Home hemodialysis: patient outcomes during a 24-year period of time from 1970 through 1993

Home versus in-centre haemodialysis for people with kidney failure

BACKGROUND

Home haemodialysis (HHD) may be associated with important clinical, social or economic benefits. However, few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated HHD versus in-centre HD (ICHD). The relative benefits and harms of these two HD modalities are uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2014. This update includes non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of HHD versus ICHD in adults with kidney failure.

SEARCH METHODS

We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 9 October 2022 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We searched MEDLINE (OVID) and EMBASE (OVID) for NRSIs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs and NRSIs evaluating HHD (including community houses and self-care) compared to ICHD in adults with kidney failure were eligible. The outcomes of interest were cardiovascular death, all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, all-cause hospitalisation, vascular access interventions, central venous catheter insertion/exchange, vascular access infection, parathyroidectomy, wait-listing for a kidney transplant, receipt of a kidney transplant, quality of life (QoL), symptoms related to dialysis therapy, fatigue, recovery time, cost-effectiveness, blood pressure, and left ventricular mass.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed if the studies were eligible and then extracted data. The risk of bias was assessed, and relevant outcomes were extracted. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Meta-analysis was performed on outcomes where there was sufficient data.

MAIN RESULTS

From the 1305 records identified, a single cross-over RCT and 39 NRSIs proved eligible for inclusion. These studies were of varying design (prospective cohort, retrospective cohort, cross-sectional) and involved a widely variable number of participants (small single-centre studies to international registry analyses). Studies also varied in the treatment prescription and delivery (e.g. treatment duration, frequency, dialysis machine parameters) and participant characteristics (e.g. time on dialysis). Studies often did not describe these parameters in detail. Although the risk of bias, as assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, was generally low for most studies, within the constraints of observational study design, studies were at risk of selection bias and residual confounding. Many study outcomes were reported in ways that did not allow direct comparison or meta-analysis. It is uncertain whether HHD, compared to ICHD, may be associated with a decrease in cardiovascular death (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07; 2 NRSIs, 30,900 participants; very low certainty evidence) or all-cause death (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.95; 9 NRSIs, 58,984 patients; very low certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether HHD may be associated with a decrease in hospitalisation rate (MD -0.50 admissions per patient-year, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.02; 2 NRSIs, 834 participants; very low certainty evidence), compared with ICHD. Compared with ICHD, it is uncertain whether HHD may be associated with receipt of kidney transplantation (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.63; 6 NRSIs, 10,910 participants; very low certainty evidence) and a shorter recovery time post-dialysis (MD -2.0 hours, 95% CI -2.73 to -1.28; 2 NRSIs, 348 participants; very low certainty evidence). It remains uncertain if HHD may be associated with decreased systolic blood pressure (SBP) (MD -11.71 mm Hg, 95% CI -21.11 to -2.46; 4 NRSIs, 491 participants; very low certainty evidence) and decreased left ventricular mass index (LVMI) (MD -17.74 g/m2, 95% CI -29.60 to -5.89; 2 NRSIs, 130 participants; low certainty evidence). There was insufficient data to evaluate the relative association of HHD and ICHD with fatigue or vascular access outcomes. Patient-reported outcome measures were reported using 18 different measures across 11 studies (QoL: 6 measures; mental health: 3 measures; symptoms: 1 measure; impact and view of health: 6 measures; functional ability: 2 measures). Few studies reported the same measures, which limited the ability to perform meta-analysis or compare outcomes. It is uncertain whether HHD is more cost-effective than ICHD, both in the first (SMD -1.25, 95% CI -2.13 to -0.37; 4 NRSIs, 13,809 participants; very low certainty evidence) and second year of dialysis (SMD -1.47, 95% CI -2.72 to -0.21; 4 NRSIs, 13,809 participants; very low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low to very low certainty evidence, HHD, compared with ICHD, has uncertain associations or may be associated with decreased cardiovascular and all-cause death, hospitalisation rate, slower post-dialysis recovery time, and decreased SBP and LVMI. HHD has uncertain cost-effectiveness compared with ICHD in the first and second years of treatment. The majority of studies included in this review were observational and subject to potential selection bias and confounding, especially as patients treated with HHD tended to be younger with fewer comorbidities. Variation from study to study in the choice of outcomes and the way in which they were reported limited the ability to perform meta-analyses. Future research should align outcome measures and metrics with other research in the field in order to allow comparison between studies, establish outcome effects with greater certainty, and avoid research waste.

Dialysis after kidney transplant failure: how to deal with this daunting task?

The best treatment for patients with end-stage kidney disease is kidney transplantation, which, if successful provides both a reduction in mortality and a better quality of life compared to dialysis. Although there has been significant improvement in short-term outcomes after kidney transplantation, long-term graft survival still remains insufficient. As a result, there has been an increase in the number of individuals who need dialysis again after kidney transplant failure, and increasingly contribute to kidney transplant waiting lists. Starting dialysis after graft failure is a difficult task not only for the patients, but also for the nephrologists and the care team. Furthermore, recommendations for management of dialysis after kidney graft loss are lacking. Aim of this narrative review is to provide a perspective on the role of dialysis in the management of patients with failed kidney allograft. Although numerous studies have reported higher mortality in patients undergoing dialysis following kidney allograft failure, reports are contrasting. A patient-centered, individualized approach should drive the choices of initiating dialysis, dialysis modality, maintenance of immunosuppressive drugs and vascular access.

Cost-Effectiveness of Home Hemodialysis With Bedside Portable Dialysis Machine "DIMI" in the United Arab Emirates

Background and objective

The incidence and prevalence of patients requiring renal replacement therapies (RRTs) are increasing worldwide and a large number of these patients die prematurely due to the unavailability of treatment. While in-center hemodialysis remains the most commonly practiced modality globally, more and more patients find it unsuitable due to their frail condition, difficulty in ambulation, and time lost in traveling, etc. Such patients find the self-administered or nurse-assisted home hemodialysis (NAHHD) more suitable. The costly and recurring nature of these therapies prompted us to evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness aspect of these two treatment modalities. Thus, the aim of the study was to investigate if home hemodialysis (HHD) with a portable hemodialysis machine was cost-effective in comparison to in-center hemodialysis for patients of end-stage renal failure (ESRF) in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This is the first study of its kind to be conducted in the UAE.

Methodology

The study topic was developed based on an informal inquiry from the health regulator of Abu Dhabi if HHD was cost-effective compared to in-center hemodialysis with an emphasis on a portable dialysis machine. No such head-to-head study performed in the UAE was available. Hence, a systematic review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) design was chosen as the investigative method. An outline of the study was drafted, and a literature search of Science of Web, PubMed, and Cochrane Evidence was performed using the keywords "Home Hemodialysis", "home-based Dialysis", "Cost-effectiveness of Dialysis", "Cost-effectiveness of renal replacement therapy", etc. A review of the article titles was performed to include the articles relevant to the cost of RRTs and the economic burden of ESRF. Full text and abstracts of those articles were retrieved, studied, and, the articles that were found not relevant were excluded. The remaining articles were studied and used in the evidence synthesis. DIMI was chosen to represent a standard type of recently developed portable dialysis machines.

Results

It was interesting to find out during the review that HHD and in-center hemodialysis had been developed simultaneously but the former had eventually fallen out of favor. The review revealed that HHD is not only as effective as in-center hemodialysis but is also associated with better survival benefits over the latter. Several studies have found it to be significantly cost-effective compared to in-center hemodialysis. Newer types of HHD machines make it easier for the patients or their family/caregivers to administer it safely and effectively at home and while traveling. They have regenerated interest in HHD and the Medicare administration in the USA has already decided to make use of it at a more frequent rate.

Conclusion

Based on the evidence in the available literature, HHD is cost-effective when compared to in-center hemodialysis in terms of survival benefits, quality of life (QoL) of patients, and monetary savings. Newer portable bedside dialysis machines provide better safety and have simplified the procedure of hemodialysis, making HHD more acceptable to patients and caregivers. We believe HHD should be the preferred modality of treatment instead of in-center hemodialysis, and that applies to UAE too.

Intelligent "Internet Plus" services in the first case of home hemodialysis in mainland China

BACKGROUND

Many studies have shown that compared with those who use other dialysis modalities, patients using home hemodialysis (HHD) have an increased rate of survival and better quality of life. It was noted in 2006 that there was opportunity for significant expansion of the use of HHD in many countries. China covers a vast area and has a large amount of end-stage renal failure patients. But in mainland China, all dialysis treatments are in-center, and the number of HHD patients is zero. In 2018, our hospital received the permission of the Shanghai government to carry out HHD.

CASE PRESENTATION

We initiated four incident hemodialysis patients on an HHD regimen, one patient has been dialyzed in the home safely for 8 months. The biochemical parameters of the first patient remained stable on the regimen and he achieved standard Kt/V urea targets. Treatment-related adverse events were not reported during the follow-up. We combined HHD with intelligent "Internet Plus" real-time remote monitoring and introduced the Internet, especially visualization software, to replace traditional telephone and home visit methods. It is more intuitive and quicker to assist patients in performing home hemodialysis and improve the safety of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

HHD can be performed by selected trained patients in mainland China. Combined with the internet, visualization software, and traditional telephone and home visits, it is intuitive and quick to assist patients in carrying out HHD and improve the safety of treatment. HHD broadens the choices for uremia patients in China.

A Comparison of Clinical Parameters and Outcomes over 1 Year in Home Hemodialysis Patients Using 2008K@home or NxStage System One

The prevalence of home hemodialysis (HHD) in the United States is growing, driven in part by improvements in dialysis machines for home use. We assessed clinical parameters and outcomes in HHD patients using either Fresenius 2008K@home or NxStage System One over 1 year. Patients were 18 years or older and received HHD for ≥30 days between January 1, 2009, and June 30, 2010. A propensity score match was used to control for differences in baseline characteristics, and 2008K@home patients were stratified by frequency of use. Data for outcome measures were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models. Treatment frequency was lower for 2008K@home groups than System One. Mean standardized Kt/V (stdKt/V) was 2.75 for 2008K@home ≥3.5x/week users and 1.99 for System One users (p < 0.001). Erythropoiesis-stimulating agent use tended to be lower for patients using System One. There were no statistically significant differences across groups in serum albumin, calcium, phosphorus, hemoglobin, or parathyroid hormone levels, normalized protein catabolic rate, body mass index, number of hospitalizations, or hospitalized days. Clinical parameters and outcomes for HHD patients using 2008K@home and System One were largely equivalent, although 2008K@home use was associated with higher stdKt/V. Further studies will be required to establish whether these differences in stdKt/V relate to differences in technology, treatment schedule, or a combination thereof.

How do hospitalization patterns of home hemodialysis patients compare with a reasonably well dialysis patient cohort?

Background

The home hemodialysis (HHD) treatment option has been associated with improved patient outcomes compared to in-center hemodialysis (ICHD) programs. What is not quite clear is the influence of patient selection bias on the perceived benefits of HHD. The purpose of this study was to explore the potential benefits of HHD by comparing the admission patterns of HHD patients with a control group from a reasonably well dialysis patient cohort, which in this case were satellite hemodialysis patients on a Category 1 transplant waiting list (Cat1 SHD).

Methods

A single center retrospective randomized cohort study of HHD and Cat1 SHD patients who were on these two treatment modalities from August 2012 to August 2013 was performed to obtain a sample of 25 patients for each group.

Results

The mean length of stay in hospital was 5.9 days for HHD patients and 6.7 days for Cat1 SHD group (P=0.8). Eighteen admissions were observed for both groups (0.72 admissions/patient-year; P=0.5). HHD patients spent 71 days and Cat1 SHD patients spent 85 days in hospital (2.8 and 3.4 days/patient-year respectively; P<0.005). The mean serum potassium level for HHD patients was 4.1 (3.1–6.5) mEq/L versus 5.0 (3.7–6.1) mEq/L for Cat1 SHD patients (P=0.001) and the mean phosphate level was 1.1 (0.56–2.38) mg/dL and 1.5 (0.43–3.2) mg/dL (P=0.02) for the respective groups.

Conclusion

This study confirms the superiority of the HHD treatment option in improving patient outcomes. Admission patterns of HHD patients fared very well against a control group which consisted of reasonably well dialysis patients.

Survival on home dialysis in New Zealand

Background

New Zealand (NZ) has a high prevalence of both peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home haemodialysis (HD) relative to other countries, and probably less selection bias. We aimed to determine if home dialysis associates with better survival than facility HD by simultaneous comparisons of the three modalities.

Methods

We analysed survival by time-varying dialysis modality in New Zealanders over a 15-year period to 31-Dec-2011, adjusting for patient co-morbidity by Cox proportional hazards multivariate regression.

Results

We modelled 6,419 patients with 3,254 deaths over 20,042 patient-years of follow-up. Patients treated with PD and facility HD are similar; those on home HD are younger and healthier. Compared to facility HD, home dialysis (as a unified category) associates with an overall 13% lower mortality risk. Home HD associates with a 52% lower mortality risk. PD associates with a 20% lower mortality risk in the early period (<3 years) that is offset by a 33% greater mortality risk in the late period (>3 years), with no overall net effect. There was effect modification and less observable benefit associated with PD in those with diabetes mellitus, co-morbidity, and in NZ Maori and Pacific People. There was no effect modification by age or by era.

Conclusion

Our study supports the culture of home dialysis in NZ, and suggests that the extent and duration of survival benefit associated with early PD may be greater than appreciated. We are planning further analyses to exclude residual confounding from unmeasured co-morbidity and other sociodemographic factors using database linkage to NZ government datasets. Finally, our results suggest further research into the practice of PD in NZ Maori and Pacific People, as well as definitive study to determine the best timing for switching from PD in the late phase.

How to overcome barriers and establish a successful home HD program

Home hemodialysis (HD) is an underused dialysis modality in the United States, even though it provides an efficient and probably cost-effective way to provide more frequent or longer dialysis. With the advent of newer home HD systems that are easier for patients to learn, use, and maintain, patient and provider interest in home HD is increasing. Although barriers for providers are similar to those for peritoneal dialysis, home HD requires more extensive patient training, nursing education, and infrastructure support in order to maintain a successful program. In addition, because many physicians and patients do not have experience with home HD, reluctance to start home HD programs is widespread. This in-depth review describes barriers to home HD, focusing on patients, individual physicians and practices, and dialysis facilities, and offers suggestions for how to overcome these barriers and establish a successful home HD program.

Outcomes on home haemodialysis: registry challenges

Health care policy is encouraging expansion of home haemodialysis, aiming to improve patient outcomes and reduce cost. However, most patient outcome data derive from retrospective observational studies, with all their inherent weaknesses. Conventional thrice weekly home haemodialysis delivers a 22-51% reduction in mortality, but why should that be? Frequent and/or nocturnal haemodialysis reduces mortality by 36-66%, with comparable outcomes to deceased donor kidney transplantation. Approaches which might improve the quality of future observational studies are discussed. Patient-relevant outcomes other than mortality are also discussed.

Does home haemodialysis produce better outcomes for patients?

Demand for renal replacement therapy (dialysis and transplantation) is projected to rise by approximately 5% every year until at least 2030. Therefore, particular attention should be paid to areas in which significant increases in demand are likely to lead to further pressure on services. There is evidence to support higher patient survival rates in home haemodialysis compared with those that receive hospital- or satellite-based haemodialysis (i.e. a smaller renal unit based in a community hospital closer to the patient's home). Furthermore, studies suggest that home haemodialysis is at least as effective as and less costly than hospital or satellite unit haemodialysis. Therefore, there is a greater requirement for expanding the provision of home haemodialysis, and to make this treatment option available to a wider range of patients.

Utilization and outcome of 'out-of-center hemodialysis' in the United States: a contemporary analysis

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in the delivery of out-of-center hemodialysis (HD), particularly in the home setting, but little systematic information about its use and outcome in contemporary incident patients is available.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Out-of-center HD was defined as HD delivered in a residential setting, mainly at home or in a long-term care facility (such as a nursing home) irrespective of the length and frequency of therapy. All-cause mortality was determined in an observational cohort study of 458,329 adult patients initiating dialysis in the United States with Medicare as a primary payer.

RESULTS

Between 1995 and 2004, out-of-center HD was the initial modality in 1,641 (0.4%) of eligible participants, although there was significant geographic variation. Patients initiating out-of-center HD were younger, more likely to be nonwhite, had fewer comorbidities, a higher median income, and were more likely to be employed than patients initiating in-center HD or peritoneal dialysis (PD). In multivariate analysis, out-of-center HD patients had a higher overall risk of death compared to in-center HD or PD patients (HR = 1.10, 95% CI 1.04, 1.17), although the relative risk of death was lower in younger and healthier patients (HR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.61, 1.00).

CONCLUSION

Out-of-center HD is not associated with a survival advantage among unselected patients initiating dialysis in the United States. These results call for better characterization of out-of-center HD in national registries, primarily to effectively compare the use, outcomes and potential benefits of home HD to standard therapies.

Comparison of survival between short-daily hemodialysis and conventional hemodialysis using the standardized mortality ratio

More frequent hemodialysis (5 or more times weekly, both short during the day and long overnight) has been shown to improve patient well-being, reduce symptoms during and between treatments, and have beneficial effects on clinical outcomes. Because of the relatively small patient sample sizes, there are little or no data on mortality from any single study at this time. This study compares survival in 117 U.S. patients treated by short-daily hemodialysis in 2003 and 2004, with patients reported in the 2003 data from the United States Renal Data System (USRDS). Expected mortality was calculated from the USRDS and compared with observed actual mortality. The standardized mortality ratio (SMR) was used to adjust for differences in patient age, sex, race, and cause of renal failure. The SMR for the short-daily hemodialysis patients was 0.39, statistically significantly better (p < 0.005) than data from the overall U.S. population of hemodialysis patients and indicating that daily hemodialysis patients had a 61% better survival. Patients treated by short-daily hemodialysis have a better survival rate than comparable populations treated by conventional hemodialysis.

Home haemodialysis—international trends and variation

BACKGROUND

Home haemodialysis (HD) has the best patient outcomes and is the most cost-effective of any dialysis modality, but its use has been declining in many countries.

METHODS

Point prevalence rates of different dialysis modalities and transplantation were obtained from national and regional registries for the most recent available year (2001-03) for 21 high-income and 12 middle-income countries. Relationships with median age and prevalence of diabetic nephropathy, healthcare expenditure and population density were assessed. Long-term trends in the use of home HD during the last two to four decades were obtained for seven countries.

RESULTS

The prevalence of home HD varies from 0 to 58.4 per million population, and varies between countries, more than any other renal replacement therapy (RRT) modality. There is a positive association between the use of peritoneal dialysis and home HD (Spearman's rho = 0.531, P = 0.013), but no correlation with transplantation prevalence. There is a negative correlation with median age of the renal replacement population (rho = -0.552, P = 0.018). There is no association with prevalence of diabetic nephropathy, healthcare expenditure or population density. Temporal trends in home HD prevalence are dramatically different in different countries, with several countries expanding its use in the last few years.

CONCLUSION

The use of home HD varies dramatically between and within countries. The variation cannot be explained by the variation in the use of other RRT modalities, nor by prevalence of diabetic nephropathy, national wealth or population density. The inverse correlation with median age is difficult to explain. Significant expansion of home HD is likely to be possible in most countries, and will be increasingly important as the impressive results of more frequent HD gain credence.

Home haemodialysis: 'home, home, sweet, sweet home!' (Review Article)

Home haemodialysis was first developed 40 years ago as a means of treating more patients with the limited funds then available. It soon became obvious that the treatment worked well and subsequent studies and experience have confirmed that it improves both mortality and morbidity and provides the best quality of life and other benefits for dialysis patients. The present review describes the history of the development of home haemodialysis in Seattle and elsewhere and the lessons learned about its benefits in the early days, which are just as relevant today. The advantages and disadvantages are discussed, as are the issues of which patients are candidates for this treatment and what is required of a home haemodialysis training and support programme. The decline in use of home haemodialysis in the USA and elsewhere is described and the actions that may already be beginning to reverse this trend. The role of home haemodialysis in giving the opportunity for longer hours of dialysis three times a week or on alternate nights is important. There is discussion of the relationship of home haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis and its important future role as the means to enable treatment with more frequent short daily and long nightly haemodialysis.

Outcome of home haemodialysis patients: a case-cohort study

BACKGROUND

Randomized, controlled comparisons between home haemodialysis (HHD) and centre haemodialysis (CHD) have not been performed to date. Reported survival benefits of HHD as compared with CHD from uncontrolled studies have been attributed largely to patient selection.

METHODS

In order to minimize a selection bias, we have compared the outcome of our HHD and CHD patients with a nested case-cohort study. For each patient trained for HHD at our dialysis centre between 1970 and 1995 (n=103), a corresponding match was searched from the CHD patients by retrospective chart analysis. The pairs were matched for sex, age (+/-5 years), time of dialysis therapy onset (+/-2 years) and renal disease category. For 58 of the 103 HHD patients, a corresponding matched CHD patient was identified. Both treatment groups had the same mean age (50+/-13 years) at dialysis onset and were comparable with respect to the Khan comorbidity index, prevalence and duration of hypertension, smoking habits, history of myocardial infarction, stroke and peripheral vascular disease. In both groups, approximately 50% of the patients were transplanted during the observation period.

RESULTS

HHD patients were hospitalized less often and tended to have fewer operations as compared with CHD patients. Survival was significantly longer in HHD as compared with CHD. Five, 10 and 20 year survival rates were 93 (n=55 patients at risk), 72 (41) and 34% (11) with HHD and 64 (38), 48 (26) and 23% (4) with CHD, respectively. This survival difference persisted after adjusting for predictors of mortality, i.e. age at onset of dialysis, year of start of dialysis therapy and Khan comorbidity index.

CONCLUSIONS

HHD offers a cheap and valuable alternative to CHD, with no apparent disadvantages.

Systematic review of the effectiveness of home versus hospital or satellite unit hemodialysis for people with end-stage renal failure

BACKGROUND

Home hemodialysis offers potential advantages over hospital hemodialysis, including the opportunity for more frequent and/or longer dialysis sessions. Expanding home hemodialysis services may help cope with the increasing numbers of people requiring hemodialysis.

METHODS

We sought comparative studies or systematic reviews of home versus hospital/satellite unit hemodialysis for people with end-stage renal failure (ESRF). Outcomes included quality of life and survival. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, CINAHL, PREMEDLINE, and BIOSIS. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the studies included.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies of variable quality were included. People on home hemodialysis generally experienced a better quality of life and lived longer than those on hospital hemodialysis. Their partners, however, found home hemodialysis more stressful. Four studies using a Cox proportional hazards model to compare home with hospital hemodialysis reported a lower mortality risk for home hemodialysis. Of two studies using a Cox model to compare home with satellite unit hemodialysis, one reported a similar mortality risk, whereas the other reported a lower mortality risk for home hemodialysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Home hemodialysis was generally associated with better outcomes than hospital hemodialysis and (more modestly so) satellite unit hemodialysis, in terms of quality of life, survival, and other measures of effectiveness. People on home hemodialysis, however, are a highly selected group. Home hemodialysis also provides the opportunity for more frequent and/or longer dialysis sessions than would otherwise be possible. It is difficult to disentangle the true effects of home hemodialysis from such influencing factors.

Nightly home hemodialysis: improvement in nutrition and quality of life

In September, 1997, we began a Nightly Home Hemodialysis Program modeled after a program in Toronto, Canada. We have assessed nutritional parameters and quality of life indicators before initiation of the program, and at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months. Data suggest that patients have improved overall quality of life as measured by the CHOICE Health Experience Questionnaire. Three-day dietary recalls at 0, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months also show patients are eating healthy and maintaining adequate kilocalorie and protein intakes, as well as maintaining adequate dry weight and protein stores.