Australian Workshops on Patients' Perspectives on Hemodialysis and Incremental Start.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Most patients with kidney failure commence and continue hemodialysis (HD) thrice weekly. Incremental initiation (defined as HD less than thrice weekly) is increasingly considered to be safe and less burdensome, but little is known about patients' perspectives. We aimed to describe patients' priorities and concerns regarding incremental HD.Methods
Patients currently, previously, or soon to be receiving HD in Australia participated in two 90-minute online workshops to discuss views about HD focusing on incremental start and priorities for trial outcomes. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. Outcomes were ranked on the basis of the sum of participants' priority scores (i.e., single allocation of 3 points for most important, 2 for second, and 1 for third most important outcome).Results
All 26 participants (1 caregiver and 25 patients) preferred an incremental HD approach. The top prioritized outcomes were quality of life (QOL) (56 points), residual kidney function (RKF) (27 points), and mortality (16 points). The following 4 themes underpinning outcome priorities, experience, and safety concerns were identified: (i) unpreparedness and pressure to adapt, (ii) disruption to daily living, (iii) threats to safety, and (iv) hope and future planning.Conclusion
Patients with kidney failure preferred an incremental start to HD to minimize disruption to daily living and reduce the negative impacts on their education, ability to work, and family life. QOL was the most critically important outcome, followed by RKF and survival.
SUBMITTER: Hegerty K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10014336 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Australian Workshops on Patients' Perspectives on Hemodialysis and Incremental Start.
Hegerty Katharine K Jaure Allison A Scholes-Robertson Nicole N Howard Kirsten K Ju Angela A Evangelidis Nicole N Wolley Martin M Baumgart Amanda A Johnson David W DW Hawley Carmel M CM Reidlinger Donna D Hickey Laura L Welch Alyssa A Cho Yeoungjee Y Kerr Peter G PG Roberts Matthew A MA Shen Jenny I JI Craig Jonathan J Krishnasamy Rathika R Viecelli Andrea K AK
Kidney international reports 20221206 3
<h4>Introduction</h4>Most patients with kidney failure commence and continue hemodialysis (HD) thrice weekly. Incremental initiation (defined as HD less than thrice weekly) is increasingly considered to be safe and less burdensome, but little is known about patients' perspectives. We aimed to describe patients' priorities and concerns regarding incremental HD.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients currently, previously, or soon to be receiving HD in Australia participated in two 90-minute online workshops to ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionIncremental hemodialysis (iHD) may attenuate "dialysis shock" and reduce costs, preserving quality of life. It is considered difficult to reconcile with HD wards' routine; fear of underdialysis and increasing mortality are additional concerns. The aim of this study was to evaluate mortality, morbidity, and costs in a large HD ward where iHD is the standard of HD start.MethodsThis observational study included all incident HD patients in 2017 to 2021, stratified according to HD start: iHD (1-2 sessions/wk), decremental HD (dHD, 3 sessions/wk at start, later reduced), or standard (3 sessions/wk). Results were compared with data recorded in the same unit before the incremental program (2015-2017) and with a propensity score-matched cohort from the French Renal Epidemiology and Information Network (REIN) registry.ResultsA total of 158 patients started HD in 2017 to 2021, 57.6% on iHD, 8.9% dHD, and 33.5% standard HD schedule. Patients on the standard schedule had lower initial estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (5 vs. 7 ml/min per 1.72 m2, P = 0.003). We found no survival differences according to period of start (same center) and propensity score matching (REIN). Patients intensively followed in the pre-HD period were more likely to start on iHD-dHD. Persistence on iHD-dHD was about 50% at 1 year and 35% at 2 years. Hospitalization rates and time to first hospitalization or death did not differ between the schedules. The iHD-dHD policy allowed a 16% cost saving, even accounting for supplemental biochemical tests.ConclusionOur study reveals that iHD can be a new standard of care, as it is safe and feasible in up to two-thirds of patients on incident HD.
| S-EPMC9091804 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The prescription of hemodialysis (HD) in patients with incident end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is fundamentally empirical. The abrupt transition from nondialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD) to thrice-weekly in-center HD of much the same dialysis intensity as in those with prevalent ESKD underappreciates the progressive nature of kidney disease whereby the decline in renal function has been gradual and ongoing-including at the time of HD initiation. Adjuvant pharmacologic treatment (i.e., diuretics, acid buffers, potassium binders), coupled with residual kidney function (RKF), can complement an initial HD regimen of lower intensity. Barriers to less intensive HD in incident ESKD include risk of inadequate clearance of uremic toxins due to variable and unexpected loss of RKF, lack of patient adherence to assessments of RKF or adjustment of HD intensity, increased burden for all stakeholders in the dialysis units, and negative financial repercussions. A stepped dialysis regimen with scheduled transition from time-delineated twice-weekly HD to thrice-weekly HD could represent an effective and safe strategy to standardize incremental HD in patients with CKD transitioning to early-stage ESKD. Patients' adherence and survival as well as other clinical outcomes should be rigorously evaluated in clinical trials before large-scale implementation of different incremental schedules of HD. This review discusses potential benefits of and barriers to alternative dialysis regimens in patients with incident ESKD, with emphasis on twice-weekly HD with pharmacologic therapy, and summarizes in-progress clinical trials of incremental HD schedules.
| S-EPMC7000841 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWe sought to evaluate the efficacy and complications of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) compared with urgent-start temporary hemodialysis (HD) followed by subsequent elective transfer to PD.MethodsIn this multicenter open-label prospective randomized controlled trial, adults with kidney failure who required immediate dialysis but did not have access to definitive dialysis were randomized to receive either urgent-start PD or urgent-start temporary HD over 2 weeks to 4 weeks followed by a transition to a chronic PD program according to the country policy. The primary outcome was the composite end point of operation-related, catheter-related, and dialysis-related complications at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes were 6-week mortality, 6-week technique survival, and 1-week composite complications.ResultsA total of 207 participants requiring urgent-start dialysis were enrolled from 3 tertiary hospitals between November 2018 and February 2020 as follows: 104 were assigned to receive urgent-start PD, and 103 were assigned to urgent-start temporary HD. Compared with urgent-start temporary HD, urgent-start PD had a lower composite complication rate at 6 weeks (19% vs. 37%, risk ratio [RR] 0.52, 95% CI 0.33-0.83), which was primarily accounted for by a reduction in dialysis-related complications (4% vs. 24%, RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.06-0.44). No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups with respect to patient and technique survival rates at 1 week and 6 weeks.ConclusionAn urgent-start PD strategy during the transition of kidney failure to chronic dialysis is safe and has fewer complications commensurate with their reduced exposure to procedural risk than urgent-start temporary HD up to 6 weeks after dialysis commencement.
| S-EPMC9366533 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSeveral studies have suggested that urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a feasible alternative to hemodialysis (HD) in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), but the impact of the dialysis modality on outcome, especially on short-term complications, in urgent-start dialysis has not been directly evaluated. The aim of the current study was to compare the complications and outcomes of PD and HD in urgent-start dialysis ESRD patients.MethodsIn this retrospective study, ESRD patients who initiated dialysis urgently without a pre-established functional vascular access or PD catheter at a single center from January 2013 to December 2014 were included. Patients were grouped according to their dialysis modality (PD and HD). Each patient was followed for at least 30 days after catheter insertion (until January 2016). Dialysis-related complications and patient survival were compared between the two groups.ResultsOur study enrolled 178 patients (56.2% male), of whom 96 and 82 patients were in the PD and HD groups, respectively. Compared with HD patients, PD patients had more cardiovascular disease, less heart failure, higher levels of serum potassium, hemoglobin, serum albumin, serum pre-albumin, and lower levels of brain natriuretic peptide. There were no significant differences in gender, age, use of steroids, early referral to a nephrologist, prevalence of primary renal diseases, prevalence of co-morbidities, and other laboratory characteristics between the groups. The incidence of dialysis-related complications during the first 30 days was significantly higher in HD than PD patients. HD patients had a significantly higher probability of bacteremia compared to PD patients. HD was an independent predictor of short-term (30-day) dialysis-related complications. There was no significant difference between PD and HD patients with respect to patient survival rate.ConclusionIn an experienced center, PD is a safe and feasible dialysis alternative to HD for ESRD patients with an urgent need for dialysis.
| S-EPMC5100934 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMaintenance hemodialysis is typically prescribed thrice weekly irrespective of a patient's residual kidney function (RKF). We hypothesized that a less frequent schedule at hemodialysis therapy initiation is associated with greater preservation of RKF without compromising survival among patients with substantial RKF.Study designA longitudinal cohort.Setting & participants23,645 patients who initiated maintenance hemodialysis therapy in a large dialysis organization in the United States (January 2007 to December 2010), had available RKF data during the first 91 days (or quarter) of dialysis, and survived the first year.PredictorIncremental (routine twice weekly for >6 continuous weeks during the first 91 days upon transition to dialysis) versus conventional (thrice weekly) hemodialysis regimens during the same time.OutcomesChanges in renal urea clearance and urine volume during 1 year after the first quarter and survival after the first year.ResultsAmong 23,645 included patients, 51% had substantial renal urea clearance (≥3.0mL/min/1.73m(2)) at baseline. Compared with 8,068 patients with conventional hemodialysis regimens matched based on baseline renal urea clearance, urine volume, age, sex, diabetes, and central venous catheter use, 351 patients with incremental regimens exhibited 16% (95% CI, 5%-28%) and 15% (95% CI, 2%-30%) more preserved renal urea clearance and urine volume at the second quarter, respectively, which persisted across the following quarters. Incremental regimens showed higher mortality risk in patients with inadequate baseline renal urea clearance (≤3.0mL/min/1.73m(2); HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.07-2.44), but not in those with higher baseline renal urea clearance (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.76-1.28). Results were similar in a subgroup defined by baseline urine volume of 600mL/d.LimitationsPotential selection bias and wide CIs.ConclusionsAmong incident hemodialysis patients with substantial RKF, incremental hemodialysis may be a safe treatment regimen and is associated with greater preservation of RKF, whereas higher mortality is observed after the first year of dialysis in those with the lowest RKF. Clinical trials are needed to examine the safety and effectiveness of twice-weekly hemodialysis.
| S-EPMC4969165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChronic kidney disease (CKD) affects 10-15% of adult population worldwide. Incident patients on hemodialysis, mainly those on urgent-start dialysis at the emergency room, have a high mortality risk, which may reflect the absence of nephrology care. A lack of data exists regarding the influence of baseline factors on the mortality of these patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and laboratory characteristics of this population and identify risk factors that contribute to their mortality.Patients and methodsWe studied 424 patients who were admitted to our service between 01/2006 and 12/2012 and were followed for 1 year. We analyzed vascular access, risk factors linked to cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mineral and bone disease associated with CKD (CKD-MBD), and clinical events that occurred during the follow-up period. Factors that influenced patient survival were evaluated by Cox regression analysis.ResultsThe patient mean age was 50 ± 18 years, and 58.7% of them were male. Hypertension was the main cause of primary CKD (31.8%). Major risk factors were smoking (19.6%), dyslipidemia (48.8%), and CVD (41%). Upon admission, most patients had no vascular access for hemodialysis (89.4%). Biochemical results showed that most patients were anemic with high C-reactive protein levels, hypocalcemia, hyperphosphatemia, elevated parathyroid hormone and decreased 25-hydroxy vitamin D. At the end of one year, 60 patients died (14.1%). These patients were significantly older, had a lower percentage of arteriovenous fistula in one year, and low levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D.ConclusionsThe combined evaluation of clinical and biochemical parameters and risk factors revealed that the mortality in urgent-start dialysis is associated with older age and low levels of vitamin D deficiency. A lack of a permanent hemodialysis access after one year was also a risk factor for mortality in this population.
| S-EPMC5207446 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionLower early mortality observed in peritoneal dialysis (PD) compared with hemodialysis (HD) may be due to differential pre-end-stage renal disease (ESRD) care and the stable setting of transition to dialysis where PD starts are more frequently outpatient rather than during an unscheduled hospitalization. To account for these circumstances, we compared early mortality among a matched cohort of PD and HD patients who had optimal and outpatient starts.MethodsRetrospective cohort study performed among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who transitioned to ESRD from 1 January 2002 to 31 March 2015 with an optimal start in an outpatient setting. Optimal start defined as (i) HD with an arteriovenous graft or fistula or (ii) PD. Propensity score modeling factoring age, race, sex, comorbidities, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) level, and change in eGFR before ESRD was used to create a matched cohort of HD and PD. All-cause mortality was compared at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years posttransition to ESRD.ResultsAmong 2094 patients (1398 HD and 696 PD) who had optimal outpatient transition to ESRD, 541 HD patients were propensity score-matched to 541 PD patients (caliper distance <0.001). All-cause mortality odds ratios (OR) in PD compared with HD were 0.79 (0.39-1.63), 0.73 (0.43-1.23), and 0.88 (0.62-1.26) for 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years, respectively. Time-varying analysis accounting for modality switch (19% PD, 1.9% HD) demonstrated a mortality hazard ratio of 0.94 (0.70-1.24).ConclusionAmong an optimal start CKD cohort that transitioned to ESRD on an outpatient basis, we found no evidence of differences in early mortality between PD and HD.
| S-EPMC6365351 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIncremental hemodialysis, a strategy to individualize dialysis prescription based on residual kidney function, may be associated with enhanced quality of life and decreased health care costs compared with conventional hemodialysis.ObjectiveWe surveyed practicing Canadian nephrologists to assess knowledge, perceptions, and practice pattern on the use of incremental hemodialysis.Design/settingWe distributed a cross-sectional, web-based survey. We asked about incremental hemodialysis prescribing practices, including frequency of prescription, clinical factors used to determine suitability for treatment, and barriers to implementation. The survey was conducted from September 21 to October 30, 2020.ParticipantsWe distributed the survey to practicing Canadian nephrologists identified from a private membership list of the Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN), as well as to nephrologists named on a publicly available national list of practicing Canadian nephrologists created from provincial College of Physician registries. These were samples of convenience.MethodsWe conducted descriptive analysis of categorical data including frequencies for nominal variables and measures of central tendency (mean) and dispersion (standard deviation) for ordinal variables. We used chi-square analysis to identify association between participant and practice characteristics and their opinions and attitudes toward incremental dialysis. We used simple thematic analysis on free-text responses on questions regarding the prescription of incremental hemodialysis, focusing on age and baseline management of cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities.ResultsThe response rate was 35% (243/691). Most (138/211, 65%) of the participants prescribed incremental hemodialysis using an individualized approach at the nephrologist's discretion. Most participants (200/203, 98%) did not report any policy for implementation. Residual urine output was identified as the most important factor for eligibility (112/172, 65%), followed by electrolyte stability (76/172, 44%) and patient goals of care (69/117, 40%). Most participants agreed that dialysis prescriptions should take residual kidney function into consideration; however, 74% of the participants disagreed with a statement that there was strong evidence supporting incremental hemodialysis. Barriers identified included patient safety, patient acceptance of dose escalation, and logistics of scheduling. Despite these barriers, 82% of participants felt that that incremental hemodialysis is feasible with their current resources and 78% agreed that with specific criteria, it is a safe option.LimitationsThe generalizability of our study is limited by its response rate of 35%; however, this is comparable with typical response rates seen in electronic surveys. Most participants practice in an academic setting, which may have introduced bias to the results.ConclusionsDespite the perception of limited evidence and a lack of guidance on implementation, incremental hemodialysis is frequently practiced by Canadian nephrologists. Barriers to implementation were identified, highlighting the need for research to guide practice.
| S-EPMC8689607 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMost people who make the transition to renal replacement therapy (RRT) are treated with a fixed dose thrice-weekly hemodialysis réegimen, without considering their residual kidney function (RKF). Recent papers inform us that incremental hemodialysis is associated with preservation of RKF, whenever compared with conventional hemodialysis. The objective of the present controlled randomized trial (RCT) is to determine if start HD with one sessions per week (1-Wk/HD), it is associated with better patient survival and other safety parameters.Methods/designIHDIP is a multicenter RCT experimental open trial. It is randomized in a 1:1 ratio and controlled through usual clinical practice, with a low intervention level and non-commercial. It includes 152 incident patients older than 18 years, with a RRF of ≥4 ml/min/1.73 m2, measured by renal clearance of urea (KrU). The intervention group includes 76 patients who will start with incremental HD (1-Wk/HD). The control group includes 76 patients who will start with thrice-weekly hemodialysis régimen. The primary outcome is assessing the survival rate, while the secondary outcomes are the morbidity rate, the clinical parameters, the quality of life and the efficiency.DiscussionThis study will enable to know the number of sessions a patient should receive when starting HD, depending on his RRF. The potentially important clinical and financial implications of incremental hemodialysis warrant this RCT.Trial registrationU.S. National Institutes of Health, ClinicalTrials.gov . Number: NCT03239808 , completed 13/04/2017.SponsorFoundation for Training and Research of Health Professionals of Extremadura.
| S-EPMC6325813 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with chronic kidney disease experience high burden of symptoms, negatively affecting their quality of life. Medication therapy is often initiated to address these symptoms but is limited by variable efficacy and high pill burden. There is interest among clinicians and patients to explore cannabis and cannabinoids as an alternative treatment to manage symptoms related to kidney disease.ObjectiveThe objectives were to characterize cannabis use among patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis (HD), to describe patient perspectives on cannabis, and to explore patient experiences with their kidney health care team related to cannabis.DesignThis was a descriptive, cross-sectional paper-based patient survey.Setting/participantsPatients receiving maintenance HD at Toronto General Hospital in the ambulatory setting between July and August 2020 were included.MethodsA 33-item questionnaire was developed to address the study questions based on existing cannabis questionnaires and input from kidney specialist physicians, pharmacists, kidney nurse practitioners, and patients. The questionnaire was distributed to patients during their in-center HD session. Patients who chose to participate in the study completed the questionnaire and returned it to the study team.ResultsIn total, there were 52 respondents, of which 11 (21%) reported cannabis use in the preceding 3 months, and 23 (44%) reported historical cannabis use. Baseline characteristics were similar between those who used cannabis and those who did not, with a possible trend of cannabis users being younger. The most commonly reported reasons for using cannabis were recreation and symptom management. Those who reported using cannabis for symptom management were doing so without medical authorization or documentation. Common symptoms that cannabis was used to self-treat were insomnia, anxiety, and/or non-neuropathic pain. Dried flower was the most common type of product used, and smoking was the most common route. Care gaps and opportunities to improve patient care related to cannabis use were identified, related to monitoring and management of adverse effects, management of drug interactions, harm reduction strategies, informed decision-making, and prescriber education.LimitationsThe overall participation rate was low, at approximately 17%, possibly related to the COVID-19 pandemic, lack of interest, or fear of revealing cannabis use. Non-response bias is a possible limitation as this was a voluntary survey. The questionnaire was limited to multiple-choice and Likert scale questions, therefore limiting the depth of patient responses.ConclusionsOur study showed that cannabis use among patients receiving HD is common and comparable with the general population. Patients may be using cannabis to self-manage symptoms related to kidney disease, without the involvement of the health care team. Multiple opportunities to improve patient care related to cannabis use were identified.
| S-EPMC11418350 | biostudies-literature