#4298 DOES STARTING RENAL REPLACEMENT THERAPY WITH INCREMENTAL HAEMODIALYSIS WORSEN OUTCOMES?

Abstract

Abstract Background and Aims Most patients start maintenance haemodialysis (HD) with a fixed dose of 3 HD sessions per week (3HD/Wk), regardless of their residual kidney function (RKF). This intense schedule is considered the “standard” or “conventional” modality (cHD). It is widely accepted, and no randomised controlled trial (RCT) has examined whether other less frequent schedules are inappropriate or harmful. Thus, the optimal modality for incident patients is currently unknown. Incremental HD (iHD), on the other hand, adjusts the frequency of sessions to the RKF, increasing their number to compensate for any subsequent reduction in RKF. While iHD approaches precision medicine by customising the number of sessions, it raises concerns about long intersession periods and the risk of under-dialysis. Pending ongoing RCTs [1], our aim is to analyse the efficacy and safety of iHD in our incident patients. Method The policy of our Centre is to try to start with iHD in incident patients who are clinically stable and with RKF. We start with 1 session (1HD/Wk) if the RKF is above 4 ml/min/1.73 m2 and with 2 sessions (2HD/Wk) if the RKF is between 4 and 2.5 ml/min/1.73 m2. We progress from 1HD/Wk to 2HD/Wk and from 2 to 3HD/Wk depending on the RKF and ultrafiltration rates required, which are assessed at least monthly. Since 2012, we have treated 186 incident patients with iHD, of whom 168 had a follow up ≥ 90 days. 72% (128 patients) started with 1HD/Wk and the remaining 28% (40 patients) with 2HD/Wk. We compared the results with 410 incident patients who from baseline receive 3 sessions/Wk (cHD) and with 80 incident patients on Peritoneal Dialysis (PD). We also analysed 27 iHD patients who after 60 days were already dialysed with 3 sessions (3HD/Wk/60d group). We calculated the mortality rate (deaths/365 days in %) in each group and survival in the iHD technique (sessions not performed). Results The mean age in the iHD group was higher than in cHD or PD (Table 1). Mortality in iHD patients was similar to cHD patients, although the latter were younger. Patients who stayed less time in iHD (3HD/Wk/60d group) had the highest mortality rate (Table 1). Survival in technique (time in which 50% of patients remain on iHD) was 12 months, avoiding 86 sessions/patient. The cost reduction was €17,200/patient (session + transport = €200). Conclusion iHD is efficient, as it considerably reduces the number of sessions performed and thus costs, thereby improving quality of life. It is safe, as it has a similar mortality rate to cHD. Being on iHD for more than 60 days does not worsen the results. On the contrary, requiring 3 weekly sessions at the beginning of HD treatment may be associated with a poor prognosis.