Fluid First or Not So Fast: Ultrafiltration Rate and the ESRD Quality Incentive Program

Predialysis fluid overload and gait speed: a repeated measures analysis among patients on chronic dialysis

BACKGROUND

Slow gait speed is associated with hospitalization and death. We examined whether predialysis fluid overload contributes to gait speed impairment.

METHODS

We measured predialysis gait speed at baseline and 12 and 24 months among 298 patients recruited in the A Cohort Study to Investigate the Value of Exercise in ESRD/Analyses Designed to Investigate the Paradox of Obesity and Survival in ESRD. We used multivariable linear mixed modeling to examine associations between patient data and gait speed. We then added either bioimpedance-estimated volume of predialysis fluid overload or volume of delivered ultrafiltration to ascertain whether fluid excess was associated with gait speed and its trajectory. We also tested whether fluid overload change with time was predictive of gait speeds.

RESULTS

The mean baseline gait speed was 1.01 m/s and it declined by an average of 0.08 m/s/year. Older age, nonwhite race, Hispanic ethnicity, diabetes, recent fall, recent hospitalization, tobacco use and lower serum albumin were associated with slower gait speed. Each liter of predialysis fluid overload was associated with a 0.02 m/s slower gait speed [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01-0.04, P = 0.008] and 0.05 m/s additional slowing per year (95% CI 0.03-0.06, P < 0.0001). Higher ultrafiltration volumes were associated with 0.07 m/s slower gait speed per 3% body weight removed (0.002-0.14, P = 0.045) but not with gait speed trajectory (P = 0.08). Patients who increased fluid overload walked 0.08 m/s slower compared with those who decreased fluid overload (95% CI 0.003-0.15, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Predialysis fluid overload was associated with slower gait speed and gait speed decline over time. Interventions that limit fluid overload may lead to improvements in physical performance.

Blood pressure and volume management in dialysis: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference

Blood pressure (BP) and volume control are critical components of dialysis care and have substantial impacts on patient symptoms, quality of life, and cardiovascular complications. Yet, developing consensus best practices for BP and volume control have been challenging, given the absence of objective measures of extracellular volume status and the lack of high-quality evidence for many therapeutic interventions. In February of 2019, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) held a Controversies Conference titled Blood Pressure and Volume Management in Dialysis to assess the current state of knowledge related to BP and volume management and identify opportunities to improve clinical and patient-reported outcomes among individuals receiving maintenance dialysis. Four major topics were addressed: BP measurement, BP targets, and pharmacologic management of suboptimal BP; dialysis prescriptions as they relate to BP and volume; extracellular volume assessment and management with a focus on technology-based solutions; and volume-related patient symptoms and experiences. The overarching theme resulting from presentations and discussions was that managing BP and volume in dialysis involves weighing multiple clinical factors and risk considerations as well as patient lifestyle and preferences, all within a narrow therapeutic window for avoiding acute or chronic volume-related complications. Striking this challenging balance requires individualizing the dialysis prescription by incorporating comorbid health conditions, treatment hemodynamic patterns, clinical judgment, and patient preferences into decision-making, all within local resource constraints.

Post-hospitalization dialysis facility processes of care and hospital readmissions among hemodialysis patients: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Both dialysis facilities and hospitals are accountable for 30-day hospital readmissions among U.S. hemodialysis patients. We examined the association of post-hospitalization processes of care at hemodialysis facilities with pulmonary edema-related and other readmissions.

Methods

In a retrospective cohort comprised of electronic medical record (EMR) data linked with national registry data, we identified unique patient index admissions (n = 1056; 2/1/10–7/31/15) that were followed by ≥3 in-center hemodialysis sessions within 10 days, among patients treated at 19 Southeastern dialysis facilities. Indicators of processes of care were defined as present vs. absent in the dialysis facility EMR. Readmissions were defined as admissions within 30 days of the index discharge; pulmonary edema-related vs. other readmissions defined by discharge codes for pulmonary edema, fluid overload, and/or congestive heart failure. Multinomial logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for pulmonary edema-related and other vs. no readmissions.

Results

Overall, 17.7% of patients were readmitted, and 8.0% had pulmonary edema-related readmissions (44.9% of all readmissions). Documentation of the index admission (OR = 2.03, 95% CI 1.07–3.85), congestive heart failure (OR = 1.87, 95% CI 1.07–3.27), and home medications stopped (OR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.08–3.05) or changed (OR = 1.69, 95% CI 1.06–2.70) in the EMR post-hospitalization were all associated with higher risk of pulmonary edema-related vs. no readmission; lower post-dialysis weight (by ≥0.5 kg) after vs. before hospitalization was associated with 40% lower risk (OR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.37–0.96).

Conclusions

Our results suggest that some interventions performed at the dialysis facility in the post-hospitalization period may be associated with reduced readmission risk, while others may provide a potential existing means of identifying patients at higher risk for readmissions, to whom such interventions could be efficiently targeted.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12882-018-0983-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.