Technique Survival and Determinants of Technique Failure in In-Center Nocturnal Hemodialysis: A Retrospective Observational Study.

Abstract

Background:Long-duration (7-8 hours) hemodialysis provides benefits compared with conventional thrice-weekly, 4-hour sessions. Nurse-administered, in-center nocturnal hemodialysis (INHD) may expand the population to whom an intensive dialysis schedule can be offered.Objective:The primary objective of this study was to determine predictors of INHD technique failure, disruptions, and technique survival.Design:This study used retrospective chart and database review methodology.Setting:This study was conducted at a single Canadian INHD program operating in Victoria, British Columbia, within a tertiary care hospital. Our program serves a catchment population of approximately 450 000 people.Patients/Sample/Participants:Forty-three consecutive incident INHD patients took part in the INHD program of whom 42 provided informed consent to participate in this study.Methods:We conducted a retrospective observational study including incident INHD patients from 2015 to 2017. The primary outcome was technique failure ≤6 months (TF ≤6). Secondary outcomes included technique survival and reasons for/predictors of INHD discontinuation or temporary disruption. Predictors of each outcome included demographics, comorbidities, and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) scoring.Results:Among 42 patients, mean (SD) age, dialysis vintage, CFS score, and follow-up were 63 (16) years, 46 (55) months, 4 (1), and 11 (9) months, respectively. 52% were aged ≥65 years. TF ≤6 occurred in 12 (29%) patients. One-year technique survival censored for transplants and home dialysis transitions was 60%. Discontinuation related to insomnia (32%), medical status change (27%), and vascular access (23%). In unadjusted Cox survival analysis, 1-point increases in CFS score associated with a higher risk of technique failure (hazard ratio: 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.26-3.31). In an adjusted analysis, higher frailty severity also associated with temporary INHD disruptions (incidence rate ratio: 2.64, 95% CI: 1.55-4.50, comparing CFS of ≥4 to 1-3).Limitations:The retrospective, observational design of this study resulted in limited ability to control for confounding factors. In addition, the relatively small number of events observed owing to a small sample size diminished statistical power to inform study conclusions. Use of a single physician to determine the clinical frailty score is another limitation. Finally, the use of a single center for this study limits generalizability to other programs and clinic settings.Conclusions:INHD is a sustainable modality, even among older patients. Higher frailty associates with INHD technique failure and greater missed treatments. Inclusion of a CFS threshold of ≤4 into INHD inclusion criteria may help to identify individuals most likely to realize the long-term benefits of INHD.Trial Registration:Due to the retrospective and observational design of this study, trial registration was not necessary.