Prognostic Value of the Delivery Dialysis Dose on Twice-Weekly Hemodialysis Patients

The association between dose of hemodialysis and patients mortality in a prospective cohort study

Dialysis adequacy is a known risk factor for mortality in maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients. However, the optimal dialysis dose remains controversial. Therefore, we aimed to explore the relationship between dialysis dose and all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality among MHD. We examined the associations of dialysis dose with mortality in a cohort (n = 558) of MHD patients from 31 December 2015 to 31 December 2020. Dialysis adequacy was assessed using baseline Single-pool Kt/V_urea (spKt/V), which was categorized into three groups, and the lowest dose group was used as the reference category. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression models. A total of 214 patients died (64.5% for CVD). Compared with the low-dose group, high-dose group could reduce the risk of all-cause mortality by 33% (HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.47–0.98). Of note, when stratification by age, high-dose group was associated with both lower all-cause (HR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.26–0.81) and CVD mortality (HR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20–0.88) among patients with age below 65 years. When stratification by dialysis age, high-dose group was associated with decreased risk of CVD mortality (HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.20–0.91) among patients with dialysis age over 60 months. spKt/V is a simple index of hemodialysis dose used in clinical practice and a useful modifiable factor in predicting the risk of death, especially in MHD patients under 65 years old or dialysis age more than 60 months.

The strange case of Mr. H. Starting dialysis at 90 years of age: clinical choices impact on ethical decisions

Background

Starting dialysis at an advanced age is a clinical challenge and an ethical dilemma. The advantages of starting dialysis at “extreme” ages are questionable as high dialysis-related morbidity induces a reflection on the cost- benefit ratio of this demanding and expensive treatment in a person that has a short life expectancy. Where clinical advantages are doubtful, ethical analysis can help us reach decisions and find adapted solutions.

Case presentation

Mr. H is a ninety-year-old patient with end-stage kidney disease that is no longer manageable with conservative care, in spite of optimal nutritional management, good blood pressure control and strict clinical and metabolic evaluations; dialysis is the next step, but its morbidity is challenging. The case is analysed according to principlism (beneficence, non-maleficence, justice and respect for autonomy).

In the setting of care, dialysis is available without restriction; therefore the principle of justice only partially applied, in the absence of restraints on health-care expenditure. The final decision on whether or not to start dialysis rested with Mr. H (respect for autonomy). However, his choice depended on the balance between beneficence and non-maleficence. The advantages of dialysis in restoring metabolic equilibrium were clear, and the expected negative effects of dialysis were therefore decisive. Mr. H has a contraindication to peritoneal dialysis (severe arthritis impairing self-performance) and felt performing it with nursing help would be intrusive. Post dialysis fatigue, poor tolerance, hypotension and intrusiveness in daily life of haemodialysis patients are closely linked to the classic thrice-weekly, four-hour schedule. A personalized incremental dialysis approach, starting with one session per week, adapting the timing to the patient’s daily life, can limit side effects and “dialysis shock”.

Conclusions

An individualized approach to complex decisions such as dialysis start can alter the delicate benefit/side-effect balance, ultimately affecting the patient’s choice, and points to a narrative, tailor-made approach as an alternative to therapeutic nihilism, in very old and fragile patients.