In-center Dialysis Research Articles

239: Hypertension Management Improved for In-Center Nocturnal Dialysis Patients Compared to Conventional Dialysis Patients

239: Hypertension Management Improved for In-Center Nocturnal Dialysis Patients Compared to Conventional Dialysis Patients

48: Impact of Sevelamer on Hospitalization and In-Center Dialysis Utilization: A Modeled Study Based on Dcor

48: Impact of Sevelamer on Hospitalization and In-Center Dialysis Utilization: A Modeled Study Based on Dcor

The D&T report

The D&T report

The Impact of a Bundled Payment on the Rate of Home Dialysis Usage

In May 2009, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report on the potential impact of Medicare's future (2011) expanded bundled payment system on home dialysis utilization rates. In this report, which was required to be issued based on 2006 legislation and was also requested by several congressional committees, the GAO concluded, not unexpectedly, that even though the cost to provide home dialysis varies widely among dialysis providers, the overall per-treatment cost to provide home dialysis is generally less than the cost per treatment to provide chronic dialysis. However, the average weekly cost to provide home dialysis may actually exceed the cost of in-center dialysis because home dialysis patients typically receive more than three treatments per week. The most interesting part of the report relates to the GAO's concerns as to whether adoption of identical bundled payment rates for both chronic and home dialysis services will increase home dialysis usage rates. Representatives of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) indicated to the GAO that they were considering a single expanded bundled payment for both home dialysis and chronic dialysis that will be based on the total cost to provide dialysis services for all modalities. CMS assumed that because the cost to provide home dialysis was lower than that for outpatient dialysis, a blended single payment rate “could … encourage” home dialysis by providing a financial incentive to do so. In response, the GAO concluded that because “CMS has not independently verified if these assumptions are correct… [,] the effect of the expanded bundled payment system on home dialysis utilization rates is uncertain.” The GAO also pointed out that the CMS premise of the cost differential between modalities ignores the fact that because home dialysis patients typically receive dialysis more than three times per week, the overall cost to provide home dialysis may actually be higher than the cost to provide outpatient dialysis. Rather than force the CMS to reconsider its position as to the use of a single reimbursement rate regardless of modality, the GAO ultimately recommended that CMS establish and implement a formal plan to monitor the impact of the expanded bundled system on home dialysis utilization rates. As expected, CMS agreed with this recommendation. It remains to be seen whether Medicare's expanded bundled payment rate, that will become effective as of January 1, 2011 will be identical for acute, home, and chronic dialysis services. However, as evidenced by the Report and the April 2008 final conditions for coverage issued by CMS, efforts to increase home dialysis utilization rates through financial, regulatory, and other means will continue and will undoubtedly accelerate with recent Congressional and Presidential focus on ways to reduce the cost of health services of all types in the United States.

Home dialysis as a first option: a new paradigm

Traditionally, the initial choice of dialysis for patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) has been in-center hemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD). Usually, the choice between these (PD vs. HD) has been based on the characteristics of the dialysis techniques. Obviously the choice of peritoneal dialysis implied dialysis at home, but its geographic location has been only a secondary consideration. Peritoneal dialysis has evolved as a dependable mode that gives good outcomes. This method has become more attractive with the option of overnight cyclers and the recent use of home helpers in some jurisdictions. At the same time the interest in home hemodialysis was rekindled by reports of good outcomes with short daily or nocturnal hemodialysis. Home dialysis (PD or HD) offers high quality of treatment, a high degree of patient independence, and is financially attractive. Therefore, we propose a change in our approach to the choice of the initial form of dialysis for patients with ESRD. Instead of choosing between HD and PD we should present the new patients the advantage of dialysis at home and instead of asking them to choose between peritoneal dialysis or hemodialysis, they should be offered the option to choose between dialysis at home (PD or HD) or in-hospital. This paper will review the advantages of the home-based dialysis methods and the arguments for this simple but vital change in the process of choosing the method of dialysis.

The Economics of Home Dialysis: Acting for the Individual While Planning Responsibly for the Population

Traditional medical education paradigms tend not to focus on health economics and economic evaluation. This has led to a culture in which bedside clinicians simply allocate health care resources made available to them, with often minimal input as to what these resources are at the population or health care system level. Life sustaining chronic dialysis therapies for end-stage renal disease are heterogeneous in terms of health care costs and the quality of life provided to patients receiving them. From the traditional clinician's perspective, they may be considered equivalent because there are no well-designed randomized control trials establishing the superiority of one particular dialysis modality in terms of all-cause mortality or cardiovascular events. The intent of this review is to provide clinicians practicing in the area of chronic kidney disease some insights into the concepts of economic evaluation and how it may be integrated into clinical decision making at a programmatic level while not compromising individual patient care at the bedside. An epidemiologic perspective will be used to help frame how the implementation of home dialysis modalities vary depending on local health policies in place. Lessons learned by regional nephrology care systems may be readily transferable to other jurisdictions in augmenting the uptake of home dialysis modalities where they are dwindling or struggling to grow. A high-level understanding of economic data in this area may help influence health policy in the direction of the most efficient provision of dialysis to patients while not adversely affecting their quality of life or health outcomes.

The financial implications for medicare of greater use of peritoneal dialysis

Background: Although annual per-person health care costs for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on in-center hemodialysis greatly exceed those for patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD), which is a home dialysis therapy, current use of PD remains low. In April 2008, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a new Dialysis Conditions of Coverage final rule underscoring its intent to promote use of home dialysis whenever appropriate.Objectives: The objectives of this paper were to provide context for the use of in-home versus in-center dialysis, to describe factors that influence patterns of dialysis utilization in the United States, and to explore the magnitude of the potential savings that might result from broader use of home dialysis therapies.Methods: A 5-year budget-impact analysis was performed using data from the 2007 Annual Data Report of the United States Renal Data System. Scenarios were developed in which the PD share of total dialysis was varied to estimate the impact on total Medicare dialysis costs. This study took the perspective of Medicare, the main payer for dialysis in the United States.Results: If the PD share of total dialysis were to decrease from the current 8% to 5%, Medicare spending for dialysis would increase by an additional $401 million over a 5-year period. Alternatively, if the PD share of total dialysis were to increase to 15%, Medicare could realize potential savings of >$1.1 billion over 5 years.Conclusions: Similar to the conclusion articulated in the Dialysis Conditions of Coverage final rule, increasing clinically appropriate use of PD would be associated with considerable savings to Medicare and to the taxpayers who fund Medicare. These savings could be used to offset part of the financial burden of ESRD care on Medicare and to help legislators meet ever-tightening budgetary constraints.

Perceived knowledge among patients cared for by nephrologists about chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease therapies

The need to educate patients in order to enable them to participate in making appropriate choices for all therapeutic options in end stage renal disease would seem obvious yet there are many barriers to providing such information. We measured 'perceived knowledge' of the therapeutic options for end stage renal disease in a cohort of patients with chronic kidney disease in established treatment programs. A self administered questionnaire was given to 676 patients with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease as part of the CRIOS study designed to identify trends in practice patterns and outcomes over a 4 year period. The median patient age was 66, about three-fourths were Caucasian and almost half were diabetic. When patients were asked to rate their level of knowledge, about one-third reported limited or no understanding of their chronic kidney disease and no awareness regarding their treatment options. A significant and substantial number of patients indicated they had no familiarity with transplant, hemodialysis, and continuous ambulatory or automated peritoneal dialysis. Perceived knowledge improved with the progression of kidney disease and frequency of nephrology visits; however, only about half of patients with 4 or more nephrology appointments in the prior year reported knowing of hemodialysis, continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis or transplant. Age, gender and disease had no impact on levels of patient knowledge, but African-Americans reported having significantly less understanding than Asians or Caucasians. These findings suggest that the lack of perception concerning the treatment options chronic kidney and end stage renal disease reflects, in part, problems with the education of patients by nephrologists and not a lack of referral of these patients to nephrologists for care. The discrepancy of perceived knowledge between African-Americans and other races needs special attention.

Effects of Nocturnal Hemodialysis on Melatonin Rhythm and Sleep-Wake Behavior: An Uncontrolled Trial

End-stage renal disease and its treatment are associated with sleep disturbances such as deterioration of the circadian sleep-wake pattern. Melatonin rhythm, which has an important role in this pattern, is disturbed. The nocturnal melatonin surge is absent in this population. Whether nocturnal in-center hemodialysis changes melatonin and sleep-wake rhythms is unknown. A nonrandomized uncontrolled trial. Patients served as their own controls. Thirteen daytime hemodialysis patients (median age, 58 years; 5 women) from our hospital receiving conventional daytime hemodialysis 3 times weekly for 3 to 4 hours each session. Six months of treatment with nocturnal in-center dialysis 4 nights/wk with 8-hour sessions. At baseline, while still on conventional hemodialysis therapy, polysomnography was performed, sleep questionnaires were filled out, and melatonin concentration in saliva was obtained. After 6 months of in-center nocturnal hemodialysis, all measurements were repeated. After 6 months of in-center nocturnal hemodialysis, polysomnography showed significant improvements in sleep efficiency (P = 0.05) and stage 3/4 sleep (P = 0.03) in comparison to t = 0. Trends in improvement of rapid-eye-movement sleep, awake time, and oxygen saturation were seen after 6 months of in-center nocturnal hemodialysis therapy. Sleep questionnaires showed a trend in improved sleep quality and daytime function. Patients were less exhausted during the daytime. The nocturnal melatonin surge was partially restored. Small sample size and a nonrandomized uncontrolled study design. Patients after 6 months of in-center nocturnal hemodialysis had significant improvements in subjective and objective sleep parameters and partially restored nocturnal melatonin rhythm.

The D&T Report

The D&T Report

Why Home Hemodialysis?

Why Home Hemodialysis?

What limits the expansion of self‐care dialysis at home?

Self-care dialysis at home, whether peritoneal dialysis or hemodialysis, is more cost-effective than in-center dialysis and treatment outcome is at least comparable. Still, both self-care modalities are considered underutilized and we wished to identify the perceived reasons for this underutilization among nephrology professionals. A questionnaire was distributed at 5 international nephrology meetings in 2006. Questions addressed the most important stakeholders and the most important issues for patients and nephrology professionals to enable the expansion of self-care dialysis and commonly mentioned barriers were given as alternative responses. The proportion of patients considered suitable for self-care was also investigated. Seven thousand responses were collected. The listed stakeholders, i.e., health care and reimbursement authorities, nurses and physicians, and finally patients and their families, are considered approximately equally important for the process. Nephrology professionals feel that patient motivation for choosing and performing self-care dialysis is the strongest driver. The need for dedicated resources for self-care is judged to be vital for the expansion of this modality of treatment. Thirty-two percent of incident patients are considered able to perform self-care dialysis at home. This international survey among 7000 nephrology professionals has identified patient motivation as one of the strongest drivers of self-care dialysis at home. The need for dedicated resources for the staff to devote time to developing such motivation is given as one of the major reasons for the slow adoption. Under ideal conditions, it is felt that one-third of all patients starting dialysis can be trained to perform self-care dialysis.

Short and long nightly hemodialysis in the United States

When hemodialysis first started in the United States in the 1960s, a large percentage of patients performed their treatments at home. However, because of reimbursement issues, home hemodialysis (HHD) gradually succumbed to an in-center approach and eventually a mindset. Since the introduction of nightly HHD by Uldall and Pierratos in 1993, there has been a resurgence of interest in HHD. This paper describes the different types of home hemodialysis being performed as of December 31, 2007 in this country. Because neither the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) nor the End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Networks break down home dialysis into the different modalities, a provider questionnaire was sent out to 2 major providers, a number of mid-level providers and other providers known to do HHD. In addition, a questionnaire was sent out to 3 machine providers to obtain the number of patients using their machine for HHD as of December 31, 2007. The results showed that 91.7% of patients are dialyzing in-center, 7.3% are doing peritoneal dialysis, and 0.7% are doing HHD. Currently about 1% of ESRD patients in the United States are doing home hemodialysis. NxStage, however, has started 1000 patients in the past year on short-daily home hemodialysis. Patients are beginning to understand that there are better options than 3 times a week in-center dialysis. And as a result of the "HEMO Study," nephrologists now believe that longer and more frequent dialysis is a better therapy for ESRD patients. Therefore, promotion of HHD should become a priority for the renal community in the future.

Short daily haemodialysis: survival in 415 patients treated for 1006 patient-years

Survival statistics for daily haemodialysis are lacking as most centres providing this have treated only a small number of patients for short observation times. We pooled our 23-year, 1006-patient-year, five-centre experience of 415 patients treated by short daily haemodialysis. One hundred and fifty patients were treated in-centre, most because of medical complications and 265 by home or self-care haemodialysis. Patients were on daily haemodialysis for 29 +/- 31 (0-272) months. Forty-two percent had primary and 31% had secondary renal failure. Treatment time was 136 +/- 35 min, frequency 5.8 +/- 0.5 times/week and weekly stdKt/V 2.7 +/- 0.55. Eighty-five patients (20%) died; 5-year cumulative survival was 68 +/- 4.1% and 10-year survival was 42 +/- 9%. Age, secondary renal failure and in-centre dialysis were associated with mortality, while gender, frequency of dialysis (5, 6 or 7 per week), continent, country and blood access were not. Survival was compared with matched patients from the USRDS 2005 Data Report using the standardized mortality ratio and cumulative survival curves. Both comparisons showed that the survival of the daily haemodialysis patients was 2-3 times higher and the predicted 50% survival time 2.3-10.9 years longer than that of the matched US haemodialysis patients. Survival of patients dialyzing daily at home was similar to that of age-matched recipients of deceased donor renal transplants. Survival of patients on short daily haemodialysis was 2-3 times better than that of matched three times weekly haemodialysis patients reported by the USRDS.

Outcome of cardiac arrests attended by emergency medical services staff at community outpatient dialysis centers

Cardiac arrest is the leading cause of death among dialysis patients in the United States. We measured the outcome of cardiac arrests attended by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) staff at hemodialysis facilities in a 14-year population-based retrospective study to identify cardiac arrest cases at a dialysis unit. Associated factors were determined using unconditional logistic regression. Of the 102 cardiac arrests identified around the time of dialysis, 10 occurred before, 72 during, and 20 after hemodialysis. The initial measured abnormality was ventricular fibrillation or tachycardia in 72 cases. Of those who survived transportation to a hospital, survival to discharge was 24 with 15% survival at 1 year. Compared to arrests that occurred prior to dialysis, the odds of ventricular fibrillation were 5-fold greater in patients on dialysis but 14-fold greater in those arresting after dialysis. One-third of cases occurred after the introduction of automated external defibrillators, and in half of the cases these devices were attached prior to EMS arrival. Once these devices were attached, most were used for defibrillation. We conclude that ventricular arrhythmias are the predominant features among arrested in-center dialysis patients with most occurrences during dialysis. The role of these devices in dialysis units will need a larger study to evaluate their efficacy.

Longer and better lives for patients … and their centers: A strategy for building a home hemodialysis program

Physicians should prescribe the dialysis mode most likely to result in the best outcome for the end-stage renal disease patient, not leave it to the patient or dialysis center to choose. That prescription, in order of decreasing desirability, should be for frequent home nocturnal hemodialysis, frequent home short-daily, or least efficacious, 3x in-center or peritoneal dialysis. Patient limitations may require prescribing a less than optimal mode. Physician-patient discussions should focus on expected clinical outcomes and health benefits, not patient convenience or "lifestyle." In order to overcome natural fears, qualified patients should participate in a short in-center frequent dialysis personal clinical trial to experience the benefits. The financial health of dialysis centers will be enhanced by shifting continually inflating labor costs from the center to patients and home caregivers. This shift from 3x in-center to frequent (optimally 6x nocturnal) home dialysis may reasonably be expected to enhance the survival and well-being of both the patient and the center.

Changes in health-related quality of life in patients of self-care vs. in-center dialysis during the first year

In the Lorraine area (France), dialysis centers propose an educational program to improve patient's ability to perform dialysis by themselves. The objective was to assess changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) during the first year of dialysis, comparing independent patients with patients on in-center dialysis. All patients aged between 18 and 70 and having started their first dialysis between June 1997 and June 1999 in the Lorraine area were included. Socio-demographic, medical data and HRQoL (KDQoL) were assessed for each patient at enrollment, at 6 and 12 months. At 12 months, 195 patients were in dialysis, 147 were non-autonomous, and 48 were autonomous. Independent patients were younger, were more often in occupational activity, had a lower body mass index and had fewer comorbidities. Several dimensions of the HRQoL were significantly higher in autonomous patients at baseline: physical functioning (60.4 vs. 50.7) and work status (30.9 vs. 18.4); and at 12 months: less burden of kidney disease (51.7 vs. 37.3), fewer effects of kidney disease (65.9 vs. 54.0), cognitive function (72.0 vs. 62.7) and role-emotional (53.0 vs. 34.5). These results show improved HRQoL among independent patients. Our regional care network may be a particularly useful model for undertaking actions motivating the healthcare teams and for enhancing the human resources devoted to patient education.

Starting a Home Hemodialysis Program

Home hemodialysis is not a new therapy; rather it is a therapy in which interest has been rekindled due to both the continually growing end-stage renal disease population and concern about poor outcomes in patients on conventional thrice-weekly in-center dialysis. The practical issues to be considered when starting a home hemodialysis center are presented, including the choice of equipment, patient selection and training, home set-up, dialysis prescription, and patient follow-up. We outline the steps required to start a program that will be successful for patients, caretakers, and providers alike.

Associations with home hemodialysis modality failure and mortality

Limited data exist on risk factors for home hemodialysis (HH) failure and mortality. We sought to determine whether age, helper status, or ethnicity was associated with home dialysis failure or mortality. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all prevalent and incident patients from a regional dialysis unit who initiated HH training from December 2000 to September 2002. Baseline demographics, program entry and exit dates, and mortality were ascertained. Characteristics of those more likely to remain in the program were assessed using logistic regression; survival was determined using Cox proportional hazards models. Of the 1117 patients enrolled for dialysis, 116 patients were trained in the HH program (6.8%). Of those, 45.7% remained in the program, 10.3% received a transplant, 10.3% returned to in-center dialysis, 1.7% were lost to follow-up, and 31.7% expired. Compared to patients who returned to center or received a transplant, patients who remained on HH were more likely to be older, to have been on dialysis longer, and to have diabetes as their primary renal disease. Ethnicity, sex, or type of helper did not affect home program status. Among those who remained in the HH program, those with hypertension or other renal diseases had better survival than those with diabetes, as did those who had related helpers compared to those with unrelated helpers. Older and younger ages, but not ethnicity, helper status, or sex, were associated with home dialysis failure. Diabetes remained an independent risk factor for increased mortality. HH remains a viable option for many patients.

Home Hemodialysis: Associations with Modality Failure

Purpose: To determine risk factors for home hemodialysis (HH) failure. Methods: We conducted a prospective study from 12/2000 to 9/2002 using data from the 1709 patients who received renal replacement therapy at the Northwest Kidney Centers (NWKC). Prevalent and incident Home Hemodialysis (HH) patients were included in the analysis. Baseline demographics, date of entry and date of exit from HH were ascertained for all patients. Differences among groups were assessed by independent t-test for continuous variables and by chi-squared test for categorical variables. Risk of HH failure was assessed with logistic regression. Results: Of the 116 patients who initiated training in the NWKC HH program (6.8%), 77.7% remained in the HH program, 10.3% received a transplant and 10.3% returned to in-center dialysis. Compared to patients who received a transplant or returned to in-center dialysis, HH patients were more likely to be older (65 vs. 54 yrs, P < .05) and were on dialysis longer (3.8 ± 4.7 vs. 2.3 ± 3.0 yrs, p < 0.05). Ethnicity, gender, primary renal disease and helper status were similar between groups, and were not associated with increased risk of HH failure. Unadjusted 3-year mortality was 31.7% for HH patients. HH patients who died were more likely to be older (p < 0.05) and to have diabetes (P < 0.01) than those who returned to in-center dialysis or who received a transplant. Conclusions: In HH patients, older age but not ethnicity, gender or helper status was associated with treatment failure. Older age and diabetes remain risk factors for mortality in the HH population.