Time to recovery from haemodialysis : location, intensity and beyond

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 recovery time: associated factors and its association with quality of life of hemodialysis patients

Introduction

Post-dialysis fatigue is a common and distressing complaint in patients on hemodialysis (HD). The dialysis recovery time (DRT) is a recent and reliable method of Post-dialysis fatigue assessment. We aimed to identify factors affecting the DRT and its relation with HD patients’ quality of life.

Material and methods

This is a cross-sectional study carried out on end-stage renal disease patients on regular HD. All participants underwent detailed history taking and complete physical examination, and data on dialysis and laboratory investigations were also collected. Patients were asked “How long does it take you to recover from a dialysis session?” to calculate the DRT. We used the Malnutrition-Inflammation Score (MIS) and KDQOL-36 questionnaire to assess patients’ nutritional status and quality of life, respectively.

Results

Two hundred and ten patients were screened and 191, with a median age of 47 years, completed the study. Patients had a median DRT of 300 minutes (range: 0.0–2880.0), with 55% of patients reporting a DRT of > 240 minutes and 22.5% of them reporting a DRT of < 30 minutes. Patients had a median MIS score of 7 (range: 0–17). There was a statistically significant negative relation between the DRT and symptom/ problem list (p < 0.001), effects of kidney disease (p < 0.001), burden of kidney disease (p < 0.001), SF-12 physical composite (p = 0.001), and SF-12 mental composite (p < 0.001) of KDQOL. The results of multivariate analyses showed that dialysate Na (p = 0.003), and the number of missed sessions (p < 0.001) were independently correlated with the DRT.

Conclusions

Decreased dialysate Na, and increased number of missed sessions were predictors of prolonged DRT. Patients with prolonged DRT were associated with poorer quality of life. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to assess strategies to minimize the DRT and, perhaps, enhance clinical outcomes.

Trials registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04727281. First registration date: 27/01/2021.

Main Barriers to the Introduction of a Home Haemodialysis Programme in Poland: A Review of the Challenges for Implementation and Criteria for a Successful Programme

Introduction: Home dialysis in Poland is restricted to the peritoneal dialysis (PD) modality, with the majority of dialysis patients treated using in-centre haemodialysis (ICHD). Home haemodialysis (HHD) is an additional home therapy to PD and provides an attractive alternative to ICHD that combines dialysis with social distancing; eliminates transportation needs; and offers clinical, economic, and quality of life benefits. However, HHD is not currently provided in Poland. This review was performed to provide an overview of the main barriers to the introduction of a HHD programme in Poland. Main findings: The main high-level barrier to introducing HHD in Poland is the absence of specific health legislation required for clinician prescribing of HHD. Other barriers to overcome include clear definition of reimbursement, patient training and education (including infrastructure and experienced personnel), organisation of logistics, and management of complications. Partnering with a large care network for HHD represents an alternative option to payers for the provision of a new HHD service. This may reduce some of the barriers which need to be overcome when compared with the creation of a new HHD service and its supporting network due to the pre-existing infrastructure, processes, and staff of a large care network. Conclusions: Provision of HHD is not solely about the provision of home treatment, but also the organisation and definition of a range of support services that are required to deliver the service. HHD should be viewed as an additional, complementary option to existing dialysis modalities which enables choice of modality best suited to a patient’s needs.

Post-dialysis recovery time in ESRD patients receiving more frequent hemodialysis in skilled nursing facilities

Introduction

Post‐dialysis recovery time (DRT) has an important relationship to quality of life and survival, as identified in studies of ESRD patients on conventional dialysis. ESRD patients are often discharged from hospitals to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) where on‐site treatment using home hemodialysis technology is increasingly offered, but nothing is known about DRT in this patient population.

Methods

From November 4, 2019 to June 11, 2021, within a dialysis organization providing service across 12 states and 154 SNFs, patients receiving in‐SNF, more frequent dialysis (MFD) (modeled to deliver 14 treatment hours minimum per week and stdKt/V ≥2.0) were asked to describe their post‐dialysis recovery time following their previous treatment, within predefined categoric choices: 0–½, ½–1, 1–2, 2–4, 4–8, 8–12 h, by next morning, or not even by next morning. Patients reporting DRT following at least one full‐week treatment opportunity were included in a mixed model logistic regression of rapid recovery (DRT ≤2 h).

Findings

Two thousand three hundred and nine patients met the statistical modeling inclusion criteria, providing DRT on 108,876 dialysis sessions, while receiving mean (SD) 4.3 (0.96) weekly dialysis treatments. 2118 (92%) reported DRT ≤2 h. Results appeared biologically plausible, as lower odds of rapid DRT were observed for patients who were older, missed their previous treatment, or experienced intradialytic hypotension. Greater odds of rapid DRT were observed in patients receiving five dialyses in the previous week or having 160–179 mmHg pre‐hemodialysis systolic blood pressure. Rapid recovery was associated with reduced mortality or hospitalization.

Discussion

SNF dialysis patients receiving 5x per week MFD report rapid recovery time ≤2 h in 92% of dialyses despite advanced age, frailty, and comorbidities. Future studies will assess the practical ramifications of rapid DRT perception/experience on nursing home rehabilitation programs, which could impact patient health beyond the nursing home stay.

Association of abnormal electrocardiograph metrics with prolonged recovery time in incident hemodialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Patients receiving intermittent hemodialysis have variable times of recovery to feeling better after dialysis. QT prolongation, a precursor to clinical and subclinical cardiovascular events, may contribute to delayed recovery time. We hypothesized that abnormal electrocardiographic parameters indicating perturbations in ventricular action are associated with longer recovery times thus impacting a patient-centered quality of life.

METHODS

Among 242 incident in-center hemodialysis participants from the Predictors of Arrhythmic and Cardiovascular Risk in End Stage Renal Disease (PACE) study, corrected QT interval (QTc), QRST angle and heart rate variance were measured on non-dialysis days using a standard 5-min electrocardiograph recording. Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) was defined using the Cornell voltage product. Recovery time was ascertained during a phone interview with a standardized validated questionnaire. Associations between QTc, QRST angle, heart rate variance, and LVH and natural log-transformed recovery time were examined using linear regression adjusted for participant characteristics and electrolytes.

RESULTS

Mean age was 55 (standard deviation 13) years, 55% were male, 72% were African American. Longer QTc interval was associated with increased recovery time (per 10 ms increase in QTc, recovery time increased by 6.2%; 95% confidence interval: 0.0-10.5). QRST angle, heart rate, heart rate variability and LVH were not significantly associated with recovery time.

CONCLUSION

Longer QTc intervals are associated with longer recovery time independent of serum electrolytes. This supports a relationship between a patient's underlying arrhythmic status and time to recovery after hemodialysis. Future studies will determine if maneuvers to reduce QTc improves recovery time and quality of life of patients on hemodialysis.

Frailty, Age, and Postdialysis Recovery Time in a Population New to Hemodialysis

Background

Frailty, a phenotype characterized by decreased physiologic reserve and the inability to recover following confrontation with a stressor like hemodialysis, may help identify which patients on incident hemodialysis will experience longer postdialysis recovery times. Recovery time is associated with downstream outcomes, including quality of life and mortality. We characterized postdialysis recovery times among patients new to hemodialysis and quantified the association between frailty and hemodialysis recovery time.

Methods

Among 285 patients on hemodialysis enrolled in the Predictors of Arrhythmic and Cardiovascular Risk in End Stage Renal Disease (PACE) study, frailty was measured using the Fried phenotype. Self-reported recovery time was obtained by telephone interview. We estimated the association of frailty (intermediately frail and frail versus nonfrail) and postdialysis recovery time using adjusted negative binomial regression.

Results

Median time between dialysis initiation and study enrollment was 3.4 months (IQR, 2.7-4.9), and that between initiation and recovery time assessment was 11 months (IQR, 9.3-15). Mean age was 55 years, 24% were >65 years, and 73% were Black; 72% of individuals recovered in ≤1 hour, 20% recovered in 1-6 hours, 5% required 6-12 hours to recover, and <5% required >12 hours to recover. Those with intermediate frailty, frailty, and age ≤65 years had 2.56-fold (95% CI, 1.45 to 4.52), 1.72-fold (95% CI, 1.03 to 2.89), and 2.35-fold (95% CI, 1.44 to 3.85) risks, respectively, of longer recovery time independent of demographic characteristics, comorbidity, and dialysis-related factors.

Conclusions

In adults new to hemodialysis, frailty was independently associated with prolonged postdialysis recovery. Future studies should assess the effect of frailty-targeted interventions on recovery time to improve clinical outcomes.

A study of quality of life among hemodialysis patients and its associated factors using kidney disease quality of life instrument-SF36 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

We aimed in this study to assess the quality of life for kidney-ill patients using Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument-SF36 (KDQOL-SF36) and the impact of other demographic, clinical, and social factors on patients' QOL. The quality of life was assessed using an Arabic version of KDQOL-36. The KDQOL-36 subscales Physical Component Summary (PCS), Mental Component Summary (MCS), Burden of Kidney Disease, and Effects of Kidney Disease were calculated. The effect of sex, diabetic status, diabetes mellitus, marital and status employment status, etc. on these subscales was evaluated. Reliability was determined by calculating Cronbach's alpha. A total of 254 patients were enrolled. The mean age was 58.2 (standard deviation 18.2) years; 61% were male, 56.7% diabetic and 20.1% were employed. The mean domain scores on the PCS, MCS, burden of kidney disease, and effects of kidney disease subscales were 49.4, 38.7, 52.6, and 37.2, respectively. Afternoon shift patients score highest among all shifts in MCS and PCS (P = 0.0001). The MCS score (38.7 ± 28.7) was significantly lower than PCS (49.4 ± 16.5) (P = 0.0001). The "effect of kidney disease" subscale was higher in males (P = 0.02), employed patients (P = 0.02), in the afternoon dialysis shift (0.0001). For PCS higher scores were seen in males (P = 0.0001), in non-diabetics (compared to diabetics) (P = 0,006), in the employed patients (P = 0.02). The highest score was seen in the "burden of kidney disease" subscale and the lowest in the "effects of kidney disease" subscale. Higher scores were seen in males, in nondiabetics, in the employed patients.

Do biochemical parameters and intradialytic symptoms affect post-dialysis recovery time? A prospective, descriptive study

The recovery time is defined as the time required to recover from the feelings of lassitude and fatigue. The daily activities of patients are affected by dialysis sessions, requiring significant time for patients to return to their routines. This situation implies a lower quality of life for HD patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of biochemical parameters and intradialytic symptoms on post-dialysis recovery time in maintenance HD patients. This study was conducted at a private dialysis center during June and August 2019. Data were collected using the "Descriptive Characteristics Form" and the "Dialysis Symptom Index." "STROBE check-list" was used for the report of the study. The study was completed with 86 participants. The median post-dialysis recovery time was 240 min (interquartile range, 120-360 min), and female patients exhibit significantly higher recovery time than male patients. The median BMI was statistically significantly higher in patients whose post-dialysis recovery time was ≥240 min. Additional findings show that the post-dialysis recovery time was shortened by 0.230 times for male patients, while intradialytic hypotension (IDH) prolonged the median post-dialysis recovery time by 3.141 times. Factors underlying the IDH should be determined in order to eradicate the issue. The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with the number NCT04274556.

Impacts of dialysis adequacy and intradialytic hypotension on changes in dialysis recovery time

Background

Dialysis recovery time (DRT) surveys capture the perceived time after HD to return to performing regular activities. Prior studies suggest the majority of HD patients report a DRT > 2 h. However, the profiles of and modifiable dialysis practices associated with changes in DRT relative to the start of dialysis are unknown. We hypothesized hemodialysis (HD) dose and rates of intradialytic hypotension (IDH) would associate with changes in DRT in the first years after initiating dialysis.

Methods

We analyzed data from adult HD patients who responded to a DRT survey ≤180 days from first date of dialysis (FDD) during 2014 to 2017. DRT survey was administered with annual KDQOL survey. DRT survey asks: “How long does it take you to be able to return to your normal activities after your dialysis treatment?” Answers are: < 0.5, 0.5-to-1, 1-to-2, 2-to-4, or > 4 h. An adjusted logistic regression model computed odds ratio for a change to a longer DRT (increase above DRT > 2 h) in reference to a change to a shorter DRT (decrease below DRT < 2 h, or from DRT > 4 h). Changes in DRT were calculated from incident (≤180 days FDD) to first prevalent (> 365-to- ≤ 545 days FDD) and second prevalent (> 730-to- ≤ 910 days FDD) years.

Results

Among 98,616 incident HD patients (age 62.6 ± 14.4 years, 57.8% male) who responded to DRT survey, a higher spKt/V in the incident period was associated with 13.5% (OR = 0.865; 95%CI 0.801-to-0.935) lower risk of a change to a longer DRT in the first-prevalent year. A higher number of HD treatments with IDH episodes per month in the incident period was associated with a 0.8% (OR = 1.008; 95%CI 1.001-to-1.015) and 1.6% (OR = 1.016; 95%CI 1.006-to-1.027) higher probability of a change to a longer DRT in the first- and second-prevalent years, respectively. Consistently, an increased in incidence of IDH episodes/months was associated to a change to a longer DRT over time.

Conclusions

Incident patients who had higher spKt/V and less sessions with IDH episodes had a lower likelihood of changing to a longer DRT in first year of HD. Dose optimization strategies with cardiac stability in fluid removal should be tested.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-020-02187-9.