Conventional In-center Hemodialysis Research Articles

Patient Training and Patient Safety in Home Hemodialysis.

The success of a home hemodialysis program depends largely on a patient safety framework and the risk tolerance of a home dialysis program. Dialysis treatments require operators to perform dozens of steps repeatedly and reliably in a complex procedure. For home hemodialysis, those operators are patients themselves or their care partners, so attention to safety and risk mitigation is front of mind. While newer, smaller, and more user-friendly dialysis machines designed explicitly for home use are slowly entering the marketplace, teaching patients to perform their own treatments in an unsupervised setting hundreds of times remains a foundational programmatic obligation regardless of machine. Just how safe is home hemodialysis? How does patient training affect this safety? There is a surprising lack of literature surrounding these questions. No consensus exists among home hemodialysis programs regarding optimized training schedules or methods, with each program adopting its own approach on the basis of local experience. Furthermore, there are little available data on the safety of home hemodialysis as compared with conventional in-center hemodialysis. This review will outline considerations for training patients on home hemodialysis, discuss the safety of home hemodialysis with an emphasis on the risk of serious and life-threatening adverse effects, and address the methods by which adverse events are monitored and prevented.

Reducing the Frequency of Surveillance Blood Work in Patients Treated With Maintenance Hemodialysis: A Local Quality Improvement Initiative.

There is little evidence on the ideal frequency of routine blood work in maintenance dialysis patients to manage complications, including anemia, mineral bone disease (MBD), and hyperkalemia. Recent quality improvement studies from Ontario showed no negative impacts when decreasing the frequency from monthly to every 6 weeks in conventional in-center hemodialysis (ICHD) patients. In December 2020, Alberta Kidney Care-South (AKC-S) reduced the frequency of routine blood work from every 6 weeks to every 8 weeks for ICHD patients. We aimed to assess the impact of reducing blood work frequency on patient outcomes. We compared prevalent AKC-S ICHD patients in 2 cohorts: (1) retrospective control (October 31, 2019-October 31, 2020) and (2) prospective intervention (December 1, 2020-December 1, 2021). Primary outcomes were true frequency of routine blood work, odds of patients being within target for anemia and MBD, and proportion of lab values of hyperkalemia. Furthermore, we compared hospitalizations and mortality. A total of 972 patients in Calgary's ICHD program were included, 787 in each period (with 602 patients overlapping both cohorts). The frequency of routine blood work decreased from every 39.5 days in the control period to every 54.2 days in the intervention period (P < .01). There was a reduction in the odds of phosphate values in targets (P = .02), and an increase in the odds of labs with hyperkalemia (>6.0 mmol/L) during the intervention period (P = .01). There was no significant change in the odds of being within the accepted targets during the intervention period compared with the control period for hemoglobin, Tsat, calcium, or parathyroid hormone (PTH). Fewer patients were hospitalized during the intervention period and the risk of death decreased as well, although additional factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected this. A cost-savings of $32 962 occurred from the reduced anemia and MBD blood work during the intervention period. When ICHD units in Calgary reduced routine blood work frequency from every 6 weeks to 8 weeks, there were no negative impacts on hospitalizations or deaths. A slightly lower proportion of phosphate values were within target, and a 0.7% increase in potassium values greater than 6 mmol/L was demonstrated. Our study suggests that blood work frequency in ICHD dialysis patients may be further reduced to every 8 weeks safely. Ultimately, additional pragmatic trials are needed to identify the optimal frequency of routine blood work.

Patient Survival With Extended Home Hemodialysis Compared to In-Center Conventional Hemodialysis

More frequent and/or longer hemodialysis (HD) has been associated with improvements in numerous clinical outcomes in patients on dialysis. Home HD (HHD), which allows more frequent and/or longer dialysis with lower cost and flexibility in treatment planning, is not widely used worldwide. Although, retrospective studies have indicated better survival with HHD, this issue remains controversial. In this multicenter study, we compared thrice-weekly extended HHD with in-center conventional HD (ICHD) in a large patient population with a long-term follow-up. We matched 349 patients starting HHD between 2010 and 2014 with 1047 concurrent patients on ICHD by using propensity scores. Patients were followed-up with from their respective baseline until September 30, 2018. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were technique survival; hospitalization; and changes in clinical, laboratory, and medication parameters. The mean duration of dialysis session was 418 ± 54 minutes in HHD and 242 ± 10 minutes in patients on ICHD. All-cause mortality rate was 3.76 and 6.27 per 100 patient-years in the HHD and the ICHD groups, respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, HHD was associated with a 40% lower risk for all-cause mortality than ICHD (hazard ratio [HR]= 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.80; P< 0.001). In HHD, the 5-year technical survival was 86.5%. HHD treatment provided better phosphate and blood pressure (BP) control, improvements in nutrition and inflammation, and reduction in hospitalization days and medication requirement. These results indicate that extended HHD is associated with higher survival and better outcomes compared to ICHD.

Burden of kidney disease among patients with peritoneal dialysis versus conventional in-centre haemodialysis: A randomised, non-inferiority trial.

Little is known about the impact of haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We compared HRQoL between conventional in-centre HD and home-based PD in 1082 newly diagnosed kidney failure patients. This was an open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial of adult patients with a diagnosis of end-stage kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤ 15 mL/min/1.73 m2) requiring maintenance dialysis from 36 sites in China randomised 1:1 to receive PD or conventional in-centre HD. The primary outcome was the 'Burden of Kidney Disease' assessed using the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-Short Form (KDQoL-SF) survey over 48 weeks and the main secondary outcomes were the remaining scales of KDQoL-SF and all-cause mortality. The effect of PD versus HD on the primary outcome was compared by their geometric mean (GM) ratio, and non-inferiority was defined by the lower bound of a one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) >0.9. A total of 725 subjects completed the trial per protocol (395 PD and 330 HD, mean age 49.8 (standard deviation (SD) 14.4) years, 41.4% women). For the primary outcome, the mean (SD) change in 'Burden of Kidney Disease' over 48 weeks was 2.61 (1.27) in PD group and 2.58 (1.35) in HD group, and the GM ratio (95% CI) was 1.059 (0.908-1.234), exceeding the limit for non-inferiority. For the secondary outcomes, the PD and HD groups were similar in all scales. There were 17 and 31 deaths in PD and HD groups, respectively. Patients receiving PD had more adverse events, adverse event leading to hospitalisation and serious adverse events compared to those allocated to HD, but adverse events leading to death and discontinuation of the trial were not different between PD and HD. In this trial, PD may be non-inferior to HD on the 'Burden of Kidney Disease' among Chinese kidney failure patients who are of younger age and have lower comorbidity after 48 weeks' follow-up.

Comparative Effectiveness of Dialysis Modality on Laboratory Parameters of Mineral Metabolism

Introduction: Chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorders (CKD-MBD) are prevalent in patients undergoing maintenance dialysis. Yet, there are limited and mixed evidence on the effects of different dialysis modalities involving longer treatment times or higher frequencies on CKD-MBD markers. Methods: This cohort study used data from 132,523 incident dialysis patients treated with any of the following modalities: conventional thrice-weekly in-center hemodialysis, nocturnal in-center hemodialysis (NICHD), home hemodialysis (HHD), or peritoneal dialysis (PD) from 2007 to 2011. We used marginal structural models fitted with inverse probability weights to adjust for fixed and time-varying confounding and informative censoring. We estimated the average effects of treatments with different dialysis modalities on time-varying serum concentrations of CKD-MBD markers: albumin-corrected calcium, phosphate, parathyroid hormone (PTH), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) using pooled linear regression. Results: Most of the cohort were exclusively treated with conventional in-center hemodialysis, while few were ever treated with NICHD or HHD. At the baseline, PD patients had the lowest mean and median values of PTH, while NICHD patients had the highest median values. During follow-up, compared to hemodialysis patients, patients treated with NICHD had lower mean serum PTH (19.8 pg/mL [95% confidence interval: 2.8, 36.8] lower), whereas PD and HHD patients had higher mean PTH (39.7 pg/mL [31.6, 47.8] and 51.2 pg/mL [33.0, 69.3] higher, respectively). Compared to hemodialysis patients, phosphate levels were lower for patients treated with NICHD (0.44 mg/dL [0.37, 0.52] lower), PD (0.15 mg/dL [0.12, 0.19] lower), or HHD (0.33 mg/dL [0.27, 0.40] lower). There were no clinically meaningful associations between dialysis modalities and concentrations of calcium or ALP. Conclusion: In incident dialysis patients, compared to treatment with conventional in-center hemodialysis, treatments with other dialysis modalities with longer treatment times or higher frequency were associated with different patterns of serum phosphate and PTH. Given the recent growth in the use of dialysis modalities other than hemodialysis, the associations between the treatment and the CKD-MBD markers warrant additional study.

Risk factors for intradialytic decline in cerebral perfusion and impaired cerebral autoregulation in adults on hemodialysis.

Hemodialysis (HD) patients have significant burden of cerebral ischemic pathology noted on brain imaging. These ischemic type lesions maybe due to cerebral hypoperfusion that may be occurring during blood pressure (BP) fluctuations commonly noted during HD sessions. We evaluated changes in cerebral perfusion and measured an index of cerebral autoregulation (CA index) during HD to identify potential risk factors for intradialytic decline in cerebral perfusion and impaired cerebral autoregulation. In this cross-sectional study, we included HD patients age 50 years or older receiving conventional in-center HD. We measured cerebral perfusion during HD, using cerebral oximetry, and calculated the correlation between cerebral perfusion and BP during HD as an index of CA. We measured the association between potential risk factors for intradialytic decline in cerebral perfusion and CA index. We included 32 participants and 118 HD sessions in our analysis. The mean ± SD decline in cerebral oxygen saturation during HD was 6.5% ± 2.9% with a relative decline from baseline values of 9.2% ± 4.4%. Greater drop in systolic BP (SBP) during HD was associated with decline in cerebral oxygen saturation, p=0.02. Impaired CA index was noted in 37.3% of HD sessions. Having diabetes and >20 mmHg drop in SBP during HD were associated with increased (worse) CA index with an increase of 0.24 95%CI [0.06, 0.41] for diabetes and increase of 0.43 95%CI [0.27, 0.56] for a >20 mmHg drop in SBP during HD. Cerebral perfusion can decline during HD and is associated with changes in systemic BP. This may be due to impaired cerebral autoregulation in HD patients. Risk factors for worse CA index include diabetes and >20 mmHg drop in SBP during HD. This study highlights the risk of intradialytic decline in cerebral perfusion and impaired cerebral autoregulation in HD patients.

In-center nocturnal hemodialysis improves health-related quality of life for patients with end-stage renal disease.

Conventional in-center hemodialysis (HD) is associated with significant symptom burden and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The HRQOL effects of conversion to in-center nocturnal hemodialysis (INHD) remain unclear, especially amongst those with poor HRQOL. Prospective cohort study of HD patients converting to INHD. Linear regression models summarized the mean score at baseline and at 12months for the cohort. To assess whether patients with low baseline HRQOL derive greater benefit, we compared values before and after by levels of baseline score for each domain (below vs equal to or above the median) using a formal interaction test (t test). 36 patients started INHD, 7 withdrew (5 transplanted, 1 death, 1 moved) and 5 declined follow-up. After 12months the mental component score (MCS) increased by 7.1 points to a value of 51.0 (95% CI + 1.5 to 10.9, p = 0.01). Amongst patients with baseline scores below the median, improvements were seen in: Symptoms/Problems of Kidney Disease (+ 15.2, 95% CI + 5.5 to + 24.9, p = 0.003), Effects of Kidney Disease (+ 16.9, 95% CI + 2.2 to + 31.7, p = 0.026), Physical Component Score (+ 9.4, 95% CI + 1.69 to + 17.2, p = 0.018), MCS (+ 10.7, 95% CI + 2.4 to + 19.1, p = 0.013). Burden of Kidney Disease domain change was not significant (+ 15.1, 95% CI - 2.1 to + 32.3, p = 0.083). INHD is a potential intervention for HD patients who struggle with reduced HRQOL, especially for those who struggle with poor mental health. Medical benefits of reduced pill burden and improved phosphate control occur with transition to INHD.

MO916THE EFFECT OF EXTENDED HAEMODIALYSIS ON NUTRITIONAL PARAMETERS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Abstract Background and Aims Individuals who receive haemodialysis have a high mortality rate, up to 20% within one year of starting dialysis and just under 50% at 5 years. One of the risk factors that contributes to this high mortality rate is the nutritional status of haemodialysis patients; improving this will be a key element of risk mitigation. Extended haemodialysis may improve nutritional outcomes through better clearance and reduced dietary restrictions and medications. The aim of this systematic review is to provide an up to date assessment of trials of extended haemodialysis reporting the following nutritional outcomes: Lean body mass, body mass index, protein intake and energy intake, nutritional status assessed by the subjective global assessment and PEW scores, and circulating markers of appetite. Method No limits on language were set, and databases were searched from inception to December 2020 using a predefined search strategy. Inclusion criteria were; randomised and non-randomised trials of extended haemodialysis (defined by &amp;gt;15 hours per week of total haemodialysis time), with a comparator group which received conventional in-centre haemodialysis (usually &amp;lt;=12 hours per week of hemodialysis time). The following databases were searched: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), the Web of Science Core Collection,PROSPERO, Clinicaltrials.gov, the ISCRTN Registry and Conference Proceeding Citation Index, National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: Health Technology Assessment (HTA), and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). Additional internet searches (i.e Google Scholar) were also conducted. Search results were compiled in Endnote and studies were screened for title and abstract. Results Searches identified 9251 records. After removing duplicates 6190 records were screened for title and abstract against inclusion criteria, leaving 22 papers for full text screening. A further 17 records were removed following full text screening. Of the remaining 5 papers, one was a randomised controlled trial and four were prospective, non-randomised trials. All studies investigated nocturnal haemodialysis (one with the additional of short daily), three were in-centre and two were at home. Range of duration for the included studies was 2-18 months. Outcomes of interest measured included lean body mass, protein and carbohydrate intake, body mass index, dry lean mass and water soluble vitamin levels. Of these trials, only one reported a statistically significant increase in an outcome of interest (lean body mass). One study also reported cross-sectional data highlighting Vitamin-C deficiency in half of their nocturnal haemodialysis population. Conclusion There is insufficient high-quality evidence assessing the effect of extended haemodialysis on nutritional parameters. Further research is required to understand the impact of novel dialysis prescriptions on these clinical parameters.

Nocturnal Hemodialysis: Why Aren't More People Doing It?

Nocturnal hemodialysis is a form of intensive hemodialysis, which may be done in center or at home. Despite the documented clinical and economic benefits of ncturnal hemodialysis, uptake of this modality has been relatively low. In this review, we aim to address the potential barriers and possible mitigation strategies. Among the patient-related barriers, lack of knowledge and awareness remains the most common barrier, while administrative inertia to change from conventional in-center hemodialysis continues to be a challenge. Current global effort to grow home dialysis will re-focus the need for better patient education, innovate home dialysis technology, and evolve new models of care. New patient-focused policy will allow changes in reimbursement and develop appropriate momentum toward an integrated "home first model" to kidney replacement therapy.

Comparison of physical activity and quality of life in home haemodialysis (HHD) patients versus conventional in-centre haemodialysis (ICHD) patients: the observational, longitudinal, prospective, international, multicentric SeCoIA study protocol

BackgroundHome haemodialysis (HHD), has shown improved clinical outcomes, as well as a better quality of life, compared to conventional in-centre haemodialysis (ICHD) but still has a global low prevalence among end-stage renal disease patients. Haemodialysis (HD) patients tend to be sedentary but only few studies, mainly in North American ICHD patients, have evaluated the level of activity in HD patients.MethodsSeCoIA is an observational, longitudinal, prospective, international, multicentric, study, conducted in metropolitan France and Belgium. The main objective of the study is to quantify the physical activity measured by the total daily number of steps, in HHD patients compared to ICHD patients. The SeCoIA study will include 80 HHD patients and 80 ICHD patients,. Secondary objectives will be to characterize the HHD population and to confirm HHD efficiency on clinical parameters, as well as quality of life (QoL), in current practice. Physical activity will be measured by a 3-axis accelerometer. Accelerometers have been shown to provide accurate information, on both physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Patients will be instructed to wear the device and complete a patient diary 7 consecutive days after inclusion and the first week of each month for 12 months. Decision to undergo HDD or ICHD is independent of the study and follow-up frequency remains at the discretion of the physician/centre. QoL and quality of sleep will be respectively assessed by the Kidney Disease Quality of Life 1.2 (KDQOL™) and the Pittsburg Sleep Quality index (PSQI) questionnaires at inclusion, 6- and 12-month visits. Patients presenting a restless leg syndrome (RLS) will also complete the International Restless Legs Syndrome rating scale (IRLS) questionnaire.DiscussionThe SeCoIA study will be the first large cohort study (160 patients) evaluating physical activity, objectively measured with a 3-axis accelerometer, in HHD versus ICHD patients. The present study will also include a comparison of QoL with a focus on RLS between HHD and ICHD. It is anticipated that HHD patients will have an improved physical activity and QoL which should encourage physicians to further promote HHD.Trial registrationClinical trial NCT03737578 study registered on November 9, 2018 (Retrospectively registered).

PUK14 COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT DIALYSIS MODALITIES FOR TO TREAT END-STAGE RENAL DISEASE: A LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE

To compare costs and clinical outcomes of different dialysis modalities and treatment regimens from the Brazilian, Colombian and Mexican perspective in patients with End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD). The type of the study was a cost-utility analysis based on a Markov model to measure the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) expressed as a cost per incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The economic evaluation design, structure and data inputs were all informed by in-depth literature reviews. Reviews of available clinical, quality of life and cost studies were undertaken as well as a thorough review of previous economic evaluations. Emphasis was placed on identifying perspective-specific data, especially for clinical and cost inputs. The model compares the costs and clinical outcomes of the main dialysis modalities including peritoneal dialysis (PD) and conventional in-centre haemodialysis (ICHD). Scenarios proposed for all country’s perspectives foresee an increase in PD usage. The time horizon considered in this analysis was 10 years. Costs were converted for US Dollars using the mean rate exchange from the last 60 days for each currency (1USD=4.11BRL, 1USD=3371.71COP and 1USD=19.15MXN). Brazilian-perspective model had a cost-effectiveness threshold equal to 3 times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita ($23,922), presented an ICUR of -$5,161 and a net monetary benefit of $215. Colombian-perspective model had a cost-effectiveness threshold equal to 3 times the GDP per capita ($39,309), presented an ICUR of -$23,636 and a net monetary benefit of $479. Mexican-perspective model had a cost-effectiveness threshold equal to 3 times the GDP per capita ($28,721), presented an ICUR of -$457,565 and a net monetary benefit of $1,867. All countries showed cost-saving results. The increase of PD usage among all countries for the treatment of ESRD patients showed cost-saving results and represent savings to the Brazilian, Colombian and Mexican health systems.

Non-medical barriers reported by nephrologists when providing renal replacement therapy or comprehensive conservative management to end-stage kidney disease patients: a systematic review.

BackgroundLarge international differences exist in access to renal replacement therapy (RRT) modalities and comprehensive conservative management (CCM) for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), suggesting that some patients are not receiving the most appropriate treatment. Previous studies mainly focused on barriers reported by patients or medical barriers (e.g. comorbidities) reported by nephrologists. An overview of the non-medical barriers reported by nephrologists when providing the most appropriate form of RRT (other than conventional in-centre haemodialysis) or CCM is lacking. MethodsWe searched in EMBASE and PubMed for original articles with a cross-sectional design (surveys, interviews or focus groups) published between January 2010 and September 2018. We included studies in which nephrologists reported barriers when providing RRT or CCM to adult patients with ESKD. We used the barriers and facilitators survey by Peters et al. [Ruimte Voor Verandering? Knelpunten en Mogelijkheden Voor Verbeteringen in de Patiëntenzorg. Nijmegen: Afdeling Kwaliteit van zorg (WOK), 2003] as preliminary framework to create our own model and performed meta-ethnographic analysis of non-medical barriers in text, tables and figures. ResultsOf the 5973 articles screened, 16 articles were included using surveys (n = 10), interviews (n = 5) and focus groups (n = 1). We categorized the barriers into three levels: patient level (e.g. attitude, role perception, motivation, knowledge and socio-cultural background), level of the healthcare professional (e.g. fears and concerns, working style, communication skills) and level of the healthcare system (e.g. financial barriers, supportive staff and practice organization).ConclusionsOur systematic review has identified a number of modifiable, non-medical barriers that could be targeted by, for example, education and optimizing financing structure to improve access to RRT modalities and CCM.

Getting home for haemodialysis: sharing experience to improve the patient experience

Home haemodialysis has many advantages when compared with conventional in-centre haemodialysis, but its uptake remains lower than predicted. This article explores the reasons for this low uptake, and the work of a Special Interest Group of Nurses for Home Haemodialysis

The effect of blood flow rate on dialysis recovery time in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis: A prospective, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial.

A majority of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on in-center hemodialysis (HD) require several hours to recover from an HD session. Patients and caregivers identify fatigue as a high priority for improvement. However, evidence for practical interventions to improve recovery time from conventional in-center HD is lacking. The effect of blood flow rate reduction on dialysis recovery time (DRT) is unknown. Multicenter, single-blinded, randomized, parallel-design controlled trial of blood flow rate reduction vs. usual care. One-hundred two patients with ESRD undergoing maintenance HD in 18 centers with baseline DRT of greater than 6 hours were included as subjects. The intervention was a blood flow rate reduction of 100 mL/min, to a minimum of 300 mL/min. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in change in DRT. Secondary outcomes were changes in London Evaluation of Illness (LEVIL) survey responses from baseline. Baseline median DRT was 720 (IQR 360-1013) minutes in controls and 720 (IQR 360-1106) minutes in the intervention group. DRT decreased in both groups. Mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) at Week 4 in the study was -324 (-473, -175) minutes in the control group and -120 (-329, 90) minutes in the intervention group. The change from baseline was more profound in the control group (P = 0.05). Secondary outcomes of measures of quality of life reported on the LEVIL survey showed more improvement in patients' feelings of general well-being in the control group (P = 0.01). Differences between groups in pain, feeling washed out or drained, sleep quality, shortness of breath, and appetite were not statistically significant. Blood flow rate reduction did not improve DRT over usual care. Though more work needs to be done to address patient-reported fatigue, a significant positive impact may not be achieved without substantial changes in dialysis prescription.

An International Analysis of Dialysis Services Reimbursement.

The prevalence of patients with ESKD who receive extracorporeal kidney replacement therapy is rising worldwide. We compared government reimbursement for hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis worldwide, assessed the effect on the government health care budget, and discussed strategies to reduce the cost of kidney replacement therapy. Cross-sectional global survey of nephrologists in 90 countries to assess reimbursement for dialysis, number of patients receiving hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, and measures to prevent development or progression of CKD, conducted online July to December of 2016. Of the 90 survey respondents, governments from 81 countries (90%) provided reimbursement for maintenance dialysis. The prevalence of patients per million population being treated with long-term dialysis in low- and middle-income countries increased linearly with Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDP per capita), but was substantially lower in these countries compared with high-income countries where we did not observe an higher prevalence with higher GDP per capita. The absolute expenditure for dialysis by national governments showed a positive association with GDP per capita, but the percent of total health care budget spent on dialysis showed a negative association. The percentage of patients on peritoneal dialysis was low, even in countries where peritoneal dialysis is better reimbursed than hemodialysis. The so-called peritoneal dialysis-first policy without financial incentive seems to be effective in increasing the utilization of peritoneal dialysis. Few countries actively provide CKD prevention. In low- and middle-income countries, reimbursement of dialysis is insufficient to treat all patients with ESKD and has a disproportionately high effect on public health expenditure. Current reimbursement policies favor conventional in-center hemodialysis.

Perspectives in renal replacement therapy: Haemodialysis

Haemodialysis (HD) was the first procedure that had demonstrated the ability to partially replace renal function, and became the most widely utilized treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). In a great majority of countries around the world, conventional in-centre HD had become the predominant renal replacement therapy, being touted as able to achieve better solute clearance and more successful in attaining euvolemia than patients on peritoneal dialysis. This is despite the antecedent hemodynamic risks, more rapid loss of residual renal function, greater infectious perils, excessive erythropoietin requirements and higher infrastructure costs. In addition, quality of life had been suggested to be worse among patients on HD, though this had been challenged repeatedly. Consequently, the concept of integrated ESRD care over the last few decades had placed HD, as a complementary rather than a competitive treatment modality to the entire armamentarium of renal replacement therapies. Incorporating HD as part of integrated care into health-care policies and national resource planning will become an essential strategy in improving access and outcome to care among the ESRD population. The improvement in technologies and innovation in prescription had brought forth enhanced dialyzer membrane and machine upgrades, and expanded modalities including more frequent HD and haemodiafiltration. While boasting of controversial improvement in outcomes, many of these therapies remain expensive and insurmountable for widespread utility in many countries. In addition, the results of these new technologies had been conflicting across studies, with some even suggesting that they could be detrimental. Therefore, judicial consideration has to be undertaken to appropriate their use in clinical practice.

Filtering the Evidence: Is There a Cognitive Cost of Hemodialysis?

Conventional in-center hemodialysis (HD) is the most common form of dialysis in the United States. Approximately 88% of individuals with ESRD initiate RRT with in-center HD.[1][1] On the basis of current trends, in-center HD is anticipated to remain the dominant dialysis modality into the

Transitional dialysis care units: A new approach to increase home dialysis modality uptake and patient outcomes.

Home hemodialysis (HHD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) are associated with better clinical outcomes, lower hospitalization rates, and improved quality of life compared with conventional in-center hemodialysis. However, <12% of patients requiring dialysis therapy use HHD or PD in the United States, even though over 90% of nephrologists would choose home-based dialysis modalities for themselves. Inadequate patient education and decision-making support are key barriers to patients choosing home-based therapy. Likewise, there are key challenges for dialysis providers, including development and optimal delivery of education materials, appropriate staffing, and training. The Satellite Healthcare Optimal Transitions (OT) Program was developed to provide education and decision support to patients during the transitional period. OT provides in-depth education in all dialysis modalities at the start of dialysis over a flexible time period (1-4 weeks, adapted for various learning curves) to allow for time to physical stabilization, self-care training, and modality choice based on each patient's individual life motivations, goals, and environments. OT may provide value to patients and providers by providing comprehensive support for dialysis modality selection, resulting in increased patient confidence to execute home dialysis with the potential for improved patient outcomes, and reduced hospitalizations.

In-Center Nocturnal Hemodialysis Versus Conventional Hemodialysis: A Systematic Review of the Evidence

Owing to its longer treatment duration-up to 8 hours per dialysis treatment-in-center thrice-weekly nocturnal hemodialysis (HD) is receiving greater attention. To better understand the evidence for in-center nocturnal HD, we sought to systematically review the literature to determine the effects of in-center nocturnal HD versus conventional HD on clinically relevant outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (EBMR), Web of Science, and Scopus from the earliest date in the database to November2016. Adults receiving in-center nocturnal HD compared with those receiving conventional HD. All quasi-experimental and observational studies were considered; randomized trials were sought but not found. Nocturnal vs conventional in-center HD. Indexes of blood pressure and left ventricular hypertrophy, markers of anemia, measures of bone mineral metabolism, nutrition, quality of life, sleep quality, episodes of intradialytic hypotension, hospitalization, and mortality. Of 2,086 identified citations, 21 met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 1,165 in-center nocturnal HD patients and 15,865 conventional HD patients. Although there was substantial heterogeneity in reporting of outcomes, we pooled data for measures of blood pressure, anemia, and mineral metabolism. Though heterogeneity was generally high, in-center nocturnal HD was associated with improved systolic blood pressure (-3.18 [95% CI,-5.58 to-0.78) mm Hg, increased hemoglobin levels (0.53 [95% CI, 0.11-0.94] g/dL), and lower serum phosphate levels (-0.97 [95% CI,-1.48 to-0.46] mg/dL). No randomized trials have been conducted to address the clinical effects of in-center nocturnal HD. The quality of the observational literature contributing to the results of this review was generally poor to moderate. Confounded outcomes are a significant concern. Publication bias and outcome reporting bias remain possibilities. Relative to conventional HD, in-center nocturnal HD was associated with improvements in several clinically relevant outcomes. Other benefits may not have been detected due to small sample sizes of included studies; no prespecified outcome was worse with in-center nocturnal HD.

Patients receiving frequent hemodialysis have better health-related quality of life compared to patients receiving conventional hemodialysis

Most patients with end-stage kidney disease value their health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and want to know how it will be affected by their dialysis modality. We extended the findings of two prior clinical trial reports to estimate the effects of frequent compared to conventional hemodialysis on additional measures of HRQoL. The Daily Trial randomly assigned 245 patients to receive frequent (six times per week) or conventional (three times per week) in-center hemodialysis. The Nocturnal Trial randomly assigned 87 patients to receive frequent nocturnal (six times per week) or conventional (three times per week) home hemodialysis. All patients were on conventional hemodialysis prior to randomization, with an average feeling thermometer score of 70 to 75 (a visual analog scale from 0 to 100 where 100 is perfect health), an average general health scale score of 40 to 47 (a score from 0 to 100where 100 is perfect health), and an average dialysis session recovery time of 2 to 3 hours. Outcomes are reported as the between-treatment group differences in one-year change in HRQoL measures and analyzed using linear mixed effects models. After one year in the Daily Trial, patients assigned to frequent in-center hemodialysis reported a higher feeling thermometer score, better general health, and a shorter recovery time after a dialysis session compared to standard thrice-weekly dialysis. Afterone year in the Nocturnal Trial, patients assigned tofrequent home hemodialysis also reported a shorter recovery time after a dialysis session, but no statistical difference in their feeling thermometer or general health scores compared to standard home dialysis schedules. Thus, patients receiving day or nocturnal hemodialysis on average recovered approximately one hour earlier from a frequent compared to conventional hemodialysis session. Patients treated in an in-center dialysis facility reported better HRQoL with frequent compared to conventional hemodialysis.