' experiences, resulting in divergent experiences and associated emotions. Some participants experienced a loss of control due to the therapy-related changes. Some felt tied down and having lost independence, whereas others stated they regained control as they felt relieved from responsibility. This paradox of control was related to the patient having or not having (1) experienced a fit of hemodialysis with their personal lifestyle, (2) a frame of reference, (3) higher care requirements, (4) insight into the underlying reasons for transitioning, and (5) trust in the healthcare providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Care teams need to offer opportunities to elicit patients' knowledge and fears, dispel myths, forge connections with other patients, and visit the dialysis unit before transition to alleviate anxiety. Interventions that facilitate a sense of control should be grounded in the meaning that the disorder has for the person and how it impacts their sense of self.

Integrated care: enhancing transition from renal replacement therapy options to home haemodialysis

Transition is an intrinsic process in the life of a patient with kidney disease and should be planned and anticipated when possible. A single therapy option might not be adequate across a patient’s entire lifespan and many patients will require a switch in their treatment modality to adapt the treatment to their clinical and psychosocial needs. There are several reasons behind changing a patient’s treatment modality, and the consequences of each decision should be evaluated, considering both short- and long-term benefits and risks. Dialysis modality transition is not only to allow for technical optimization or improved patient survival, the patient’s experience associated with the transition should also be taken into account. Transition should not be considered as treatment failure, but rather as an expected progression in the patient’s treatment options.

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.