KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Hemodialysis Adequacy: 2015 Update

As the global burden of chronic kidney disease continues to increase, so does the need for a cost-effective renal replacement therapy. In many countries, patient outcomes with peritoneal dialysis are comparable to or better than those with haemodialysis, and peritoneal dialysis is also more cost-effective. These benefits have not, however, always led to increased utilization of peritoneal dialysis. Use of this therapy is increasing in some countries, including China, the USA and Thailand, but has proportionally decreased in parts of Europe and in Japan. The variable trends in peritoneal dialysis use reflect the multiple challenges in prescribing this therapy to patients. Key strategies for facilitating peritoneal dialysis utilization include implementation of policies and incentives that favour this modality, enabling the appropriate production and supply of peritoneal dialysis fluid at a low cost, and appropriate training for nephrologists to enable increased utilization of the therapy and to ensure that rates of technique failure continue to decline. Further growth in peritoneal dialysis use is required to enable this modality to become an integral part of renal replacement therapy programmes worldwide.

Changes in the worldwide epidemiology of peritoneal dialysis

https://www.ajkd.org/article/S0272-6386(11)00942-5/pdf

Home Hemodialysis and Mortality Risk in Australian and New Zealand Populations

Patients undergoing conventional maintenance hemodialysis typically receive three sessions per week, each lasting 2.5–5.5 hours. Recently, the use of more intensive hemodialysis (>5.5 hours, three to seven times per week) has increased, but the effects of these regimens on survival are uncertain. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to examine whether intensive hemodialysis associates with better survival than conventional hemodialysis. We identified 420 patients in the International Quotidian Dialysis Registry who received intensive home hemodialysis in France, the United States, and Canada between January 2000 and August 2010. We matched 338 of these patients to 1388 patients in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study who received in-center conventional hemodialysis during the same time period by country, ESRD duration, and propensity score. The intensive hemodialysis group received a mean (SD) 4.8 (1.1) sessions per week with a mean treatment time of 7.4 (0.87) hours per session; the conventional group received three sessions per week with a mean treatment time of 3.9 (0.32) hours per session. During 3008 patient-years of follow-up, 45 (13%) of 338 patients receiving intensive hemodialysis died compared with 293 (21%) of 1388 patients receiving conventional hemodialysis (6.1 versus 10.5 deaths per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.55 [95% confidence interval, 0.34–0.87]). The strength and direction of the observed association between intensive hemodialysis and improved survival were consistent across all prespecified subgroups and sensitivity analyses. In conclusion, there is a strong association between intensive home hemodialysis and improved survival, but whether this relationship is causal remains unknown.

/pdf/intensive-hemodialysis-associates-with-improved-survival-1d6hwurhxg.pdf

Intensive Hemodialysis Associates with Improved Survival Compared with Conventional Hemodialysis

Whether the duration of hemodialysis treatments improves outcomes remains controversial. Here, we evaluated survival and clinical changes associated with converting from conventional hemodialysis (mean=3.75 h/treatment) to in-center nocturnal hemodialysis (mean=7.85 h/treatment). All 959 consecutive patients who initiated nocturnal hemodialysis for the first time in 77 Fresenius Medical Care facilities during 2006 and 2007 were eligible. We used Cox models to compare risk for mortality during 2 years of follow-up in a 1:3 propensity score–matched cohort of 746 nocturnal and 2062 control patients on conventional hemodialysis. Two-year mortality was 19% among nocturnal hemodialysis patients compared with 27% among conventional patients. Nocturnal hemodialysis associated with a 25% reduction in the risk for death after adjustment for age, body mass index, and dialysis vintage (hazard ratio=0.75, 95% confidence interval=0.61–0.91, P=0.004). With respect to clinical features, interdialytic weight gain, albumin, hemoglobin, dialysis dose, and calcium increased on nocturnal therapy, whereas postdialysis weight, predialysis systolic blood pressure, ultrafiltration rate, phosphorus, and white blood cell count declined (all P<0.001). In summary, notwithstanding the possibility of residual selection bias, conversion to treatment with nocturnal hemodialysis associates with favorable clinical features, laboratory biomarkers, and improved survival compared with propensity score–matched controls. The potential impact of extended treatment time on clinical outcomes while maintaining a three times per week hemodialysis schedule requires evaluation in future clinical trials.

/pdf/survival-with-three-times-weekly-in-center-nocturnal-versus-115ofnt74y.pdf

Survival with Three-Times Weekly In-Center Nocturnal Versus Conventional Hemodialysis

Background and objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate epidemiology and outcomes of a large in-center nocturnal hemodialysis (INHD) program.

Design, setting, participants, & measurements: This case-control study compared patients who were on thrice-weekly INHD from 56 Fresenius Medical Care, North America facilities with conventional hemodialysis patients from 244 facilities within the surrounding geographic area. All INHD cases and conventional hemodialysis control subjects who were active as of January 1, 2007, were followed until December 31, 2007, for evaluation of mortality and hospitalization.

Results: As of January 1, 2007, 655 patients had been on INHD for 51 ± 73 d. Patients were younger, there were more male and black patients, and vintage was longer, but they had less diabetes compared with 15,334 control subjects. Unadjusted hazard ratio was 0.59 for mortality and 0.76 for hospitalization. After adjustment for case mix and access type, only hospitalization remained significant. Fewer INHD patients were hospitalized (48 versus 59%) with a normalized rate of 9.6 versus 13.5 hospital days per patient-year. INHD patients had greater interdialytic weight gains but lower BP. At baseline, hemoglobin values were similar, whereas albumin and phosphorus values favored INHD. Mean equilibrated Kt/V was higher in INHD patients related to longer treatment time, despite lower blood and dialysate flow rates.

Conclusions: Patients who were on INHD exhibited excellent quality indicators, with better survival and lower hospitalization rates. The relative contributions of patient selection versus effect of therapy on outcomes remain to be elucidated in prospective clinical trials.

/pdf/outcomes-associated-with-in-center-nocturnal-hemodialysis-177bcd1yxy.pdf

Keith Lester

Papers

Survival with Three-Times Weekly In-Center Nocturnal Versus Conventional Hemodialysis

Outcomes Associated with In-Center Nocturnal Hemodialysis from a Large Multicenter Program

Urgent Peritoneal Dialysis Starts for ESRD: Initial Multicenter Experiences in the United States

165: Comparison of Mortality Risk Between Incenter Nocturnal and Conventional Hemodialysis

167: Incenter Nocturnal Hemodialysis Conversion-Associated Changes in Laboratory Markers