Home hemodialysis (HD) and automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) have advantages over HD in hospitals or HD centers. Home therapies are generally less expensive and give patients greater mobility and ...freedom for work, school, family, and recreational activities. Technological advances have made it possible to complement APD with devices for remote monitoring (RM) of the patient. With them, objective information generated in the APD device is collected and sent to repositories "in the cloud" for analysis or at the time decided by the health team. With APD+RM, it is possible to monitor therapeutic compliance, effective dialysis time, ultrafiltration volumes, inflow and outflow patterns of dialysis fluid, and patient actions to respond to alarms that indicate deviations from the parameters set by the nephrologist. The results of APD+RM show good acceptance by the patient, nephrologists, and nurses, treatment adherence has improved, hospitalizations and technique failure have decreased, and some aspects of quality of life have improved. However, there is a lack of controlled clinical trials that reliably demonstrate lower mortality and comorbidity due to specific causes.
This guideline is written primarily for doctors and nurses working in dialysis units and related areas of medicine in the UK, and is an update of a previous version written in 2009. It aims to ...provide guidance on how to look after patients and how to run dialysis units, and provides standards which units should in general aim to achieve. We would not advise patients to interpret the guideline as a rulebook, but perhaps to answer the question: "what does good quality haemodialysis look like?"The guideline is split into sections: each begins with a few statements which are graded by strength (1 is a firm recommendation, 2 is more like a sensible suggestion), and the type of research available to back up the statement, ranging from A (good quality trials so we are pretty sure this is right) to D (more like the opinion of experts than known for sure). After the statements there is a short summary explaining why we think this, often including a discussion of some of the most helpful research. There is then a list of the most important medical articles so that you can read further if you want to - most of this is freely available online, at least in summary form.A few notes on the individual sections: 1. This section is about how much dialysis a patient should have. The effectiveness of dialysis varies between patients because of differences in body size and age etc., so different people need different amounts, and this section gives guidance on what defines "enough" dialysis and how to make sure each person is getting that. Quite a bit of this section is very technical, for example, the term "eKt/V" is often used: this is a calculation based on blood tests before and after dialysis, which measures the effectiveness of a single dialysis session in a particular patient. 2. This section deals with "non-standard" dialysis, which basically means anything other than 3 times per week. For example, a few people need 4 or more sessions per week to keep healthy, and some people are fine with only 2 sessions per week - this is usually people who are older, or those who have only just started dialysis. Special considerations for children and pregnant patients are also covered here. 3. This section deals with membranes (the type of "filter" used in the dialysis machine) and "HDF" (haemodiafiltration) which is a more complex kind of dialysis which some doctors think is better. Studies are still being done, but at the moment we think it's as good as but not better than regular dialysis. 4. This section deals with fluid removal during dialysis sessions: how to remove enough fluid without causing cramps and low blood pressure. Amongst other recommendations we advise close collaboration with patients over this. 5. This section deals with dialysate, which is the fluid used to "pull" toxins out of the blood (it is sometimes called the "bath"). The level of things like potassium in the dialysate is important, otherwise too much or too little may be removed. There is a section on dialysate buffer (bicarbonate) and also a section on phosphate, which occasionally needs to be added into the dialysate. 6. This section is about anticoagulation (blood thinning) which is needed to stop the circuit from clotting, but sometimes causes side effects. 7. This section is about certain safety aspects of dialysis, not seeking to replace well-established local protocols, but focussing on just a few where we thought some national-level guidance would be useful. 8. This section draws together a few aspects of dialysis which don't easily fit elsewhere, and which impact on how dialysis feels to patients, rather than the medical outcome, though of course these are linked. This is where home haemodialysis and exercise are covered. There is an appendix at the end which covers a few aspects in more detail, especially the mathematical ideas. Several aspects of dialysis are not included in this guideline since they are covered elsewhere, often because they are aspects which affect non-dialysis patients too. This includes: anaemia, calcium and bone health, high blood pressure, nutrition, infection control, vascular access, transplant planning, and when dialysis should be started.
The aim of this study is to present average annual healthcare costs for Dutch renal replacement therapy (RRT) patients for 7 treatment modalities.
Health insurance claims data from 2012-2014 were ...used. All patients with a 2014 claim for dialysis or kidney transplantation were selected. The RRT related and RRT unrelated average annual healthcare costs were analysed for 5 dialysis modalities (in-centre haemodialysis (CHD), home haemodialysis (HHD), continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD), automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) and multiple dialysis modalities in a year (Mix group)) and 2 transplant modalities (kidney from living and deceased donor, respectively).
The total average annual healthcare costs in 2014 ranged from €77,566 (SD = €27,237) for CAPD patients to €105,833 (SD = €30,239) for patients in the Mix group. For all dialysis modalities, the vast majority (72-84%) of costs was RRT related. Patients on haemodialysis ≥4x/week had significantly higher average annual costs compared to those dialyzing 3x/week (Δ€19,122). Costs for kidney transplant recipients were €85,127 (SD = €39,679) in the year of transplantation and rapidly declined in the first and second year after successful transplantation (resp. €29,612 (SD = €34,099) and €15,018 (SD = €16,186)). Transplantation with a deceased donor kidney resulted in higher costs (€99,450, SD = €36,036)) in the year of transplantation compared to a living donor kidney transplantation (€73,376, SD = €38,666).
CAPD patients have the lowest costs compared to other dialysis modalities. Costs in the year of transplantation are 25% lower for patients with kidneys from living vs. deceased donor. After successful transplantation, annual costs decline substantially to a level that is approximately 14-19% of annual dialysis costs.
Neutral-pH peritoneal dialysates, with reduced glucose degradation products (GDPs), have been developed to reduce peritoneal membrane damage. Here our review evaluated the impact of these solutions ...on clinical outcomes using data from The Cochrane CENTRAL Registry, MEDLINE, Embase, and reference lists for randomized trials of biocompatible solutions. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model of 20 eligible trials encompassing 1383 patients. The quality of studies was generally poor, such that 13 studies had greater than a 20% loss to follow-up and only 3 trials reported adequate concealment of allocation. Use of neutral-pH dialysates with reduced GDPs resulted in larger urine volumes (7 trials; 520 patients; mean difference 126ml/day, 95% CI 27–226), improved residual renal function after 12 months (6 trials; 360 patients; standardized mean difference 0.31, 95% confidence interval 0.10–0.52), and a trend to reduced inflow pain (1 trial; 58 patients; relative risk 0.51, 95% CI 0.24–1.08). However, there was no significant effect on body weight, hospitalization, peritoneal solute transport rate, peritoneal small-solute clearance, peritonitis, technique failure, patient survival, or adverse events. No significant harms were identified. Thus, based on generally poor quality trials, the use of neutral-pH peritoneal dialysates with reduced GDPs resulted in greater urine volumes and residual renal function after 12 months, but without other clinical benefits. Larger, better-quality studies are needed for accurate evaluation of the impact of these newer dialysates on patient-level hard outcomes.
Peritonitis is a common cause of technique failure in peritoneal dialysis (PD). Dialysis center−level characteristics may influence PD peritonitis outcomes independent of patient-level ...characteristics.
Retrospective cohort study.
Using Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA) data, all incident Australian PD patients who had peritonitis from 2004 through 2014 were included.
Patient- (including demographic data, causal organisms, and comorbid conditions) and center- (including center size, proportion of patients treated with PD, and summary measures related to type, cause, and outcome of peritonitis episodes) level predictors.
The primary outcome was cure of peritonitis with antibiotics. Secondary outcomes were peritonitis-related catheter removal, hemodialysis therapy transfer, peritonitis relapse/recurrence, hospitalization, and mortality. Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel mixed logistic regression.
The study included 9,100 episodes of peritonitis among 4,428 patients across 51 centers. Cure with antibiotics was achieved in 6,285 (69%) peritonitis episodes and varied between 38% and 86% across centers. Centers with higher proportions of dialysis patients treated with PD (>29%) had significantly higher odds of peritonitis cure (adjusted OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.04-1.40) and lower odds of catheter removal (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.97), hemodialysis therapy transfer (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.97), and peritonitis relapse/recurrence (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.98). Centers with higher proportions of peritonitis episodes receiving empirical antibiotics covering both Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms had higher odds of cure with antibiotics (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.06-1.42). Patient-level characteristics associated with higher odds of cure were younger age and less virulent causative organisms (coagulase-negative staphylococci, streptococci, and culture negative). The variation in odds of cure across centers was 9% higher after adjustment for patient-level characteristics, but 66% lower after adjustment for center-level characteristics.
Retrospective study design using registry data.
These results suggest that center effects contribute substantially to the appreciable variation in PD peritonitis outcomes that exist across PD centers within Australia.
Background Use of home dialysis is growing in the United States, but few direct comparisons of major clinical outcomes on daily home hemodialysis (HHD) versus peritoneal dialysis (PD) exist. Study ...Design Matched cohort study. Setting & Participants We matched 4,201 new HHD patients in 2007 to 2010 with 4,201 new PD patients from the US Renal Data System database. Predictor Daily HHD versus PD. Outcomes Relative mortality, hospitalization, and technique failure. Results Mean time from end-stage renal disease onset to home dialysis therapy initiation was 44.6 months for HHD and 44.3 months for PD patients. In intention-to-treat analysis, HHD was associated with 20% lower risk for all-cause mortality (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.87), 8% lower risk for all-cause hospitalization (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.95), and 37% lower risk for technique failure (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.58-0.68), all relative to PD. In the subset of 1,368 patients who initiated home dialysis therapy within 6 months of end-stage renal disease onset, HHD was associated with similar risk for all-cause mortality (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.80-1.13), similar risk for all-cause hospitalization (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-1.05), and 30% lower risk for technique failure (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.82). Regarding hospitalization, risk comparisons favored HHD for cardiovascular disease and dialysis access infection and PD for bloodstream infection. Limitations Matching unlikely to reduce confounding attributable to unmeasured factors, including residual kidney function; lack of data regarding dialysis frequency, duration, and dose in daily HHD patients and frequency and solution in PD patients; diagnosis codes used to classify admissions. Conclusions These data suggest that relative to PD, daily HHD is associated with decreased mortality, hospitalization, and technique failure. However, risks for mortality and hospitalization were similar with these modalities in new dialysis patients. The interaction between modality and end-stage renal disease duration at home dialysis therapy initiation should be investigated further.
Given the ever-increasing burden of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in a global milieu of limited financial and health resources, interested parties continue to search for ways to optimize dialysis ...access. Government and payer initiatives to increase access to renal replacement therapies (RRTs), particularly peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD), may have meaningful impacts from clinical and health-economic perspectives; and despite similar clinical and humanistic outcomes between the two dialysis modalities, PD may be the more convenient and resource-conscious option. This review assessed country-specific PD-First/Favored policies and their associated background, implementation, and outcomes. It was found that barriers to policy-implementation are broadly associated with government policy, economics, provider or healthcare professional education, modality-related factors, and patient-related factors. Notably, the success of a given country's PD-Favored policy was inversely associated with the extent of HD infrastructure. It is hoped that this review will provide a foundation across countries to share lessons learned during the development and implementation of PD-First/Favored policies.
A large portion of new patients with end stage kidney disease initiates dialysis in the acute setting and continue with outpatient dialysis at in-center facilities. To increase home dialysis ...adoption, programs have successfully operationalized Urgent Start peritoneal dialysis to have patients avoid in-center dialysis and move straight to home. However, Urgent Start home hemodialysis (HHD) has not been a realistic option for providers or patients due to complex machines and long training times (greater than four weeks). The landscape of dialysis treatment is evolving, and innovative approaches are being explored to improve patient outcomes and optimize health care resources. This article delves into the concept of directly transitioning incident patients from hospital admission to HHD, bypassing traditional in-center dialysis training. This forward-thinking approach aims to empower patients, enhance their treatment experience, maximize efficiency, and streamline health care operations. A large hospital organization in the Northeast was able to successfully transition three patients from hospital "crash" starts on hemodialysis directly to HHD.
During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, patients receiving maintenance dialysis are a highly vulnerable population due to their comorbidities and circumstances that limit physical ...distancing during treatment. This study sought to characterize the risk factors for and outcomes following COVID-19 in this population.
Retrospective cohort study.
Maintenance dialysis patients in clinics of a midsize national dialysis provider that had at least 1 patient who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from February to June 2020.
Demographics, dialysis characteristics, residence in a congregated setting, comorbid conditions, measurements of frailty, and use of selected medications.
COVID-19, defined as having a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result, and all-cause mortality among those with COVID-19.
Logistic regression analyses conducted to identify clinical characteristics associated with COVID-19 and risk factors associated with mortality among patients following COVID-19.
438 of 7948 (5.5%) maintenance dialysis patients developed COVID-19. Male sex, Black race, in-center dialysis (vs home dialysis), treatment at an urban clinic, residence in a congregate setting, and greater comorbidity were associated with contracting COVID-19. Odds of COVID-19 were 17-fold higher for those residing in a congregated setting (odds ratio OR, 17.10 95% CI, 13.51-21.54). Of the 438 maintenance dialysis patients with COVID-19, 109 (24.9%) died. Older age, heart disease, and markers of frailty were associated with mortality.
No distinction was detected between symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 positivity, with asymptomatic screening limited by testing capacity during this initial COVID-19 surge period.
COVID-19 is common among patients receiving maintenance dialysis, particularly those residing in congregate settings. Among maintenance dialysis patients with COVID-19, mortality is high, exceeding 20%.
Display omitted
PDF
