Twice weekly hemodialysis is safe at the beginning of kidney replacement therapy: the experience of the Nephrology Department at Hedi Chaker University Hospital, Sfax, south of Tunisia

Incremental versus conventional haemodialysis in end-stage kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Appropriate dialysis prescription in the transitional setting from chronic kidney disease to end-stage kidney disease is still challenging. Conventional thrice-weekly haemodialysis (HD) might be associated with rapid loss of residual kidney function (RKF) and high mortality. The benefits and risks of incremental HD compared with conventional HD were explored in this systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to April 2023 for studies that compared the impacts of incremental (once- or twice-weekly HD) and conventional thrice-weekly HD on cardiovascular events, RKF, vascular access complications, quality of life, hospitalization and mortality.

Results

A total of 36 articles (138 939 participants) were included in this meta-analysis. The mortality rate and cardiovascular events were similar between incremental and conventional HD {odds ratio [OR] 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.72-1.04 and OR 0.67 [95% CI 0.43-1.05], respectively}. However, hospitalization and loss of RKF were significantly lower in patients treated with incremental HD [OR 0.44 (95% CI 0.27-0.72) and OR 0.31 (95% CI 0.25-0.39), respectively]. In a sensitivity analysis that included studies restricted to those with RKF or urine output criteria, incremental HD had significantly lower cardiovascular events [OR 0.22 (95% CI 0.08-0.63)] and mortality [OR 0.54 (95% CI 0.37-0.79)]. Vascular access complications, hyperkalaemia and volume overload were not statistically different between groups.

Conclusions

Incremental HD has been shown to be safe and may provide superior benefits in clinical outcomes, particularly in appropriately selected patients. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these potential advantages.

Water implications in dialysis therapy, threats and opportunities to reduce water consumption: a call for the planet

Water is a dwindling natural resource, and potable water is wrongly considered an unlimited resource. Dialysis, particularly hemodialysis, is a water-hungry treatment that impacts the environment. The global annual water use of hemodialysis is approximately 265 million m3/yr. In this reference estimate, two-thirds of this water is represented by reverse osmosis reject water discharged into the drain. In this review, we would like to draw attention to the complexity and importance of water saving in hemodialysis. We propose that circular water management may comply with the "3R" concept: reduce (reduce dialysis need, reduce dialysate flow, and optimize reverse osmosis performance), reuse (reuse wastewater as potable water), and recycle (dialysis effluents for agriculture and aquaponic use). Awareness and sustainability should be integrated to create positive behaviors. Effective communication is crucial for water savings because local perspectives may lead to global opportunities. Besides the positive environmental impacts, planet-friendly alternatives may have significant financial returns. Innovative policies based on the transition from linear to circular water management may lead to a paradigm shift and establish a sustainable water management model. This review seeks to support policymakers in making informed decisions about water use, avoiding wasting, and finding solutions that may be planet friendly and patient friendly in dialysis, especially in hemodialysis treatments.

Impact of incremental initiation of haemodialysis on mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Incremental haemodialysis initiation entails lower sessional duration and/or frequency than the standard 4 h thrice-weekly approach. Dialysis dose is increased as residual kidney function (RKF) declines. This systematic review evaluates its safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library databases from inception to 27 February 2022. Eligible studies compared incremental haemodialysis (sessions either fewer than three times weekly or of duration <3.5 h) with standard treatment. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events, loss of RKF, quality of life and cost effectiveness. The study protocol was prospectively registered. Risk of bias assessment used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool, as appropriate. Meta-analyses were undertaken in Review Manager, Version 5.4.

RESULTS

A total of 644 records were identified. Twenty-six met the inclusion criteria, including 22 cohort studies and two randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Sample size ranged from 48 to 50 596 participants (total 101 476). We found no mortality differences (hazard ratio = 0.99; 95% CI 0.80-1.24). Cohort studies suggested similar hospitalization rates though the two small RCTs suggested less hospitalization after incremental initiation (relative risk = 0.31; 95% CI 0.18-0.54). Data on other treatment-emergent adverse events and quality of life was limited. Observational studies suggested reduced loss of RKF in incremental haemodialysis. This was not supported by RCT data. Four studies reported reduced costs of incremental treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Incremental initiation of haemodialysis does not confer greater risk of mortality compared with standard treatment. Hospitalization may be reduced and costs are lower.

Twice versus thrice weekly hemodialysis: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Thrice weekly hemodialysis (HD) is currently the norm in high income countries but there is mounting interest in twice weekly HD in certain settings. We performed this systematic review to summarize the available evidence comparing twice to thrice weekly HD.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify cohort and randomized controlled trials evaluating outcomes of twice versus thrice weekly HD. The bibliographies of identified studies were hand searched to find any additional studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies.

FINDINGS

No randomized controlled trials and 21 cohort studies were identified. Overall study quality was modest with high risk of selection bias and inadequate controlling for confounders. The most commonly evaluated outcome measures were survival and residual kidney function. No studies assessed quality of life. Study results were variable and there was no clear signal for overwhelming risk or benefit of twice versus thrice weekly HD with the exception of residual kidney function which consistently showed slower decline in the twice weekly group.

DISCUSSION

There is a paucity of high quality data comparing the risks and benefits of twice vs thrice weekly HD. Randomized controlled trial evidence is required to inform clinicians and HD prescription guidelines.