Implementation of the Kidney Team at Home Intervention: Evaluating Generalizability, Implementation Process, and Effects

Research has shown that a home-based educational intervention for patients with chronic kidney disease results in better knowledge and communication, and more living donor kidney transplantations (LDKT). Implementation research in the field of renal care is almost non-existent. The aims of this study were (1) to demonstrate generalizability, (2) evaluate the implementation process, and (3) to assess the relationship of intervention effects on LDKT-activity. Eight hospitals participated in the project. Patients eligible for all kidney replacement therapies (KRT) were invited to participate. Effect outcomes were KRT-knowledge and KRT-communication, and treatment choice. Feasibility, fidelity and intervention costs were assessed as part of the process evaluation. 332 patients completed the intervention. There was a significant increase in KRT-knowledge and KRT-communication among participants. 129 out of 332 patients (39%) had LDKT-activity, which was in line with the results of the clinical trials. Protocol adherence, knowledge and age were correlated with LDKT-activity. This unique implementation study shows that the results in practice are comparable to the previous trials, and show that the intervention can be implemented, while maintaining quality. Results from the project resulted in the uptake of the intervention in standard care. We urge other countries to investigate the uptake of the intervention.

Effect of No Prehydration vs Sodium Bicarbonate Prehydration Prior to Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography in the Prevention of Postcontrast Acute Kidney Injury in Adults With Chronic Kidney Disease: The Kompas Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Prevention of postcontrast acute kidney injury in patients with stage 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD) by means of prehydration has been standard care for years. However, evidence for the need for prehydration in this group is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the renal safety of omitting prophylactic prehydration prior to iodine-based contrast media administration in patients with stage 3 CKD.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Kompas trial was a multicenter, noninferiority, randomized clinical trial conducted at 6 hospitals in the Netherlands in which 523 patients with stage 3 CKD were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive no prehydration or prehydration with 250 mL of 1.4% sodium bicarbonate administered in a 1-hour infusion before undergoing elective contrast-enhanced computed tomography from April 2013 through September 2016. Final follow-up was completed in September 2017. Data were analyzed from January 2018 to June 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

In total, 262 patients were allocated to the no prehydration group and 261 were allocated to receive prehydration. Analysis on the primary end point was available in 505 patients (96.6%).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was the mean relative increase in serum creatinine level 2 to 5 days after contrast administration compared with baseline (noninferiority margin of less than 10% increase in serum creatinine level). Secondary outcomes included the incidence of postcontrast acute kidney injury 2 to 5 days after contrast administration, mean relative increase in creatinine level 7 to 14 days after contrast administration, incidences of acute heart failure and renal failure requiring dialysis, and health care costs.

RESULTS

Of 554 patients randomized, 523 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The median (interquartile range) age was 74 (67-79) years; 336 (64.2%) were men and 187 (35.8%) were women. The mean (SD) relative increase in creatinine level 2 to 5 days after contrast administration compared with baseline was 3.0% (10.5) in the no prehydration group vs 3.5% (10.3) in the prehydration group (mean difference, 0.5; 95% CI, -1.3 to 2.3; P < .001 for noninferiority). Postcontrast acute kidney injury occurred in 11 patients (2.1%), including 7 of 262 (2.7%) in the no prehydration group and 4 of 261 (1.5%) in the prehydration group, which resulted in a relative risk of 1.7 (95% CI, 0.5-5.9; P = .36). None of the patients required dialysis or developed acute heart failure. Subgroup analyses showed no evidence of statistical interactions between treatment arms and predefined subgroups. Mean hydration costs were €119 (US $143.94) per patient in the prehydration group compared with €0 (US $0) in the no prehydration group (P < .001). Other health care costs were similar.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with stage 3 CKD undergoing contrast-enhanced computed tomography, withholding prehydration did not compromise patient safety. The findings of this study support the option of not giving prehydration as a safe and cost-efficient measure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register Identifier: NTR3764.

Randomized trial of one-hour sodium bicarbonate vs standard periprocedural saline hydration in chronic kidney disease patients undergoing cardiovascular contrast procedures

Background

Guidelines advise periprocedural saline hydration for prevention of contrast induced-acute kidney injury (CI-AKI). We analysed whether 1-hour sodium bicarbonate hydration administered solely prior to intra-arterial contrast exposure is non-inferior to standard periprocedural saline hydration in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients undergoing elective cardiovascular diagnostic or interventional contrast procedures.

Methods

We performed an open-label multicentre non-inferiority trial between 2011–2014. Patients were randomized to 1 hour pre-procedure sodium bicarbonate hydration (250 ml 1.4%, N = 168) or 4–12 hours saline hydration (1000 ml 0.9%, N = 165) prior to and following contrast administration (2000 ml of saline total). Primary outcome was the relative serum creatinine increase (%) 48–96 hours post contrast exposure. Secondary outcomes were: incidence of CI-AKI (serum creatinine increase>25% or >44μmol/L), recovery of renal function, the need for dialysis, and hospital costs within two months follow-up.

Results

Mean relative creatinine increase was 3.1% (95%CI 0.9 to 5.2%) in the bicarbonate and 1.1% (95%CI -1.2 to 3.5%) in the saline arm, mean difference 1.9% (95%CI -1.2 to 5.1%, p-non-inferiority <0.001). CI-AKI occurred in 11 (6.7%) patients randomized to sodium bicarbonate and 12 (7.5%) to saline (p = 0.79). Renal function did not fully recover in 40.0% and 44.4% of CI-AKI patients, respectively (p = 0.84). No patient required dialysis. Mean costs for preventive hydration and clinical preparation for the contrast procedure were $1158 for sodium bicarbonate vs. $1561 for saline (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Short hydration with sodium bicarbonate prior to elective cardiovascular diagnostic or therapeutic contrast procedures is non-inferior to standard periprocedural saline hydration in CKD patients with respect to renal safety and results in considerable healthcare savings.

Trial registration

Netherlands Trial Register (http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/index.asp), Nr NTR2699

The influence of blood volume-controlled ultrafiltration on hemodynamic stability and quality of life

Dialysis hypotension occurs frequently and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and may influence quality of life. We investigated the influence of blood volume (BV)-controlled ultrafiltration on hemodynamic stability and quality of life in a prospective multiple crossover study. Nineteen patients were consecutively treated with standard hemodialysis (HD), BV-controlled ultrafiltration, and again with standard ultrafiltration during 3-week phases, during which different hemodynamic parameters, ultrafiltrate quantities, dry weight, and quality of life were measured. Blood volume-controlled ultrafiltration resulted in increased hemodynamic stability: systolic blood pressure was significantly higher after treatment with BV-controlled HD compared with both standard treatments (p=0.018 and 0.043, respectively). Also, systolic blood pressure reduction, as a measure of blood pressure stability, was significantly smaller during the BV-controlled phase (-3.9 mmHg) compared with both standard phases (-13.7 and -11.0 mmHg): p=0.003 and 0.035, respectively. No difference was found in the occurrence of large decreases of blood pressure (>30 mmHg), decreases below 90 mmHg systolic pressure, or subjective complaints during treatment or after treatment between both treatment modalities. During the course of the study, the dry weight decreased significantly from mean 73.3 to mean 70.9 kg, and the amount of ultrafiltrate was significantly larger using BV-controlled HD compared with standard treatment (mean 2407 vs. mean 2266 mL; p=0.035). Quality of life, measured by visual analog scales (VAS), showed discrete but no consistent differences between study phases. We conclude that BV-controlled HD increases hemodynamic stability and ultrafiltrate amount compared with a standard treatment. No consistent change in quality of life is found between both treatment modalities.