Advances in Human-Centered Care to Address Contemporary Unmet Needs in Chronic Dialysis.

Advances in the treatment of kidney failure with chronic dialysis have stagnated over the past three decades, with over 50% of patients still managed by conventional in-hospital haemodialysis. In parallel, the demands of chronic dialysis medical care have changed and evolved due to a growing population that has higher frailty and multimorbidity. Thus, the gap between the needs of kidney failure patients and the healthcare capability to provide effective overall management has widened. To address this problem, healthcare policy has increasingly aligned towards a human-centred approach. The paradigm shift of human-centred approach places patients at the forefront of decision-making processes, ensuring that specific needs are understood and prioritised. Integration of human-centred approaches with patient care has been shown to improve satisfaction and quality of life. The aim of this narrative is to evaluate the current clinical challenges for managing kidney failure for dialysis providers; summarise current experiences and unmet needs of chronic dialysis patients; and finally emphasise how human-centred care has advanced chronic dialysis care. Specific incremental advances include implementation of renal supportive care; home-assisted dialysis; hybrid dialysis; refinements to dialysis methods; whereas emerging advances include portable and wearable dialysis devices and the potential for the integration of artificial intelligence in clinical practice.

The CKD bowel health study: understanding the bowel health and gastrointestinal symptom management in patients with chronic kidney disease: a mixed-methods observational longitudinal study (protocol).

BACKGROUND: Gastro-intestinal (GI) intolerance is a frequently reported outcome in patients with kidney failure receiving maintenance dialysis and those who have received kidney transplants. Symptoms of GI intolerance (diarrhoea, constipation, bloating, abdominal pain, heart burn, and reflux) are associated with significant reduction in quality of life, morbidity, and increased used of healthcare resources. Having chronic kidney disease (CKD), together with related changes in diet and medication, may alter the gut microbiota and the microbial-derived uraemic metabolites that accumulate in kidney failure, and contribute to various complications including chronic diarrhoea, opportunistic infections, and drug-related colitis. Despite the high disease burden among patients with kidney replacement therapies, GI symptoms are often under-recognised and, consequently limited resources and strategies are devoted to the management of gastrointestinal complications in patients with CKD. METHODS: The CKD Bowel Health Study is a multi-centre mixed-methods observational longitudinal study to better understand the bowel health and GI symptom management in patients with CKD. The program comprises of a longitudinal study that will assess the burden and risk factors of GI intolerance in patients treated with maintenance dialysis; a semi-structured interview study that will describe experiences of GI intolerance (including symptoms, treatment, self-management) in transplant candidates and recipients; and a discrete choice experience to elicit patient preferences regarding their experiences and perspectives of various intervention strategies for the management of GI symptoms after kidney transplantation. DISCUSSION: This proposed program of work aims to define the burden the GI intolerance in patients with kidney failure and generate evidence on the patients' experiences of GI intolerance and their perspectives on their clinical and own management strategies of these symptoms, ensuring a patient-centred approach to guide clinical decision making and to inform the best study design for intervention trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12621000548831 . This study has been approved by the Western Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee of New South Wales Health (HREC ETH03007). This study is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Australia Investigator Grant (APP1195414), and an NHMRC Australia Postgraduate Scholarship (APP2005244).

Incidence and Outcomes of COVID-19 in People With CKD: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disproportionately affects people with chronic diseases such as chronic kidney disease (CKD). We assessed the incidence and outcomes of COVID-19 in people with CKD. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed through February 2021. SETTING & STUDY POPULATIONS: People with CKD with or without COVID-19. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: Cohort and case-control studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Incidences of COVID-19, death, respiratory failure, dyspnea, recovery, intensive care admission, hospital admission, need for supplemental oxygen, hospital discharge, sepsis, short-term dialysis, acute kidney injury, and fatigue. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Random-effects meta-analysis and evidence certainty adjudicated using an adapted version of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). RESULTS: 348 studies (382,407 participants with COVID-19 and CKD; 1,139,979 total participants with CKD) were included. Based on low-certainty evidence, the incidence of COVID-19 was higher in people with CKD treated with dialysis (105 per 10,000 person-weeks; 95% CI, 91-120; 95% prediction interval [PrI], 25-235; 59 studies; 468,233 participants) than in those with CKD not requiring kidney replacement therapy (16 per 10,000 person-weeks; 95% CI, 4-33; 95% PrI, 0-92; 5 studies; 70,683 participants) or in kidney or pancreas/kidney transplant recipients (23 per 10,000 person-weeks; 95% CI, 18-30; 95% PrI, 2-67; 29 studies; 120,281 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, the incidence of death in people with CKD and COVID-19 was 32 per 1,000 person-weeks (95% CI, 30-35; 95% PrI, 4-81; 229 studies; 70,922 participants), which may be higher than in people with CKD without COVID-19 (incidence rate ratio, 10.26; 95% CI, 6.78-15.53; 95% PrI, 2.62-40.15; 4 studies; 18,347 participants). LIMITATIONS: Analyses were generally based on low-certainty evidence. Few studies reported outcomes in people with CKD without COVID-19 to calculate the excess risk attributable to COVID-19, and potential confounders were not adjusted for in most studies. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of COVID-19 may be higher in people receiving maintenance dialysis than in those with CKD not requiring kidney replacement therapy or those who are kidney or pancreas/kidney transplant recipients. People with CKD and COVID-19 may have a higher incidence of death than people with CKD without COVID-19.

The Learning Curves for Transradial and Ultrasound-Guided Arterial Access: An Analysis of the SURF Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Historically, coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention involved accessing the femoral artery via palpation. However, recently there has been a trend towards using a transradial approach and ultrasound guidance for arterial access. Studies have shown that these techniques respectively improve major bleeding rates and access outcomes. There have been no studies conducted that assess the time it takes to train operators to attain proficiency. This sub-analysis of the Standard versus Ultrasound-guided Radial and Femoral access in coronary angiography and intervention (SURF) trial aims to assess the number of procedures required to attain proficiency in ultrasound-guided transradial and transfemoral access. METHODS: The SURF trial randomised 1,388 patients undergoing coronary angiography and/or percutaneous coronary intervention into standard or ultrasound-guidance and radial or femoral access in a 2×2 factorial design. Operators who participated in this trial were required to have performed at least 50 standard and 10 ultrasound-guided punctures for each of transradial and transfemoral access. Cases were then chronologically ordered and stratified into groups of five, from which the primary endpoint measured was a progression in mean access time and first-pass success rates. RESULTS: Across all operators, there was a reduction in mean access time between procedures one to five and six to 10 with ultrasound-guided femoral punctures (60.5 secs-51.5 secs, p=0.029) and between procedures 11 to 15 and 16 to 20 ultrasound-guided radial punctures (74s to 62.5 secs, p=0.082). This trend was more obvious in trainees, with significant reductions in mean access time between procedures one to five and six to 10 from 73.5 to 53.5 seconds (p<0.001) for ultrasound-guided femoral access and from 99.5 seconds to 60 seconds (p=0.024) for ultrasound-guided radial access. There were no trends with standard transradial access. CONCLUSION: The numbers required to attain competency in ultrasound-guided femoral and radial access are 15 and 25 punctures, respectively. Fifty (50) punctures appear adequate for proficiency in a standard transradial approach. These numbers are useful in incorporating into training program for advanced trainees and interventionalists.

Standard versus ultrasound-guided radial and femoral access in coronary angiography and intervention (SURF): a randomised controlled trial.

AIMS: This study aimed to compare outcomes in unselected patients undergoing cardiac catheterisation via transradial versus transfemoral access and standard versus ultrasound-guided arterial access. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a prospective, randomised (radial vs. femoral and standard vs. ultrasound), 2x2 factorial trial of 1,388 patients undergoing coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary outcome was a composite of ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategY) major bleeding, MACE (death, stroke, myocardial infarction or urgent target lesion revascularisation) and vascular complications at 30 days. Transradial access reduced the primary outcome (RR 0.37, 95% CI: 0.17-0.81; p=0.013), mostly driven by ACUITY major bleeding (RR 0.343, 95% CI: 0.123-0.959; p=0.041) when compared with the transfemoral approach. There was no difference in the primary outcome between standard and ultrasound guidance (p=0.76). Ultrasound guidance, however, reduced mean access time (93 sec vs. 111 sec; p=0.009), attempts (1.47 vs. 1.9; p<0.0001), difficult accesses (4.5% vs. 9.2%; p=0.0007), venepuncture (4.1% vs. 9.2%; p<0.0001) and improved first-pass success (73% vs. 59.7%; p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Transradial access significantly reduced the composite outcome compared to transfemoral access. Ultrasound guidance did not reduce the primary outcome compared to the standard technique, but significantly improved the efficiency and overall success rate of arterial access.

Integrated oral health care for stroke patients - a scoping review.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To identify current evidence on the role of nurses and allied health professionals in the oral health management of stroke patients, detailing their current knowledge, attitudes and practices and the potential benefits of an integrated oral care programme. BACKGROUND: Stroke has disabling oral health effects, such as dysphagia and hindered brushing due to upper limb hemiparesis. Together, these can increase bacterial load, increasing risk of pneumonia. In general management of stroke, nurses play a key role in early identification, assessment and referral, while occupational therapists, dieticians and speech pathologists are important in rehabilitation. While this should logically apply to the oral care of stroke patients, there is currently limited information, especially in Australia. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHOD: A literature search was conducted using multiple databases regarding the oral health management of stroke patients by nondental professionals, and 26 articles were reviewed. RESULTS: The Australian National Clinical Guidelines for Stroke accentuate the need for oral care following stroke and suggest how hospital staff need to be involved. Currently, there are no Australian studies. However, international literature suggests that lack of oral health knowledge by nurses and poor patient attitude are reflected in infrequent assistance with stroke patient oral hygiene. There is limited information regarding the benefits of nursing-driven oral hygiene programme in reducing pneumonia incidence, and only few studies show that involving nurses in assisted oral care reduces plaque. There are some suggestions that involving nurses and speech pathologists in oral rehabilitation can improve dysphagia outcomes. CONCLUSION: Managing oral health poststroke is vital, and there is a need for an appropriate integrated oral care service in Australia. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nondental professionals, especially nurses, can play a key role in the poststroke oral health management of stroke patients to reduce complications, especially pneumonia.