Feasibility of Incremental 2-Times Weekly Hemodialysis in Incident Patients With Residual Kidney Function

Incremental hemodialysis transition in veterans and nonveterans with kidney failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Initiation of hemodialysis treatment with a thrice-weekly prescription is currently the standard of care irrespective of patients' residual kidney function (RKF), comorbidities, and preferences.

RECENT FINDINGS

Each year ∼12 000 Veterans with advanced kidney disease progress to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) requiring dialysis and comprise greater than 10% of the US incident ESKD population. Dialysis is costly and is associated with impaired health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and high mortality risk, especially in the first year of treatment. Evidence suggests an incremental dialysis transition using twice-weekly hemodialysis provides various benefits, including more dialysis-free time, longer RKF preservation, less vascular access damage, and lower patient burden. Pragmatic studies are needed to inform the efficacy and safety of incremental hemodialysis as a personalized dialysis regimen, and could inform its consideration as a conservation strategy during times of supply shortages. Broadly implementing twice-weekly hemodialysis could also potentially allow more Veterans to receive care within VA-based dialysis units. The VA IncHVets Trial is a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy and safety of twice-weekly incremental vs. thrice-weekly hemodialysis among Veterans transitioning to ESKD.

SUMMARY

Further research is needed to determine whether incremental hemodialysis is well tolerated, effective, and facilitates a more favorable transition to dialysis.

Comparative effectiveness of an individualized model of hemodialysis vs conventional hemodialysis: a study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial (the TwoPlus trial)

BACKGROUND

Most patients starting chronic in-center hemodialysis (HD) receive conventional hemodialysis (CHD) with three sessions per week targeting specific biochemical clearance. Observational studies suggest that patients with residual kidney function can safely be treated with incremental prescriptions of HD, starting with less frequent sessions and later adjusting to thrice-weekly HD. This trial aims to show objectively that clinically matched incremental HD (CMIHD) is non-inferior to CHD in eligible patients.

METHODS

An unblinded, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial will be conducted across diverse healthcare systems and dialysis organizations in the USA. Adult patients initiating chronic hemodialysis (HD) at participating centers will be screened. Eligibility criteria include receipt of fewer than 18 treatments of HD and residual kidney function defined as kidney urea clearance ≥3.5 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urine output ≥500 mL/24 h. The 1:1 randomization, stratified by site and dialysis vascular access type, assigns patients to either CMIHD (intervention group) or CHD (control group). The CMIHD group will be treated with twice-weekly HD and adjuvant pharmacologic therapy (i.e., oral loop diuretics, sodium bicarbonate, and potassium binders). The CHD group will receive thrice-weekly HD according to usual care. Throughout the study, patients undergo timed urine collection and fill out questionnaires. CMIHD will progress to thrice-weekly HD based on clinical manifestations or changes in residual kidney function. Caregivers of enrolled patients are invited to complete semi-annual questionnaires. The primary outcome is a composite of patients' all-cause death, hospitalizations, or emergency department visits at 2 years. Secondary outcomes include patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes. We aim to enroll 350 patients, which provides ≥85% power to detect an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.9 between CMIHD and CHD with an IRR non-inferiority of 1.20 (α = 0.025, one-tailed test, 20% dropout rate, average of 2.06 years of HD per patient participant), and 150 caregiver participants (of enrolled patients).

DISCUSSION

Our proposal challenges the status quo of HD care delivery. Our overarching hypothesis posits that CMIHD is non-inferior to CHD. If successful, the results will positively impact one of the highest-burdened patient populations and their caregivers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05828823. Registered on 25 April 2023.

Patient-reported outcomes in a pilot clinical trial of twice-weekly hemodialysis start with adjuvant pharmacotherapy and transition to thrice-weekly hemodialysis vs conventional hemodialysis

Background

Physical and emotional symptoms are prevalent in patients with kidney-dysfunction requiring dialysis (KDRD) and the rigors of thrice-weekly hemodialysis (HD) may contribute to deteriorated health-related quality of life. Less intensive HD schedules might be associated with lower symptom and/or emotional burden.

Methods

The TWOPLUS Pilot study was an individually-randomized trial conducted at 14 dialysis units, with the primary goal to assess feasibility and safety. Patients with incident KDRD and residual kidney function were assigned to incremental HD start (twice-weekly HD for 6 weeks followed by thrice-weekly HD) vs conventional HD (thrice-weekly HD). In exploratory analyses, we compared the two treatment groups with respect to three patient-reported outcomes measures. We analyzed the change from baseline in the score on Dialysis Symptom Index (DSI, range 0–150), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7, range 0–21), and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9, range 0–27) at 6 (n = 20 in each treatment group) and 12 weeks (n = 21); with lower scores denoting lower symptom burden. Analyses were adjusted for age, race, gender, baseline urine volume, diabetes mellitus, and malignancy. Participants’ views on the intervention were sought using a Patient Feedback Questionnaire (n = 14 in incremental and n = 15 in conventional group).

Results

The change from baseline to week 6 in estimated mean score (standard error; P value) in the incremental and conventional group was − 9.7 (4.8; P = 0.05) and − 13.8 (5.0; P = 0.009) for DSI; − 1.9 (1.0; P = 0.07) and − 1.5 (1.4; P = 0.31) for GAD-7; and − 2.5 (1.1; P = 0.03) and − 3.5 (1.5; P = 0.02) for PHQ-9, respectively. Corresponding changes from week 6 to week 12 were − 3.1 (3.2; P = 0.34) and − 2.4 (5.5; P = 0.67) in DSI score; 0.5 (0.6; P = 0.46) and 0.1 (0.6; P = 0.87) in GAD-7 score; and − 0.3 (0.6; P = 0.70) and − 0.5 (0.6; P = 0.47) in PHQ-9 score, respectively. Majority of respondents felt their healthcare was not jeopardized and expressed their motivation for study participation was to help advance the care of patients with KDRD.

Conclusions

This study suggests a possible mitigating effect of twice-weekly HD start on symptoms of anxiety and depression at transition from pre-dialysis to KDRD. Larger clinical trials are required to rigorously test clinically-matched incrementally-prescribed HD across diverse organizations and patient populations.

Trial registration

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study identifier NCT03740048, registration date 14/11/2018.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-022-02946-w.

Incremental Hemodialysis: What We Know so Far

Traditionally, patients that develop progressive chronic kidney disease in need of kidney replacement therapy are prescribed thrice weekly in-center hemodialysis sessions at the beginning of therapy. This empiric prescription is based on historic trials that were comprised of mostly prevalent patients. Incremental hemodialysis is the process of performing <3 sessions of dialysis per week or limiting dialysis dose by duration at the initial onset of treatment to provide a more gradual transition, mimicking the progressive nature of kidney disease. Adding clearance contributions from residual kidney function is the standard of care with peritoneal dialysis but has not routinely been employed with hemodialysis. Accounting for residual kidney function accompanied by improvement in adjuvant pharmacotherapy, such as newer potassium binding agents and dietary modification, can augment dialytic clearances and allow for an incremental approach. Utilizing incremental dialysis has been associated with both preserving residual kidney function as well as improving patient quality of life. Barriers to this approach include concerns regarding patient acceptance of dialysis prescription changes, adherence to therapy, and provider factors that would require a restructuring of the current thrice weekly hemodialysis rubric. Candidacy for incremental therapy has shown the best outcomes when urea clearances exceed 3 mL/min and urine volumes are >500 mL/day, although these measures have been deemed conservative. A significant amount of retrospective and registry data has been supportive of initiating incremental hemodialysis and several pilot studies have shown the feasibility of implementing such an approach. Larger, randomized control trials are needed to fully evaluate safety and efficacy to allow for more widespread acceptance of this patient-centered approach to chronic kidney disease.

Incremental and Personalized Hemodialysis Start: A New Standard of Care

Introduction

Incremental hemodialysis (iHD) may attenuate “dialysis shock” and reduce costs, preserving quality of life. It is considered difficult to reconcile with HD wards’ routine; fear of underdialysis and increasing mortality are additional concerns. The aim of this study was to evaluate mortality, morbidity, and costs in a large HD ward where iHD is the standard of HD start.

Methods

This observational study included all incident HD patients in 2017 to 2021, stratified according to HD start: iHD (1–2 sessions/wk), decremental HD (dHD, 3 sessions/wk at start, later reduced), or standard (3 sessions/wk). Results were compared with data recorded in the same unit before the incremental program (2015–2017) and with a propensity score-matched cohort from the French Renal Epidemiology and Information Network (REIN) registry.

Results

A total of 158 patients started HD in 2017 to 2021, 57.6% on iHD, 8.9% dHD, and 33.5% standard HD schedule. Patients on the standard schedule had lower initial estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (5 vs. 7 ml/min per 1.72 m², P = 0.003). We found no survival differences according to period of start (same center) and propensity score matching (REIN). Patients intensively followed in the pre-HD period were more likely to start on iHD-dHD. Persistence on iHD-dHD was about 50% at 1 year and 35% at 2 years. Hospitalization rates and time to first hospitalization or death did not differ between the schedules. The iHD-dHD policy allowed a 16% cost saving, even accounting for supplemental biochemical tests.

Conclusion

Our study reveals that iHD can be a new standard of care, as it is safe and feasible in up to two-thirds of patients on incident HD.

Precision medicine in transplantation and hemodialysis

In kidney transplantation, precision medicine has already entered clinical practice. Donor and recipient human leucocyte antigen (HLA) regions are genotyped in two class 1 and usually three class 2 loci, and the individual degree of sensitization against alloimmune antigens is evaluated by the detection of anti-HLA donor-specific antibodies. Recently, the contribution of non-HLA mismatches to outcomes such as acute T- and B-cell-mediated rejection and even long-term graft survival was described. Tracking of specific alloimmune T- and B-cell clones by next generation sequencing and refinement of the immunogenicity of allo-epitopes specifically in the interaction with HLA and T- and B-cell receptors may further support individualized therapy. Although the choices of maintenance immunosuppression are rather limited, individualization can be accomplished by adjustment of dosing based on these risk predictors. Finally, supplementing histopathology by a transcriptomics analysis allows for a biological interpretation of the histological findings and avoids interobserver variability of results. In contrast to transplantation, the prescription of hemodialysis therapy is far from precise. Guidelines do not consider modifications by age, diet or many comorbid conditions. Patients with residual kidney function routinely receive the same treatment as those without. A major barrier hitherto is the definition of 'adequate' treatment based on urea removal. Kt/Vurea and related parameters neither reflect the severity of uremic symptoms nor predict long-term outcomes. Urea is poorly representative for numerous other compounds that accumulate in the body when the kidneys fail, yet clinicians prescribe treatment based on its measurement. Modern technology has provided the means to identify other solutes responsible for specific features of uremic illness and their measurement will be a necessary step in moving beyond the standardized prescription of hemodialysis.

Cerebral Perfusion in Hemodialysis Patients: A Feasibility Study

Background

Patients on hemodialysis (HD) are known to exhibit low values of regional cerebral oxygenation (rSO2) and impaired cognitive functioning. The etiology of both is currently unknown.

Objective

To determine the feasibility of serially monitoring rSO2 in patients initiating HD. In addition, we sought to investigate how rSO2 is related to hemodynamic and dialysis parameters.

Design

Prospective observational study.

Setting

Single-center tertiary academic teaching hospital in Ontario, Canada.

Participants

Six patients initiating HD were enrolled in the study.

Methods

Feasibility was defined as successful study enrollment (>1 patient/month), successful consent rate (>70%), high data capture rates (>90%), and assessment tolerability. Regional cerebral oxygenation monitoring was performed 1 time/wk for the first year of dialysis. A neuropsychological battery was performed 3 times during the study: before dialysis initiation, 3 months, and 1 year after dialysis initiation. The neuropsychological battery included a traditional screening tool: the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status, and a robot-based assessment: Kinarm.

Results

Our overall consent rate was 33%, and our enrollment rate was 0.4 patients/mo. In total 243 rSO2 sessions were recorded, with a data capture rate of 91.4% (222/243) across the 6 patients. Throughout the study, no adverse interactions were reported. Correlations between rSO2 with hemodynamic and dialysis parameters showed individual patient variability. However, at the individual level, all patients demonstrated positive correlations between mean arterial pressure and rSO2. Patients who had more than 3 liters of fluid showed significant negative correlations with rSO2. Less cognitive impairment was detected after initiating dialysis.

Limitation

This small cohort limits conclusions that can be made between rSO2 and hemodynamic and dialysis parameters.

Conclusions

Prospectively monitoring rSO2 in patients was unfeasible in a single dialysis unit, due to low consent and enrollment rates. However, rSO2 monitoring may provide unique insights into the effects of HD on cerebral oxygenation that should be further investigated.

Trial Registration

Due to the feasibility nature of this study, no trial registration was performed.

Individualized acute kidney injury after care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this study was to summarize the current evidence around the impact of individualizing patient care following an episode of acute kidney injury (AKI) in the ICU.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the last years, evidence has demonstrated that the follow-up care after episodes of AKI is lacking and standardization of this process is likely needed. Although this is informed largely by large retrospective cohort studies, a few prospective observational trials have been performed. Medication reconciliation and patient/caregiver education are important tenants of follow-up care, regardless of the severity of AKI. There is evidence the initiation and/or reinstitution of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone agents may improve patient's outcomes following AKI, although they may increase the risk for adverse events, especially when reinitiated early. In addition, 3 months after an episode of AKI, serum creatinine and proteinuria evaluation may help identify patients who are likely to develop progressive chronic kidney disease over the ensuing 5 years. Lastly, there are emerging differences between those who do and do not require renal replacement therapy (RRT) for their AKI, which may require more frequent and intense follow-up in those needing RRT.

SUMMARY

Although large scale evidence-based guidelines are lacking, standardization of post-ICU-AKI is needed.

Precision medicine approach to dialysis including incremental and decremental dialysis regimens

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Conventional standardization of haemodialysis for treatment of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is predicated upon the fixed construct of one disease stage and one patient category. Increasingly recognized are subgroups of patients for whom less-intensive haemodialysis, such as incremental or decremental haemodialysis, could be employed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Almost 30% of patients with incident ESKD have clinical and residual kidney function (RFK) parameters that could accommodate less-intensive haemodialysis. In one study, patients with incident ESKD and substantial RKF treated with low-dose haemodialysis had similar mortality rate as those treated with standard-dose haemodialysis, adding to the evidence that endogenous kidney function -- when present -- can complement less-intensive haemodialysis schedules. Hazards related to incremental haemodialysis include insidious development of fluid overload and higher rates of fluid removal. Finally, deintensification of haemodialysis treatment could be employed in patients with ESKD who seek conservative care.

SUMMARY

A shift in approach to ESKD from a dichotomous frame -- disease presence versus absence -- to stages of dialysis-dependent kidney disease, each stage associated with attuned haemodialysis intensity, has been proposed. Haemodialysis standardization and personalization -- often considered mutually exclusive -- can be combined in incremental haemodialysis. Data from ongoing and future randomized clinical trials, comparing less-intensive with standard haemodialysis schedules, are required to change practice.

Evaluation of Residual Kidney Function during Once-Weekly Incremental Hemodialysis

BACKGROUND

The initial once-weekly administration of incremental hemodialysis to patients with residual kidney function (RKF) has recently attracted considerable interest.

METHODS

The aim of our study was to assess the performance of a series of different methods in measuring serum urea nitrogen and serum Cr (sCr) RKF in patients on once-weekly hemodialysis (1WHD). Evaluations were carried out by means of 24-h predialysis urine collection (Kr-24H) or 6-day inter-dialysis collection (Kr-IDI) and estimation of glomerular filtration rate based on (KrSUN + KrsCr)/2 for the purpose of identifying a simple reference calculation to be used in assessing RKF in patients on 1WHD dialysis. Ninety-five urine samples were collected from 12 1WHD patients. A solute solver urea and Cr kinetic modeling program was used to calculate residual urea and Cr clearances. Mann-Whitney U test, Pearson's correlation coefficient (R), and linear determination coefficient (R2) were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

1WHD patients displayed a mean KrSUN-IDI of 4.5 ± 1.2 mL/min, while KrSUN-24H corresponded to 4.1 ± 0.9 mL/min, mean KrsCr-IDI to 9.1 ± 4.0 mL/min, and KrsCr 24H to 8.9 ± 4.2 mL/min, with a high regression between IDI and 24-h clearances (for IDI had R2 = 0.9149 and for 24H had R2 = 0.9595). A good correlation was also observed between KrSUN-24H and (KrSUN + KrsCR/2) (R2 = 0.7466, p < 0.01.

DISCUSSION

Urine collection over a 24-h predialysis period yielded similar results for both KrSUN and KrsCr compared to collection over a longer interdialytic interval (KrSUN + KrsCr)/2 could be applied to reliably assess RKF in patients on 1WHD.

CONCLUSION

The parameters evaluated are suitable for use as a routine daily method indicating the commencement and continued use of the 1WHD Incremental Program.

Increasing access to integrated ESKD care as part of universal health coverage

The global nephrology community recognizes the need for a cohesive strategy to address the growing problem of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). In March 2018, the International Society of Nephrology hosted a summit on integrated ESKD care, including 92 individuals from around the globe with diverse expertise and professional backgrounds. The attendees were from 41 countries, including 16 participants from 11 low- and lower-middle-income countries. The purpose was to develop a strategic plan to improve worldwide access to integrated ESKD care, by identifying and prioritizing key activities across 8 themes: (i) estimates of ESKD burden and treatment coverage, (ii) advocacy, (iii) education and training/workforce, (iv) financing/funding models, (v) ethics, (vi) dialysis, (vii) transplantation, and (viii) conservative care. Action plans with prioritized lists of goals, activities, and key deliverables, and an overarching performance framework were developed for each theme. Examples of these key deliverables include improved data availability, integration of core registry measures and analysis to inform development of health care policy; a framework for advocacy; improved and continued stakeholder engagement; improved workforce training; equitable, efficient, and cost-effective funding models; greater understanding and greater application of ethical principles in practice and policy; definition and application of standards for safe and sustainable dialysis treatment and a set of measurable quality parameters; and integration of dialysis, transplantation, and comprehensive conservative care as ESKD treatment options within the context of overall health priorities. Intended users of the action plans include clinicians, patients and their families, scientists, industry partners, government decision makers, and advocacy organizations. Implementation of this integrated and comprehensive plan is intended to improve quality and access to care and thereby reduce serious health-related suffering of adults and children affected by ESKD worldwide.

Aspectos clave en el mantenimiento de la diuresis residual en pauta de hemodiálisis incremental. Experiencia de diez años

Introducción: La hemodiálisis incremental o progresiva es una modalidad de inicio de hemodiálisis, basada en la diuresis residual y adaptada a las necesidades del paciente, poco extendida pese a sus potenciales beneficios. Para su correcto seguimiento es necesario establecer unas pautas específicas en cada sesión de hemodiálisis, que deben ser conocidas por el personal que atiende a estos pacientes de forma regular. Objetivo: analizar la evolución de los pacientes que han iniciado tratamiento renal sustitutivo con hemodiálisis incremental. Material y Método: Estudio observacional retrospectivo de pacientes incidentes en tratamiento renal sustitutivo mediante hemodiálisis incremental en nuestro centro en los últimos 10 años. Comparación de resultados basales y a los 12 meses de seguimiento. Resultados: En este periodo de tiempo se han incluido 49 pacientes en técnica de hemodiálisis incremental. Aunque la diuresis residual desciende en el primer año de 2030±600 ml/día a 1300±500 (p<0,05), ésta se mantiene por encima de un litro en la mayoría de los casos. El aclaramiento de urea también desciende de 5,7±1,6 ml/min a 3,4±1,6 ml/min al año (p<0,05). Conclusiones: Iniciar tratamiento renal sustitutivo con hemodiálisis incremental puede mantener más tiempo la diuresis residual, para eso es clave el conocimiento de la técnica y su correcto manejo durante las sesiones de diálisis.

Intradialytic Nutrition and Hemodialysis Prescriptions: A Personalized Stepwise Approach

Dialysis and nutrition are two sides of the same coin—dialysis depurates metabolic waste that is typically produced by food intake. Hence, dietetic restrictions are commonly imposed in order to limit potassium and phosphate and avoid fluid overload. Conversely, malnutrition is a major challenge and, albeit to differing degrees, all nutritional markers are associated with survival. Dialysis-related malnutrition has a multifactorial origin related to uremic syndrome and comorbidities but also to dialysis treatment. Both an insufficient dialysis dose and excessive removal are contributing factors. It is thus not surprising that dialysis alone, without proper nutritional management, often fails to be effective in combatting malnutrition. While composite indexes can be used to identify patients with poor prognosis, none is fully satisfactory, and the definitions of malnutrition and protein energy wasting are still controversial. Furthermore, most nutritional markers and interventions were assessed in hemodialysis patients, while hemodiafiltration and peritoneal dialysis have been less extensively studied. The significant loss of albumin in these two dialysis modalities makes it extremely difficult to interpret common markers and scores. Despite these problems, hemodialysis sessions represent a valuable opportunity to monitor nutritional status and prescribe nutritional interventions, and several approaches have been tried. In this concept paper, we review the current evidence on intradialytic nutrition and propose an algorithm for adapting nutritional interventions to individual patients.

Development of a framework for minimum and optimal safety and quality standards for hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis

Substantial heterogeneity in practice patterns around the world has resulted in wide variations in the quality and type of dialysis care delivered. This is particularly so in countries without universal standards of care and governmental (or other organizational) oversight. Most high-income countries have developed such oversight based on documentation of adherence to standardized, evidence-based guidelines. Many low- and lower-middle-income countries have no or only limited organized oversight systems to ensure that care is safe and effective. The implementation and oversight of basic standards of care requires sufficient infrastructure and appropriate workforce and financial resources to support the basic levels of care and safety practices. It is important to understand how these standards then can be reasonably adapted and applied in low- and lower-middle-income countries.

Narrative Review of Incremental Hemodialysis

The prescription of hemodialysis (HD) in patients with incident end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is fundamentally empirical. The abrupt transition from nondialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD) to thrice-weekly in-center HD of much the same dialysis intensity as in those with prevalent ESKD underappreciates the progressive nature of kidney disease whereby the decline in renal function has been gradual and ongoing-including at the time of HD initiation. Adjuvant pharmacologic treatment (i.e., diuretics, acid buffers, potassium binders), coupled with residual kidney function (RKF), can complement an initial HD regimen of lower intensity. Barriers to less intensive HD in incident ESKD include risk of inadequate clearance of uremic toxins due to variable and unexpected loss of RKF, lack of patient adherence to assessments of RKF or adjustment of HD intensity, increased burden for all stakeholders in the dialysis units, and negative financial repercussions. A stepped dialysis regimen with scheduled transition from time-delineated twice-weekly HD to thrice-weekly HD could represent an effective and safe strategy to standardize incremental HD in patients with CKD transitioning to early-stage ESKD. Patients' adherence and survival as well as other clinical outcomes should be rigorously evaluated in clinical trials before large-scale implementation of different incremental schedules of HD. This review discusses potential benefits of and barriers to alternative dialysis regimens in patients with incident ESKD, with emphasis on twice-weekly HD with pharmacologic therapy, and summarizes in-progress clinical trials of incremental HD schedules.

Estimating Residual Native Kidney Urea Clearance in Hemodialysis Patients with and without 24-Hour Urine Volume

Rationale & Objective

Quantification of residual native kidney function is rarely performed in patients receiving hemodialysis. Methods of estimating residual kidney urea clearance that use commonly available laboratory and clinical data, with or without urine volume information, may be useful tools.

Study Design

Retrospective, predictive modeling and model validation.

Setting & Participants

Initial timed urine collections in 604 incident in-center hemodialysis patients on thrice-weekly treatments from a single academic center in which residual kidney urea clearance is measured in usual care.

Predictors

Models using a combination of serum creatinine and urea levels, age, weight, height, sex, race, fluid weight gains, and with and without 24-hour urine volume.

Outcomes

Residual kidney urea clearance.

Analytic Approach

Generalized linear model was used for model development for residual kidney urea clearance using the first urine collection in 604 patients, as both a continuous and binary outcome (for >2.5 mL/min). Model validation was done by bootstrap resampling of the development cohort and with 1,093 follow-up measurements.

Results

Urine volume alone was the strongest predictor of residual kidney urea clearance. The model that included 24-hour urine volume with common clinical data had high diagnostic accuracy for residual kidney urea clearance > 2.5 mL/min (area under the curve, 0.91 in both development and bootstrap validation) and R² of 0.56 with outcome as a continuous residual kidney urea clearance value. Our model that did not use urine volume performed less well (eg, area under the curve, 0.75). Analyses of follow-up urine collections in these same participants yielded comparable or improved performance.

Limitations

Data were retrospective from a single center, no external validation, not validated in 2- or 4-times-weekly hemodialysis patients.

Conclusions

Estimation equations for residual kidney urea clearance that use commonly available data in dialysis clinics, with and without urine volume, may be useful tools for evaluation of hemodialysis patients who still have residual kidney function for individualization of dialysis prescriptions.

Dialysis Reimbursement: What Impact Do Different Models Have on Clinical Choices?

Allowing patients to live for decades without the function of a vital organ is a medical miracle, but one that is not without cost both in terms of morbidity and quality of life and in economic terms. Renal replacement therapy (RRT) consumes between 2% and 5% of the overall health care expenditure in countries where dialysis is available without restrictions. While transplantation is the preferred treatment in patients without contraindications, old age and comorbidity limit its indications, and low organ availability may result in long waiting times. As a consequence, 30–70% of the patients depend on dialysis, which remains the main determinant of the cost of RRT. Costs of dialysis are differently defined, and its reimbursement follows different rules. There are three main ways of establishing dialysis reimbursement. The first involves dividing dialysis into a series of elements and reimbursing each one separately (dialysis itself, medications, drugs, transportation, hospitalisation, etc.). The second, known as the capitation system, consists of merging these elements in a per capita reimbursement, while the third, usually called the bundle system, entails identifying a core of procedures intrinsically linked to treatment (e.g., dialysis sessions, tests, intradialyitc drugs). Each one has advantages and drawbacks, and impacts differently on the organization and delivery of care: payment per session may favour fragmentation and make a global appraisal difficult; a correct capitation system needs a careful correction for comorbidity, and may exacerbate competition between public and private settings, the latter aiming at selecting the least complex cases; a bundle system, in which the main elements linked to the dialysis sessions are considered together, may be a good compromise but risks penalising complex patients, and requires a rapid adaptation to treatment changes. Retarding dialysis is a clinical and economical goal, but the incentives for predialysis care are not established and its development may be unfavourable for the provider. A closer cooperation between policymakers, economists and nephrologists is needed to ensure a high quality of dialysis care.

Twice-Weekly Hemodialysis and Clinical Outcomes in the China Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study

INTRODUCTION

In China, a quarter of patients are undergoing 2-times weekly hemodialysis. Using data from the China Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS), we tested the hypothesis that whereas survival and hospitalizations would be similar in the presence of residual kidney function (RKF), patients without RKF would fare worse on 2-times weekly hemodialysis.

METHODS

In our cohort derived from 15 units randomly selected from each of 3 major cities (total N = 45), we generated a propensity score for the probability of dialysis frequency assignment, estimated a survival function by propensity score quintiles, and averaged stratum-specific survival functions to generate mean survival time. We used the proportional rates model to assess hospitalizations. We stratified all analyses by RKF, as reported by patients (urine output <1 vs. ≥1 cup/day).

RESULTS

Among 1265 patients, 123 and 133 were undergoing 2-times weekly hemodialysis with and without evidence of RKF. Over 2.5 years, adjusted mean survival times were similar for 2- versus 3-times weekly dialysis groups: 2.20 versus 2.23 and 2.20 versus 2.15 for patients with and without RKF (P = 0.65). Hazard ratios for hospitalization rates were similar for 2- versus 3-times weekly groups, with (1.15, 95% confidence interval = 0.66-2.00) and without (1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.68-1.79]) RKF. The normalized protein catabolic rate was lower and intradialytic weight gain was not substantially higher in the 2- versus 3-times weekly dialysis group, suggesting greater restriction of dietary sodium and protein.

CONCLUSION

In our study of patients in China's major cities, we could not detect differences in survival and hospitalization for those undergoing 2- versus 3-times weekly dialysis, regardless of RKF. Our findings indicate the need for pragmatic studies regarding less frequent dialysis with associated nutritional management.