Associations of hemodialysis dose and session length with mortality risk in Australian and New Zealand patients

Executive summary of the Korean Society of Nephrology 2021 clinical practice guideline for optimal hemodialysis treatment

The Korean Society of Nephrology (KSN) has published a clinical practice guideline (CPG) document for maintenance hemodialysis (HD). The document, 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline on Optimal HD Treatment, is based on an extensive evidence-oriented review of the benefits of preparation, initiation, and maintenance therapy for HD, with the participation of representative experts from the KSN under the methodologists' support for guideline development. It was intended to help clinicians participating in HD treatment make safer and more effective clinical decisions by providing user-friendly guidelines. We hope that this CPG will be meaningful as a recommendation in practice, but not on a regulatory rule basis, as different approaches and treatments may be used by health care providers depending on the individual patient's condition. This CPG consists of eight sections and 15 key questions. Each begins with statements that are graded by the strength of recommendations and quality of the evidence. Each statement is followed by a summary of the evidence supporting the recommendations. There are also a link to full-text documents and lists of the most important reports so that the readers can read further (most of this is available online).

Survival and predictors of mortality among chronic kidney disease patients on hemodialysis in Amhara region, Ethiopia, 2021

BACKGROUND

Despite the high economic and mortality burden of chronic kidney disease, studies on survival and predictors of mortality among patients on hemodialysis in Ethiopia especially in the Amhara region are scarce considering their importance to identify some modifiable risk factors for early mortality to improve the patient's prognosis. So, this study was done to fill the identified gaps. The study aimed to assess survival and predictors of mortality among end-stage renal disease patients on hemodialysis in Amhara regional state, Ethiopia, 2020/2021.

METHOD

Institution-based retrospective record review was conducted in Felege Hiwot, Gonder, and Gambi hospitals from March 5 to April 5, 2021. A total of 436 medical records were selected using a simple random sampling technique. A life table was used to estimate probabilities of survival at different time intervals. Multivariable cox regression was used to identify risk factors for mortality.

RESULT

Out of the 436 patients 153 (35.1%) had died. The median survival time was 345 days with a mortality rate of 1.89 per 1000 person-days (95%CI (1.62, 2.22)). Patients live in rural residences (AHR = 1.48, 95%CI (1.04, 2.12)), patients whose cause of CKD was hypertension (AHR = 1.49, 95%CI (1.01, 2.23)) and human immune virus (AHR = 2.22, 95%CI (1.41, 3.51)), and patients who use a central venous catheter (AHR = 3.15, 95%CI (2.08, 4.77)) had increased risk of death while staying 4 h on hemodialysis (AHR = 0.43, 95%CI (0.23, 0.80)) decreases the risk of death among chronic kidney disease patients on hemodialysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall survival rate and median survival time of chronic kidney disease patients on hemodialysis were low in the Amhara region as compared with other developing Sub-Saharan African counties.

Epidemiology of haemodialysis outcomes

Haemodialysis (HD) is the commonest form of kidney replacement therapy in the world, accounting for approximately 69% of all kidney replacement therapy and 89% of all dialysis. Over the last six decades since the inception of HD, dialysis technology and patient access to the therapy have advanced considerably, particularly in high-income countries. However, HD availability, accessibility, cost and outcomes vary widely across the world and, overall, the rates of impaired quality of life, morbidity and mortality are high. Cardiovascular disease affects more than two-thirds of people receiving HD, is the major cause of morbidity and accounts for almost 50% of mortality. In addition, patients on HD have high symptom loads and are often under considerable financial strain. Despite the many advances in HD technology and delivery systems that have been achieved since the treatment was first developed, poor outcomes among patients receiving HD remain a major public health concern. Understanding the epidemiology of HD outcomes, why they might vary across different populations and how they might be improved is therefore crucial, although this goal is hampered by the considerable heterogeneity in the monitoring and reporting of these outcomes across settings.

This Review examines the epidemiology of haemodialysis outcomes — clinical, patient-reported and surrogate outcomes — across world regions and populations, including vulnerable individuals. The authors also discuss the current status of monitoring and reporting of haemodialysis outcomes and potential strategies for improvement.

Nearly 4 million people in the world are living on kidney replacement therapy (KRT), and haemodialysis (HD) remains the commonest form of KRT, accounting for approximately 69% of all KRT and 89% of all dialysis.

Dialysis technology and patient access to KRT have advanced substantially since the 1960s, particularly in high-income countries. However, HD availability, accessibility, cost and outcomes continue to vary widely across countries, particularly among disadvantaged populations (including Indigenous peoples, women and people at the extremes of age).

Cardiovascular disease affects over two-thirds of people receiving HD, is the major cause of morbidity and accounts for almost 50% of mortality; mortality among patients on HD is significantly higher than that of their counterparts in the general population, and treated kidney failure has a higher mortality than many types of cancer. Patients on HD also experience high burdens of symptoms, poor quality of life and financial difficulties.

Careful monitoring of the outcomes of patients on HD is essential to develop effective strategies for risk reduction. Outcome measures are highly variable across regions, countries, centres and segments of the population. Establishing kidney registries that collect a variety of clinical and patient-reported outcomes using harmonized definitions is therefore crucial.

Evaluation of HD outcomes should include the impact on family and friends, and personal finances, and should examine inequities in disadvantaged populations, who comprise a large proportion of the HD population.

Executive Summary of the Korean Society of Nephrology 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline for Optimal Hemodialysis Treatment

The Korean Society of Nephrology (KSN) has published a clinical practice guideline (CPG) document for maintenance hemodialysis (HD). The document, 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline on Optimal HD Treatment, is based on an extensive evidence-oriented review of the benefits of preparation, initiation, and maintenance therapy for HD, with the participation of representative experts from the KSN under the methodologists’ support for guideline development. It was intended to help clinicians participating in HD treatment make safer and more effective clinical decisions by providing user-friendly guidelines. We hope that this CPG will be meaningful as a recommendation in practice, but not on a regulatory rule basis, as different approaches and treatments may be used by health care providers depending on the individual patient’s condition. This CPG consists of eight sections and 15 key questions. Each begins with statements that are graded by the strength of recommendations and quality of the evidence. Each statement is followed by a summary of the evidence supporting the recommendations. There is also a link to full-text documents and lists of the most important reports so that the readers can read further (most of this is available online).

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.

Influences of the priming procedure and saline circulation conditions on polyvinylpyrrolidone in vitro elution from polysulfone membrane dialyzers

In hemodialysis (HD), the patient's blood is purified via circulation in an extracorporeal circuit containing a dialyzer. In the manufacturing process of polysulfone (PSu) membrane dialyzers, the membranes are hydrophilized via the addition of the hydrophilic agent polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) to increase their hydraulic permeability. The elution of PVP from the membrane reduces the membrane's hydraulic permeability, and the eluted PVP could cause adverse effects in the human body. Therefore, it is important to identify the factors that induce PVP elution from PSu dialyzer membranes to improve the efficiency and safety of HD. In the present study, experimental circuits connecting each of the three types of PSu membrane dialyzers that had been sterilized, using gamma irradiation, autoclaving, or in-line steam methods, were prepared. After the dialyzers were primed, saline was circulated in the circuits at a flow rate of 100 mL/min or 200 mL/min. At 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8 h after circulation was initiated, the amount of PVP eluted from the PSu membranes in vitro was determined. In this experimental setting, longer the circulation duration, greater the amount of PVP eluted from the PSu membranes of the tested dialyzers; however, the flow rate did not influence the in vitro elution of PVP. Furthermore, the immersion of the dialyzer membranes in saline for 24 h strongly facilitated the in vitro elution of PVP. In sum, these results suggest that the duration of PSu membrane incubation in saline is a determinant of the level of PVP elution from the PSu membrane dialyzers.

•

The flow rate did not influence the in vitro PVP elution from PSu membrane dialyzers.

•

The time of PSu membrane incubation in saline is a determinant of PVP elution level.

•

Substances other than PVP are eluted from PSu membrane dialyzers.

Variability and trends over time and across centres in haemodialysis weekly duration in Australia and New Zealand

AIM

Haemodialysis treatment prescription varies widely internationally. This study explored patient- and centre-level characteristics associated with weekly haemodialysis hours.

METHODS

Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry data were analysed. Characteristics associated with weekly duration were evaluated using mixed-effects linear regression models with patient- and centre-level covariates as fixed effects, and dialysis centre and state as random effects using the 2017 prevalent in-centre haemodialysis (ICHD) and home haemodialysis (HHD) cohorts. Evaluation of patterns of weekly duration over time analysed the 2000 to 2017 incident ICHD and HHD cohorts.

RESULTS

Overall, 12 494 ICHD and 1493 HHD prevalent patients in 2017 were included. Median weekly treatment duration was 13.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 12-15) hours for ICHD and 16 (IQR 15-20) hours for HHD. Male sex, younger age, higher body mass index, arteriovenous fistula/graft use, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ethnicity and longer dialysis vintage were associated with longer weekly duration for both ICHD and HHD. No centre characteristics were associated with duration. Variability in duration across centres was very limited in ICHD compared with HHD, with variation in HHD being associated with state. Duration did not vary significantly over time for ICHD, whereas longer weekly HHD treatments were reported between 2006 and 2012 compared with before and after this period.

CONCLUSION

This study in the Australian and New Zealand haemodialysis population showed that weekly duration was primarily associated with patient characteristics. No centre effect was demonstrated. Practice patterns seemed to differ across states/countries, with more variability in HHD than ICHD.

The renal replacement therapy landscape in 2030: reducing the global cardiovascular burden in dialysis patients

Despite the significant progress made in understanding chronic kidney disease and uraemic pathophysiology, use of advanced technology and implementation of new strategies in renal replacement therapy, the clinical outcomes of chronic kidney disease 5 dialysis patients remain suboptimal. Considering residual suboptimal medical needs of short intermittent dialysis, it is our medical duty to revisit standards of dialysis practice and propose new therapeutic options for improving the overall effectiveness of dialysis sessions and reduce the burden of stress induced by the therapy. Several themes arise to address the modifiable components of the therapy that are aimed at mitigating some of the cardiovascular risks in patients with end-stage kidney disease. Among them, five are of utmost importance and include: (i) enhancement of treatment efficiency and continuous monitoring of dialysis performances; (ii) prevention of dialysis-induced stress; (iii) precise handling of sodium and fluid balance; (iv) moving towards heparin-free dialysis; and (v) customizing electrolyte prescriptions. In summary, haemodialysis treatment in 2030 will be substantially more personalized to the patient, with a clear focus on cardioprotection, volume management, arrhythmia surveillance, avoidance of anticoagulation and the development of more dynamic systems to align the fluid and electrolyte needs of the patient on the day of the treatment to their particular circumstances.

Renal Association Clinical Practice Guideline on Haemodialysis

This guideline is written primarily for doctors and nurses working in dialysis units and related areas of medicine in the UK, and is an update of a previous version written in 2009. It aims to provide guidance on how to look after patients and how to run dialysis units, and provides standards which units should in general aim to achieve. We would not advise patients to interpret the guideline as a rulebook, but perhaps to answer the question: "what does good quality haemodialysis look like?"The guideline is split into sections: each begins with a few statements which are graded by strength (1 is a firm recommendation, 2 is more like a sensible suggestion), and the type of research available to back up the statement, ranging from A (good quality trials so we are pretty sure this is right) to D (more like the opinion of experts than known for sure). After the statements there is a short summary explaining why we think this, often including a discussion of some of the most helpful research. There is then a list of the most important medical articles so that you can read further if you want to - most of this is freely available online, at least in summary form.A few notes on the individual sections: 1. This section is about how much dialysis a patient should have. The effectiveness of dialysis varies between patients because of differences in body size and age etc., so different people need different amounts, and this section gives guidance on what defines "enough" dialysis and how to make sure each person is getting that. Quite a bit of this section is very technical, for example, the term "eKt/V" is often used: this is a calculation based on blood tests before and after dialysis, which measures the effectiveness of a single dialysis session in a particular patient. 2. This section deals with "non-standard" dialysis, which basically means anything other than 3 times per week. For example, a few people need 4 or more sessions per week to keep healthy, and some people are fine with only 2 sessions per week - this is usually people who are older, or those who have only just started dialysis. Special considerations for children and pregnant patients are also covered here. 3. This section deals with membranes (the type of "filter" used in the dialysis machine) and "HDF" (haemodiafiltration) which is a more complex kind of dialysis which some doctors think is better. Studies are still being done, but at the moment we think it's as good as but not better than regular dialysis. 4. This section deals with fluid removal during dialysis sessions: how to remove enough fluid without causing cramps and low blood pressure. Amongst other recommendations we advise close collaboration with patients over this. 5. This section deals with dialysate, which is the fluid used to "pull" toxins out of the blood (it is sometimes called the "bath"). The level of things like potassium in the dialysate is important, otherwise too much or too little may be removed. There is a section on dialysate buffer (bicarbonate) and also a section on phosphate, which occasionally needs to be added into the dialysate. 6. This section is about anticoagulation (blood thinning) which is needed to stop the circuit from clotting, but sometimes causes side effects. 7. This section is about certain safety aspects of dialysis, not seeking to replace well-established local protocols, but focussing on just a few where we thought some national-level guidance would be useful. 8. This section draws together a few aspects of dialysis which don't easily fit elsewhere, and which impact on how dialysis feels to patients, rather than the medical outcome, though of course these are linked. This is where home haemodialysis and exercise are covered. There is an appendix at the end which covers a few aspects in more detail, especially the mathematical ideas. Several aspects of dialysis are not included in this guideline since they are covered elsewhere, often because they are aspects which affect non-dialysis patients too. This includes: anaemia, calcium and bone health, high blood pressure, nutrition, infection control, vascular access, transplant planning, and when dialysis should be started.

Independent effect of haemodialysis session frequency and duration on survival in non-indigenous Australians on haemodialysis

BACKGROUND

End-stage kidney disease patients have increased mortality compared to the general population. Haemodialysis (HD) of more frequent and of longer duration has been proposed to improve survival but it remains unclear if this is attributed to increased frequency, duration, or both. We aimed to examine the independent effects of session frequency and duration on mortality in incident HD patients.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed using data from the Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry examining non-Indigenous patients aged ≥18 years who initiated HD of ≥3 sessions/week in Australia from 2001 to 2015. Initial dialysis prescription was categorized as session duration >5 h/session compared to ≤5 h/session and session frequency as >3 sessions/week compared to 3 sessions/week. Survival analysis was performed using Cox regression analysis, with multivariable analysis controlling for available covariates.

RESULTS

We examined 16 944 patients of whom 757 (4.5%) received >3 sessions/week and 518 (3.1%) received >5 h/session. After controlling for frequency, patients initiated on HD sessions >5 h had a significantly reduced risk of mortality compared with patients with HD session ≤5 h (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.44-0.74). In contrast, patients initiated on >3 sessions/week of HD had a similar risk of death when compared with patients on 3 sessions/week of HD (adjusted HR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.84-1.13), after controlling for duration. Limitations include potential residual confounding and changes in exposure over time.

CONCLUSION

Longer duration rather than increased frequency of treatment appears to reduce mortality in HD patients. This has implications for management and requires further study.

The TiME Trial: A Fully Embedded, Cluster-Randomized, Pragmatic Trial of Hemodialysis Session Duration

BACKGROUND

Data from clinical trials to inform practice in maintenance hemodialysis are limited. Incorporating randomized trials into dialysis clinical care delivery should help generate practice-guiding evidence, but the feasibility of this approach has not been established.

METHODS

To develop approaches for embedding trials into routine delivery of maintenance hemodialysis, we performed a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial demonstration project, the Time to Reduce Mortality in ESRD (TiME) trial, evaluating effects of session duration on mortality (primary outcome) and hospitalization rate. Dialysis facilities randomized to the intervention adopted a default session duration ≥4.25 hours (255 minutes) for incident patients; those randomized to usual care had no trial-driven approach to session duration. Implementation was highly centralized, with no on-site research personnel and complete reliance on clinically acquired data. We used multiple strategies to engage facility personnel and participating patients.

RESULTS

The trial enrolled 7035 incident patients from 266 dialysis units. We discontinued the trial at a median follow-up of 1.1 years because of an inadequate between-group difference in session duration. For the primary analysis population (participants with estimated body water ≤42.5 L), mean session duration was 216 minutes for the intervention group and 207 minutes for the usual care group. We found no reduction in mortality or hospitalization rate for the intervention versus usual care.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a highly pragmatic design allowed efficient enrollment, data acquisition, and monitoring, intervention uptake was insufficient to determine whether longer hemodialysis sessions improve outcomes. More effective strategies for engaging clinical personnel and patients are likely required to evaluate clinical trial interventions that are fully embedded in care delivery.

No Survival Benefit in Octogenarians and Nonagenarians with Extended Hemodialysis Treatment Time

BACKGROUND

The population of elderly end-stage renal disease patients initiating dialysis is rapidly growing. Although longer treatment is supposed to benefit for hemodialysis (HD) patients through more solute clearance and slower fluid removal, it is not yet clear how treatment session length affects mortality risk in octogenarians and nonagenarians.

METHODS

In a cohort of 112,026 incident HD patients between 2007 and 2011, we examined the association of treatment session length with all-cause mortality, adjusting for demographics and comorbid conditions. We also used restricted spline functions for age to evaluate continuous changes in the association of short (< 210 min) and extended (≥240 min) HD treatment (vs. 210 to < 240 min) with all-cause mortality over continuous age.

RESULTS

During the first 91 days of dialysis, patients aged ≥80 years tended to have the lowest treatment session length (median [interquartile range] 211 [193-230] min, r > 0.5). Longer treatment was associated with better survival in patients < 65 and 65 to < 80 years but not in octogenarians/nonagenarians. The association of extended treatment (≥240 min) with better survival was attenuated across age and not significant among patients aged ≥80 years with a hazard ratio of 1.10 (95% CI 0.99-1.20). Shorter treatment sessions (< 210 min) was associated with higher mortality across all age groups.

CONCLUSION

Extended HD was not associated with lower mortality among octogenarians and nonagenarians, while it was associated with better survival among younger patients. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal treatment session length in elderly incident HD patients.

Study on Dialysis Session Length and Mortality in Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients: The Q-Cohort Study

<b><i>Objectives:</i></b> Hemodialysis (HD) time has been recognized as an important factor in dialysis adequacy. However, few studies have reported on associations between HD time and prognosis among maintenance HD patients. We present some findings from a prospective cohort study, the ­Q-Cohort Study, which was set up to explore risk factors for mortality in Japanese HD patients. We hypothesized that HD ≥5 h was associated with a significant survival advantage compared with HD &#x3c; 5 h. The present study examined association between HD time and mortality in Japanese HD patients. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The prospective multicenter Q-Cohort Study was conducted between December 2006 and December 2010, following 3,456 Japanese HD patients for 4 years. We examined the association between HD time and prognosis using Cox proportional hazards modeling. Propensity scores were calculated using logistic regression. <b><i>Results:</i></b> During follow-up, 566 patients died from any cause. Patients with HD ≥5 h (<i>n</i> = 2,141) showed ­significantly lower risk of all-cause death (hazards ratio = 0.82; 95% CI 0.68–0.99) than those with HD &#x3c; 5 h (<i>n</i> = 1,315), after adjusting for confounding risk factors. This ­association remained significant using a propensity score-based approach. After stratifying the analysis by patient age in 10-year increments, this finding remained ­significant only in patients who were ≥80 years of age. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Our results suggest that HD ≥5 h has a more favorable effect on mortality than HD &#x3c; 5 h.

Target weight achievement and ultrafiltration rate thresholds: potential patient implications

BACKGROUND

Higher ultrafiltration (UF) rates and extracellular hypo- and hypervolemia are associated with adverse outcomes among maintenance hemodialysis patients. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently considered UF rate and target weight achievement measures for ESRD Quality Incentive Program inclusion. The dual measures were intended to promote balance between too aggressive and too conservative fluid removal. The National Quality Forum endorsed the UF rate measure but not the target weight measure. We examined the proposed target weight measure and quantified weight gains if UF rate thresholds were applied without treatment time (TT) extension or interdialytic weight gain (IDWG) reduction.

METHODS

Data were taken from the 2012 database of a large dialysis organization. Analyses considered 152,196 United States hemodialysis patients. We described monthly patient and dialysis facility target weight achievement patterns and examined differences in patient characteristics across target weight achievement status and differences in facilities across target weight measure scores. We computed the cumulative, theoretical 1-month fluid-related weight gain that would occur if UF rates were capped at 13 mL/h/kg without concurrent TT extension or IDWG reduction.

RESULTS

Target weight achievement patterns were stable over the year. Patients who did not achieve target weight (post-dialysis weight ≥ 1 kg above or below target weight) tended to be younger, black and dialyze via catheter, and had shorter dialysis vintage, greater body weight, higher UF rate and more missed treatments compared with patients who achieved target weight. Facilities had, on average, 27.1 ± 9.7% of patients with average post-dialysis weight ≥ 1 kg above or below the prescribed target weight. In adjusted analyses, facilities located in the midwest and south and facilities with higher proportions of black and Hispanic patients and higher proportions of patients with shorter TTs were more likely to have unfavorable facility target weight measure scores. Without TT extension or IDWG reduction, UF rate threshold (13 mL/h/kg) implementation led to an average theoretical 1-month, fluid-related weight gain of 1.4 ± 3.0 kg.

CONCLUSIONS

Target weight achievement patterns vary across clinical subgroups. Implementation of a maximum UF rate threshold without adequate attention to extracellular volume status may lead to fluid-related weight gain.

Even a Moderate Fluid Removal Rate during Individualised Haemodialysis Session Times Is Associated with Decreased Patient Survival

Background: Several studies report that fluid removal rate (FRR) above 10-13 mL/h/kg is associated with increased mortality in haemodialysis (HD) patients. Aim: The aims of this study are to assess the influence of moderate FRR on survival in a cohort of prevalent dialysis patients with various dialysis session times and to challenge the FRR thresholds associated with increased mortality risk reported previously. Methods: Interdialytic weight gain (IDWG) and FRR (calculated from ultrafiltration [UF], target weight, and session time prescriptions) were studied in 190 prevalent dialysis patients (female: 42%, mean age: 69.5 years, median vintage: 40.2 months, diabetes: 34.7%, loop diuretic prescription: 5.8%) and averaged during the final quarter of 2010. Patient survival was analysed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox-multivariate analyses. Results: The median IDWG, median session time, and median FRR were 2.33 kg (-0.54-4.57), 5.0 h (3.9-8.0 h), 6.8 mL/h/kg (1.3-16.7), respectively, and FRR was ≥10 mL/h/kg in 11.6% of the patients. The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed decreased patient survival when the FRR was above the median (6.8 mL/h/kg; p = 0.012). The FRR was found to be independently associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio 1.15 [95% CI 1.02-1.29]; p = 0.027) using stepwise Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, including age, vintage, gender, body mass index (BMI), serum albumin level, β2-microglobulin level, cardiovascular and diabetes history, and session time. Online haemodiafiltration did not change this result. The role of residual renal function was unlikely because 74% of the patients had a vintage of >18 months, a minority (5.8%) were prescribed loop diuretics (a surrogate of significant urine output) and β2-microglobulin level was not different in patients who were below or above the FRR median. Conclusion: We concluded that the FRR threshold above which there is an increased mortality is lower than what has been reported (7.8 mL/h/kg). It raises the question of the hazard of fluid removal and intermittence of standard HD.

Treatment tolerance and patient-reported outcomes favor online hemodiafiltration compared to high-flux hemodialysis in the elderly

Large cohort studies suggest that high convective volumes associated with online hemodiafiltration may reduce the risk of mortality/morbidity compared to optimal high-flux hemodialysis. By contrast, intradialytic tolerance is not well studied. The aim of the FRENCHIE (French Convective versus Hemodialysis in Elderly) study was to compare high-flux hemodialysis and online hemodiafiltration in terms of intradialytic tolerance. In this prospective, open-label randomized controlled trial, 381 elderly chronic hemodialysis patients (over age 65) were randomly assigned in a one-to-one ratio to either high-flux hemodialysis or online hemodiafiltration. The primary outcome was intradialytic tolerance (day 30-day 120). Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, cardiovascular risk biomarkers, morbidity, and mortality. During the observational period for intradialytic tolerance, 85% and 84% of patients in high-flux hemodialysis and online hemodiafiltration arms, respectively, experienced at least one adverse event without significant difference between groups. As exploratory analysis, intradialytic tolerance was also studied, considering the sessions as a statistical unit according to treatment actually received. Over a total of 11,981 sessions, 2,935 were complicated by the occurrence of at least one adverse event, with a significantly lower occurrence in online hemodiafiltration with fewer episodes of intradialytic symptomatic hypotension and muscle cramps. By contrast, health-related quality of life, morbidity, and mortality were not different in both groups. An improvement in the control of metabolic bone disease biomarkers and β2-microglobulin level without change in serum albumin concentration was observed with online hemodiafiltration. Thus, overall outcomes favor online hemodiafiltration over high-flux hemodialysis in the elderly.

Extended-hours hemodialysis is associated with lower mortality risk in patients with end-stage renal disease

Extended-hours hemodialysis offers substantially longer treatment time compared to conventional hemodialysis schedules and is associated with improved fluid and electrolyte control and favorable cardiac remodeling. However, whether extended-hours hemodialysis improves survival remains unclear. Therefore, we determined the association between extended-hours compared to conventional hemodialysis and the risk of all-cause mortality in a nationally representative cohort of patients initiating maintenance dialysis in the United States from 2007 to 2011. Survival analyses using causal inference modeling with marginal structural models were performed to compare mortality risk among 1206 individuals undergoing thrice weekly extended-hours hemodialysis or 111,707 patients receiving conventional hemodialysis treatments. The average treatment time per session for extended-hours hemodialysis was 399 minutes compared to 211 minutes for conventional therapy. The crude mortality rate with extended-hours hemodialysis was 6.4 deaths per 100 patient-years compared with 14.7 deaths per 100 patient-years for conventional hemodialysis. In the primary analysis, patients treated with extended-hours hemodialysis had a 33% lower adjusted risk of death compared to those who were treated with a conventional regimen (95% confidence interval: 7% to 51%). Additional analyses accounting for analytical assumptions regarding exposure and outcome, facility-level confounders, and prior modality history were similar. Thus, in this large nationally representative cohort, treatment with extended-hours hemodialysis was associated with a lower risk for mortality compared to treatment with conventional in-center therapy. Adequately powered randomized clinical trials comparing extended-hours to conventional hemodialysis are required to confirm these findings.

A framework for analysis of research risks and benefits to participants in standard of care pragmatic clinical trials

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Standard of care pragmatic clinical trials that compare treatments already in use could improve care and reduce costs, but there is considerable debate about the research risks of standard of care pragmatic clinical trials and how to apply informed consent regulations to such trials. We sought to develop a framework integrating the insights from opposing sides of the debate.

METHODS

We developed a formal risk-benefit analysis framework for standard of care pragmatic clinical trials and then applied it to key provisions of the US federal regulations.

RESULTS

Our formal framework for standard of care pragmatic clinical trial risk-benefit analysis takes into account three key considerations: the ex ante estimates of risks and benefits of the treatments to be compared in a standard of care pragmatic clinical trial, the allocation ratios of treatments inside and outside such a trial, and the significance of some participants receiving a different treatment inside a trial than outside the trial. The framework provides practical guidance on how the research ethics regulations on informed consent should be applied to standard of care pragmatic clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

Our proposed formal model makes explicit the relationship between the concepts used by opposing sides of the debate about the research risks of standard of care pragmatic clinical trials and can be used to clarify the implications for informed consent.

Balancing the Evidence: How to Reconcile the Results of Observational Studies vs. Randomized Clinical Trials in Dialysis

Because large randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in dialysis have been relatively scarce, evidence-based dialysis care has depended heavily on the results of observational studies. However, when results from RCTs appear to contradict the findings of observational studies, nephrologists are left to wonder which type of study they should believe. In this editorial, we explore the key differences between observational studies and RCTs in the context of such seemingly conflicting studies in dialysis. Confounding is the major limitation of observational studies, whereas low statistical power and problems with external validity are more likely to limit the findings of RCTs. Differences in the specification of the population, exposure, and outcomes can also contribute to different results among RCTs and observational studies. Rigorous methods are required regardless of what type of study is conducted, and readers should not automatically assume that one type of study design is superior to the other. Ultimately, dialysis care requires both well-designed, well-conducted observational studies and RCTs to move the field forward.

Home hemodialysis in children

Pediatric home hemodialysis is infrequently performed despite a growing need globally among patients with end-stage renal disease who do not have immediate access to a kidney transplant. In this review, we expand the scope of the Implementing Hemodialysis in the Home website and associated supplement published previously in Hemodialysis International and offer information tailored to the pediatric population. We describe the experience and outcomes of centers managing pediatric patients, and offer recommendations and practical tools to assist clinicians in providing quotidian dialysis for children, including infrastructural and staffing needs, equipment and prescriptions, and patient selection and training.

Considerations in the evaluation and determination of minimal risk in pragmatic clinical trials

Institutional review boards, which are charged with overseeing research, must classify the riskiness of proposed research according to a federal regulation known as the Common Rule (45 CFR 46, Subpart A) and by regulations governing the US Food and Drug Administration codified in 21 CFR 50. If an institutional review board determines that a clinical trial constitutes "minimal risk," there are important practical implications: the institutional review board may then allow a waiver or alteration of the informed consent process; the study may be carried out in certain vulnerable populations; or the study may be reviewed by institutional review boards using an expedited process. However, it is unclear how institutional review boards should assess the risk levels of pragmatic clinical trials. Such trials typically compare existing, widely used medical therapies or interventions in the setting of routine clinical practice. Some of the therapies may be considered risky of themselves but the study comparing them may or may not add to that pre-existing level of risk. In this article, we examine the common interpretations of research regulations regarding minimal-risk classifications and suggest that they are marked by a high degree of variability and confusion, which in turn may ultimately harm patients by delaying or hindering potentially beneficial research. We advocate for a clear differentiation between the risks associated with a given therapy and the incremental risk incurred during research evaluating those therapies as a basic principle for evaluating the risk of a pragmatic clinical trial. We then examine two pragmatic clinical trials and consider how various factors including clinical equipoise, practice variation, research methods such as cluster randomization, and patients' perspectives may contribute to current and evolving concepts of minimal-risk determinations, and how this understanding in turn affects the design and conduct of pragmatic clinical trials.

Optimizing outcomes in the elderly with end-stage renal disease--live long and prosper

BACKGROUND

The elderly form an expanding proportion of patients with chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease worldwide. The increased physiological frailty and functional morbidity associated with the aging process pose unique challenges when planning optimal management of an older patient needing renal replacement therapy (RRT).

AIMS

This position paper discusses current evidence regarding the optimal management of end-stage renal disease in the elderly with an emphasis on hemodialysis since it is the most common modality used in older patients. Further research is needed to define relevant patient-reported outcome measures for end-stage renal disease including functional assessments and psychological impacts of various forms of RRT. For those older patients who have opted for dialysis treatment, it is important to study the strategies that encourage greater uptake of home-based dialysis therapies and optimal vascular access.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of advanced chronic kidney disease in the elderly can be challenging but also extremely rewarding. The key issue is adopting a patient-focused and individualized approach that seeks to achieve the best outcomes based on a comprehensive holistic assessment of what is important to the patient.

Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry

The ANZDATA Registry includes all patients treated with renal replacement therapy (RRT) throughout Australia and New Zealand. Funding is predominantly from government sources, together with the non-government organization Kidney Health Australia. Registry operations are overseen by an Executive committee, and a Steering Committee with wide representation. Data is collected from renal units throughout Australia and New Zealand on a regular basis, and forwarded to the Registry. Areas covered include demographic details, primary renal disease, type of renal replacement therapy, process measures, and a variety of outcomes. From this data collection a number of themes of work are produced. These include production of Registry reports with an extensive range of national and regional data, a suite of quality assurance reports, key process indicator (KPI) reports, and data sets for a variety of audit and research purposes. The various types of information from the ANZDATA Registry are used in a wide variety of areas, including health services planning, safety and quality programs, and clinical research projects.

Home versus in-centre haemodialysis for end-stage kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Home haemodialysis is associated with improved survival and quality of life in uncontrolled studies. However, relative benefits and harms of home versus in-centre haemodialysis in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of home haemodialysis versus in-centre haemodialysis in adults with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register was searched up to 31 October 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs of home versus in-centre haemodialysis in adults with ESKD were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by two investigators independently. Study risk of bias and other patient-centred outcomes were extracted. Insufficient data were available to conduct meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a single cross-over RCT (enrolling 9 participants) that compared home haemodialysis (long hours: 6 to 8 hours, 3 times/week) with in-centre haemodialysis (short hours: 3.5 to 4.5 hours, 3 times/weeks) for 8 weeks in prevalent home haemodialysis patients. Outcome data were limited and not available for the end of the first phase of treatment in this cross-over study which was at risk of bias due to differences in dialysate composition between the two treatment comparisons.Overall, home haemodialysis reduced 24 hour ambulatory blood pressure and improved uraemic symptoms, but increased treatment-related burden of disease and interference in social activities. Insufficient data were available for mortality, hospitalisation or dialysis vascular access complications or treatment durability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Insufficient randomised data were available to determine the effects of home haemodialysis on survival, hospitalisation, and quality of life compared with in-centre haemodialysis. Given the consistently observed benefits of home haemodialysis on quality of life and survival in uncontrolled studies, and the low prevalence of home haemodialysis globally, randomised studies evaluating home haemodialysis would help inform clinical practice and policy.

The financial impact of increasing home-based high dose haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that high dose haemodialysis (HD) may be associated with better health outcomes and even cost savings (if conducted at home) versus conventional in-centre HD (ICHD). Home-based regimens such as peritoneal dialysis (PD) are also associated with significant cost reductions and are more convenient for patients. However, the financial impact of increasing the use of high dose HD at home with an increased tariff is uncertain. A budget impact analysis was performed to investigate the financial impact of increasing the proportion of patients receiving home-based dialysis modalities from the perspective of the England National Health Service (NHS) payer.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to investigate the 5 year budget impact of increasing the proportion of dialysis patients receiving home-based dialysis, including both high dose HD at home and PD, under the current reimbursement tariff and a hypothetically increased tariff for home HD (£575/week). Five scenarios were compared with the current England dialysis modality distribution (prevalent patients, 14.1% PD, 82.0% ICHD, 3.9% conventional home HD; incident patients, 22.9% PD, 77.1% ICHD) with all increases coming from the ICHD population.

RESULTS

Under the current tariff of £456/week, increasing the proportion of dialysis patients receiving high dose HD at home resulted in a saving of £19.6 million. Conducting high dose HD at home under a hypothetical tariff of £575/week was associated with a budget increase (£19.9 million). The costs of high dose HD at home were totally offset by increasing the usage of PD to 20-25%, generating savings of £40.0 million - £94.5 million over 5 years under the increased tariff. Conversely, having all patients treated in-centre resulted in a £172.6 million increase in dialysis costs over 5 years.

CONCLUSION

This analysis shows that performing high dose HD at home could allow the UK healthcare system to capture the clinical and humanistic benefits associated with this therapy while limiting the impact on the dialysis budget. Increasing the usage of PD to 20-25%, the levels observed in 2005-2008, will totally offset the additional costs and generate further savings.

Impact of Hurricane Sandy on hospital emergency and dialysis services: a retrospective survey

OBJECTIVE

Hurricane Sandy forced closures of many free-standing dialysis centers in New York City in 2012. Hemodialysis (HD) patients therefore sought dialysis treatments from nearby hospitals. The surge capacity of hospital dialysis services was the rate-limiting step for streamlining the emergency department flow of HD patients. The aim of this study was to determine the extent of the HD patients surge and to explore difficulties encountered by hospitals in Brooklyn, New York (USA) due to Hurricane Sandy.

METHODS

A retrospective survey on hospital dialysis services was conducted by interviewing dialysis unit managers, focusing on the influx of HD patients from closed dialysis centers to hospitals, coping strategies these hospitals used, and difficulties encountered.

RESULTS

In total, 347 HD patients presented to 15 Brooklyn hospitals for dialysis. The number of transient HD patients peaked two days after landfall and gradually decreased over a week. Hospital dialysis services reported issues with lack of dialysis documentation from transient dialysis patients (92.3%), staff shortage (50%), staff transportation (71.4%), and communication with other agencies (53.3%). Linear regression showed that factors significantly associated with enhanced surge capacity were the size of inpatient dialysis unit (P = .040), having affiliated outpatient dialysis centers (P = .032), using extra dialysis machines (P = .014), and having extra workforce (P = .007). Early emergency plan activation (P = .289) and shortening treatment time (P = .118) did not impact the surge capacity significantly in this study.

CONCLUSION

These findings provide potential improvement options for receiving hospitals dialysis units to prepare for future events.

Innovative strategy with potential to increase hemodialysis efficiency and safety

Uremic toxins are mainly represented by blood urine nitrogen (BUN) and creatinine (Crea) whose removal is critically important in hemodialysis (HD) for kidney disease. Patients undergoing HD have a complex illness, resulting from: inadequate removal of organic waste, dialysis-induced oxidative stress and membrane-induced inflammation. Here we report innovative breakthroughs for efficient and safe HD by using a plasmon-induced dialysate comprising Au nanoparticles (NPs)-treated (AuNT) water that is distinguishable from conventional deionized (DI) water. The diffusion coefficient of K₃Fe(CN)₆ in saline solution can be significantly increased from 2.76, to 4.62 × 10⁻⁶ cm s⁻¹, by using AuNT water prepared under illumination by green light-emitting diodes (LED). In vitro HD experiments suggest that the treatment times for the removals of 70% BUN and Crea are reduced by 47 and 59%, respectively, using AuNT water instead of DI water in dialysate, while additionally suppressing NO release from lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced inflammatory cells.

Study of discrepancies between recorded and actual blood flow in hemodialysis patients

Adequate blood flow (Qb) is necessary for effective hemodialysis (HD). Aim of the study was to examine relationship between the actually delivered Qb (dQb) and reported Qb (rQb) with dialysis machine. One hundred HD patients with arteriovenous fistula were enrolled. Delivered Qb was measured at the beginning and end of each HD session. dQb/rQb < 1 indicated a discrepancy between actual dQb and rQb reported using a dialysis machine. In addition, dQb/rQb was examined in HD patients using needles of different gauges during treatment. The average levels of dQb/rQb at start and end of HD session were 1.01 ± 0.04 and 0.98 ± 0.05, respectively. In the 16 gauge and 17 gauge needle groups, the percentage of patients with dQb/rQb < 1 increased in accordance with the increase in rQb or as the HD session progressed. In the 15 gauge needle group, the percentage of patients with dQb/rQb < 1 was <50% at any level of rQb. Selection of needle gauge is important factors for determining actual dQb in HD patients.

Effect of prolonged weekly hemodialysis on survival of maintenance hemodialysis patients: a meta-analysis of studies

OBJECTIVE

Use of prolonged nocturnal or daytime hemodialysis (PHD, more than 12 h per week) is associated with improvement of some clinical parameters relative to conventional hemodialysis (CHD, 4 h sessions, thrice weekly), but the effect on survival is unclear. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to determine whether PHD improves survival of patients undergoing maintenance HD.

DESIGN

Systematic review of observational studies by meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic searches in MEDLINE (PubMed, 1966-2012), EMBASE (1974-2012), www.clinicaltrials.gov, and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register Database.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

All prospective or retrospective studies were considered eligible if they were cohort studies or observational studies that compared CHD with PHD (more than 12 h of HD per week due to more HD sessions or increased duration of HD sessions) and the final outcome was all-cause death or mortality.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies with a total of 85,722 participants (10,285 PHD patients, 75,437 CHD patients) met the inclusion criteria. Summary estimates indicated that PHD was associated with decreased risk of mortality (OR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.81, p < 0.00001). Analysis of residual confounders of pooled results from six retrospective studies indicated that PHD patients were less likely to have low hemoglobin (11.7 vs. 11.2 g/dl, p < 0.01), younger (51.2 vs. 58.8 years, p < 0.01), less likely to have diabetes (27.1 vs. 40.8%, p < 0.01), and less likely to use a catheter (18.4 vs. 27.1%, p < 0.01), so these may have affected the outcome measure in these studies.

CONCLUSIONS

PHD is associated with improved survival relative to CHD, although residual confounders have affected this relationship in observational studies. Large, multicenter randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm our results.

Home haemodialysis

Haemodialysis (HD) began as an intensive care treatment offered to a very select number of patients in an attempt to keep them alive. Outcomes were extremely poor, and the procedure was cumbersome and labor intensive. With increasing expertise and advances in dialysis equipment, HD is now recognised as a life-sustaining treatment that is considered a standard of care for children with end stage renal disease (ESRD). Assessment of efficacy has evolved from mere survival, through achieving minimal standards of "adequate" dialysis with reduced morbidity, towards the provision of "optimal dialysis", which includes attempts to more closely mimic normal renal function, and of individualised care that maximizes the patient's health, psychosocial well-being and life potential. There is a renewed interest in dialysis, and the research profile has extended, exploring themes around convective versus diffusive treatments, HD time versus frequency and home versus in-centre dialysis. The results thus far have led dialysis care full circle from prolonged, home-based therapies to shorter, intense in-centre dialysis back to the belief that long or frequent HD at home achieves the best outcomes.

Excellent long time survival for Swedish patients starting home-hemodialysis with and without subsequent renal transplantations

Survival for patients on dialysis is poor. Earlier reports have indicated that home-hemodialysis is associated with improved survival but most of the studies are old and report only short-time survival. The characteristics of patient populations are often incompletely described. In this study, we report long-term survival for patients starting home-hemodialysis as first treatment and estimate the impact on survival of age, comorbidity, decade of start of home-hemodialysis, sex, primary renal disease and subsequent renal transplantation. One hundred twenty-eight patients starting home-hemodialysis as first renal replacement therapy 1971-1998 in Lund were included. Data were collected from patient files, the Swedish Renal Registry and Swedish census. Survival analysis was made as intention-to-treat analysis (including survival after transplantation) and on-dialysis-treatment analysis with patients censored at the day of transplantation. Ten-, twenty- and thirty-year survival were 68%, 36% and 18%. Survival was significantly affected by comorbidity, age and what decade the patients started home-hemodialysis. For patients younger than 60 years and with no comorbidities, the corresponding figures were 75%, 47% and 23% and a subsequent renal transplantation did not significantly influence survival. Long-term survival for patients starting home-hemodialysis is good, and improves decade by decade. Survival is significantly affected by patient age and comorbidity, but the contribution of subsequent renal transplantation was not significant for younger patients without comorbidities.

Disentangling the ultrafiltration rate-mortality association: the respective roles of session length and weight gain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Rapid ultrafiltration rate is associated with increased mortality among hemodialysis patients. Ultrafiltration rates are determined by interdialytic weight gain and session length. Although both interdialytic weight gain and session length have been linked to mortality, the relationship of each to mortality, independent of the other, is not adequately defined. This study was designed to evaluate whether shorter session length independent of weight gain and larger weight gain independent of session length are associated with increased mortality.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Data were taken from a national cohort of 14,643 prevalent, thrice-weekly, in-center hemodialysis patients dialyzing from 2005 to 2009 (median survival time, 25 months) at a single dialysis organization. Patients with adequate urea clearance and delivered dialysis session ≥240 and <240 minutes were pair-matched on interdialytic weight gain (n=1794), and patients with weight gain ≤3 and >3 kg were pair-matched on session length (n=2114); mortality associations were estimated separately.

RESULTS

Compared with delivered session length ≥240, session length <240 minutes was associated with increased all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval], 1.32 [1.03 to 1.69]). Compared with weight gain ≤3, weight gain >3 kg was associated with increased mortality (1.29 [1.01 to 1.65]). The associations were consistent across strata of age, sex, weight, and weight gain and session length. Secondary analyses demonstrated dose-response relationships between both and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with adequate urea clearance, shorter dialysis session length and greater interdialytic weight gain are associated with increased mortality; thus, both are viable targets for directed intervention.

Longer dialysis session length is associated with better intermediate outcomes and survival among patients on in-center three times per week hemodialysis: results from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS)

BACKGROUND

Longer dialysis session length (treatment time, TT) has been associated with better survival among hemodialysis (HD) patients. The impact of TT on clinical markers that may contribute to this survival advantage is not well known.

METHODS

Using data from the international Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study, we assessed the association of TT with clinical outcomes using both standard regression analyses and instrumental variable approaches. The study included 37,414 patients on in-center HD three times per week with prescribed TT from 120 to 420 min.

RESULTS

Facility mean TT ranged from 214 min in the USA to 256 min in Australia-New Zealand. Accounting for country effects, mortality risk was lower for patients with longer TT {hazard ratio for every 30 min: all-cause mortality: 0.94 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.92-0.97], cardiovascular mortality: 0.95 (95% CI: 0.91-0.98) and sudden death: 0.93 (95% CI: 0.88-0.98)}. Patients with longer TT had lower pre- and post-dialysis systolic blood pressure, greater intradialytic weight loss, higher hemoglobin (for the same erythropoietin dose), serum albumin and potassium and lower serum phosphorus and white blood cell counts. Similar associations were found using the instrumental variable approach, although the positive associations of TT with weight loss and potassium were lost.

CONCLUSIONS

Favorable levels of a variety of clinical markers may contribute to the better survival of patients receiving longer TT. These findings support longer TT prescription in the setting of in-center, three times per week HD.

Shorter length dialysis sessions are associated with increased mortality, independent of body weight

Hemodialysis patients have high rates of mortality that may be related to aspects of the dialytic procedure. In prior studies, shorter length dialysis sessions have been associated with decreased survival, but these studies may have been confounded by body size differences. Here we tested whether in-center three-times-weekly hemodialysis patients with adequate urea clearances but shorter dialysis session length is associated with mortality independent of body size. Data were taken from a large national cohort of patients from a large dialysis organization undergoing three-times-weekly in-center hemodialysis. In the primary analysis, patients with prescribed dialysis sessions greater and less than 240 min were pair-matched on post-dialysis weight as well as on age, gender, and vascular access type. Compared to prescribed longer dialysis sessions, session lengths less than 240 min were significantly associated with increased all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.26). The association was consistent across strata of age, gender, and dialysis post-weight. Secondary analyses found a dose-response between prescribed session length and survival. Thus, among patients with adequate urea clearance, shorter dialysis session lengths are associated with increased mortality independent of body weight.

Blood pressure and blood volume: acute and chronic considerations in hemodialysis

Hypertension is highly prevalent yet poorly controlled in the majority of dialysis patients and represents a significant burden of disease, with rates of morbidity and mortality greater than those in the general population. In dialysis, blood volume plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of hypertension, with expansion of extracellular volume increasingly recognized as an independent risk factor for morbidity and mortality. Within the current paradigm of dialysis prescription the majority of patients remain chronically volume expanded. However, management of blood pressure and volume state is difficult for clinicians with a paucity of randomized evidence adding to the complexity of nonlinear morbidity and mortality associations. With dialysis itself as a significant cardiac stressor, control of volume state is critical to minimize intradialytic hemodynamic instability, aid in preservation of cardiac anatomy and prevent progression to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This review explores the relationship of blood volume to blood pressure and potential targets for management in this at risk population.

Chapter 7 Adequacy of haemodialysis in UK adult patients in 2010: national and centre-specific analyses

BACKGROUND

Outcome in patients treated with haemodialysis (HD) is influenced by the delivered dose of dialysis. The UK Renal Association (RA) publishes clinical practice guidelines which include recommendations for dialysis dose. The urea reduction ratio (URR) is a widely used measure of dialysis dose.

AIM

To determine the extent to which patients received the recommended dose of HD in the UK.

METHODS

All seventy-two UK renal centres submitted data to the UK Renal Registry (UKRR). Two groups of patients were included in the analyses: the prevalent patient population on 31st December 2010 and the incident patient population for 2010. Centres returning data on <50% of their patient population or centres with <20 patients were excluded from centre-specific comparisons.

RESULTS

Data regarding URR were available from 64 renal centres in the UK. Forty nine centres provided URR data on more than 90% of prevalent patients. The proportion of patients in the UK who met the UK clinical practice guideline for URR (>65%) increased from 56% in 1998 to 86% in 2010. There was persistent variation observed between centres, with 19 centres attaining the RA clinical practice guideline in >90% of patients and 39 centres attaining the guideline in 70-90%. The overall proportion of prevalent patients with a URR >65% has continued to improve over time.

CONCLUSIONS

The delivered dose of HD for patients with established renal failure has increased over the last decade. Whilst the majority of UK patients achieved the target URR there was considerable variation between centres in the percentage of patients achieving the guideline.

Dialysis adequacy today: a European perspective

The need to improve haemodialysis (HD) therapies and to reduce cardiovascular and all-cause mortality frequently encountered by dialysis patients has been recognized and addressed for many years. A number of approaches, including increasing the frequency versus duration of treatment, have been proposed and debated in terms of their clinical efficacy and economic feasibility. Future prescription of dialysis to an expanding end-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD-5D) population needs a re-evaluation of existing practices while maintaining the emphasis on patient well-being both in the short and in the long term. Efficient cleansing of the blood of all relevant uraemic toxins, including fluid and salt overload, remains the fundamental objective of all dialysis therapies. Simultaneously, metabolic disorders (e.g. anaemia, mineral bone disease, oxidative stress) that accompany renal failure need to be corrected also as part of the delivery of dialysis therapy itself. Usage of high-flux membranes that enable small and large uraemic toxins to be eliminated from the blood is the first prerequisite towards the aforementioned goals. Application of convective therapies [(online-haemodiafiltration (OL-HDF)] further enhances the detoxification effects of high-flux haemodialysis (HF-HD). However, despite an extended clinical experience with both HF-HD and OL-HDF spanning more than two decades, a more widespread prescription of convective treatment modalities awaits more conclusive evidence from large-scale prospective randomized controlled trials. In this review, we present a European perspective on the need to implement optimal dialysis and to improve it by adopting high convective therapies and to discuss whether inertia to implement these practice patterns may deprive patients of significantly improved well-being and survival.

Dialysis at a crossroads--Part II: A call for action

A previous commentary pointed out that the renal community has led American healthcare in the development and continuous improvement of quality outcomes. However, survival, hospitalization, and quality of life for US dialysis patients is still not optimal. This follow-up commentary examines the obstacles, gaps, and metrics that characterize this unfortunate state of affairs. It posits that current paradigms are essential contributors to quality outcomes but are no longer sufficient to improve quality. New strategies are needed that arise from a preponderance of evidence, in addition to beyond a reasonable doubt standard. This work offers an action plan that consists of new pathways of care that will lead to improved survival, fewer hospitalizations and rehospitalizations, and better quality of life for patients undergoing dialysis therapy. Nephrologists in collaboration with large and small dialysis organizations and other stakeholders, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, can implement these proposed new pathways of care and closely monitor their effectiveness. We suggest that our patients deserve nothing less and must receive even more.