Kidney Transplantation Contraindications: Variation in Nephrologist Practice and Training Vintage.

Introduction: Health system leaders aim to increase access to kidney transplantation in part by encouraging nephrologists to refer more patients for transplant evaluation. Little is known about nephrologists' referral decisions and whether nephrologists with older training vintage weigh patient criteria differently (e.g., more restrictively). Methods: Using a novel, iteratively validated survey of US-based nephrologists, we examined how nephrologists assess adult patients' suitability for transplant, focusing on established, important criteria: 7 clinical (e.g., overweight) and 7 psychosocial (e.g., insurance). We quantified variation in nephrologist restrictiveness-proportion of criteria interpreted as absolute or partial contraindications versus minor or negligible concerns-and tested associations between restrictiveness and nephrologist age (proxy for training vintage) in logistic regression models, controlling for nephrologist-level and practice-level factors. Results: Of 144 nephrologists invited, 42 survey respondents (29% response rate) were 85% male and 54% non-Hispanic White, with mean age 52 years, and 67% spent ≥1 day/wk in outpatient dialysis facilities. Nephrologists interpreted patient criteria inconsistently; consistency was lower for psychosocial criteria (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.28) than for clinical criteria (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.43; P < 0.01). With each additional 10 years of age, nephrologists' odds of interpreting criteria restrictively (top tertile) doubled (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.96; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-4.07), with marginal statistical significance. This relationship was significant when interpreting psychosocial criteria (aOR: 3.18; 95% CI: 1.16-8.71) but not when interpreting clinical criteria (aOR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.52-2.38). Conclusion: Nephrologists interpret evaluation criteria variably when assessing patient suitability for transplant. Guideline-based educational interventions could influence nephrologists' referral decision-making differentially by age.

American Board of Internal Medicine Nephrology Procedure Requirements for Initial Certification: Time for a Change and Pursuing Consensus in the Nephrology Community.

In 1988, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) defined essential procedural skills in nephrology, and candidates for ABIM certification were required to present evidence of possessing the skills necessary for placement of temporary dialysis vascular access, hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and percutaneous renal biopsy. In 1996, continuous renal replacement therapy was added to the list of nephrology requirements. These procedure requirements have not been modified since 1996 while the practice of nephrology has changed dramatically. In March 2021, the ABIM Nephrology Board embarked on a policy journey to revise the procedure requirements for nephrology certification. With the guidance of nephrology diplomates, training program directors, professional and patient organizations, and other stakeholders, the ABIM Nephrology Board revised the procedure requirements to reflect current practice and national priorities. The approved changes include the Opportunity to Train standard for placement of temporary dialysis catheters, percutaneous kidney biopsies, and home hemodialysis which better reflects the current state of training in most training programs, and the new requirements for home dialysis therapies training will align with the national priority to address the underuse of home dialysis therapies. This perspective details the ABIM process for considering changes to the certification procedure requirements and how ABIM collaborated with the larger nephrology community in considering revisions and additions to these requirements.

Proportion of Hemodialysis Treatments with High Ultrafiltration Rate and the Association with Mortality.

Background: Rapid fluid removal during hemodialysis has been associated with increased mortality. The limit of ultrafiltration rate (UFR) monitored by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is 13 ml/kg per hour. It is not clear if the proportion of treatments with high UFR is associated with higher mortality. We examined the association of proportion of dialysis treatments with high UFR and mortality in end stage kidney failure patients receiving hemodialysis. Methods: This was a retrospective study of incident patients initiating hemodialysis between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, at Emory dialysis centers. The proportion of treatments with high UFR (>13 ml/kg per hour) per patient was calculated using data from the initial 3 months of dialysis therapy. Patients were categorized on the basis of quartiles of proportion of dialysis sessions with high UFR. Risk of death and survival probabilities were calculated and compared for all quartiles. Results: Of 1050 patients eligible, the median age was 59 years, 56% were men, and 91% were Black. The median UFR was 6.5 ml/kg per hour, and the proportion of sessions with high UFR was 5%. Thirty-one percent of patients never experienced high UFR. Being a man, younger age, shorter duration of hemodialysis sessions, lower weight, diabetic status, higher albumin, and history of heart failure were associated with a higher proportion of sessions with high UFR. Patients in the higher quartile (26% dialysis with high UFR, average UFR 9.8 ml/kg per hour, median survival of 5.6 years) had a higher risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.54; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.10) compared with those in the lower quartile (0% dialysis with high UFR, average UFR 4.7 ml/kg per hour, median survival 8.8 years). Conclusions: Patients on hemodialysis who did not experience frequent episodes of elevated UFR during the first 3 months of their dialysis tenure had a significantly lower risk of death compared with patients with frequent episodes of high UFR.

Effectiveness of a Web-Based Provider Communications Platform in Reducing Hospital Readmissions Among Patients Receiving Dialysis: A Pilot Pre-Post Study.

Rationale & Objective: Suboptimal care coordination between dialysis facilities and hospitals is an important driver of 30-day hospital readmissions among patients receiving dialysis. We examined whether the introduction of web-based communications platform ("DialysisConnect") was associated with reduced hospital readmissions. Study Design: Pilot pre-post study. Setting & Participants: A total of 4,994 index admissions at a single hospital (representing 2,419 patients receiving dialysis) during the study period (January 1, 2019-May 31, 2021). Intervention: DialysisConnect was available to providers at the hospital and 4 affiliated dialysis facilities (=intervention facilities) during the pilot period (November 1, 2020-May 31, 2021). Outcomes: The primary outcome was 30-day readmission; secondary outcomes included 30-day emergency department visits and observation stays. Interrupted time series and linear models with generalized estimating equations were used to assess pilot versus prepilot differences in outcomes; difference-in-difference analyses were performed to compare these differences between intervention versus control facilities. Sensitivity analyses included a third, prepilot/COVID-19 period (March 1, 2020-October 31, 2020). Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the monthly trends in the 30-day readmissions pilot versus prepilot periods (-0.60 vs -0.13, P = 0.85) for intervention facility admissions; the difference-in-difference estimate was also not statistically significant (0.54 percentage points, P = 0.83). Similar analyses including the prepilot/COVID-19 period showed that, despite a substantial drop in admissions at the start of the pandemic, there were no statistically significant differences across the 3 periods. The age-, sex-, race-, and comorbid condition-adjusted, absolute pilot versus prepilot difference in readmissions rate was 1.8% (-3.7% to 7.3%); similar results were found for other outcomes. Limitations: Potential loss to follow-up and pandemic effects. Conclusions: In this pilot, the introduction of DialysisConnect was not associated with reduced hospital readmissions. Tailored care coordination solutions should be further explored in future, multisite studies to improve the communications gap between dialysis facilities and hospitals.

Hypertension urgencies in the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED Pivotal trial.

The SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED Pivotal trial ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02439749 ) demonstrated significant reductions in blood pressure (BP) after renal denervation (RDN) compared to sham control in the absence of anti-hypertensive medications. Prior to the 3-month primary endpoint, medications were immediately reinstated for patients who met escape criteria defined as office systolic BP (SBP) ≥ 180 mmHg or other safety concerns. Our objective was to compare the rate of hypertensive urgencies in RDN vs. sham control patients. Patients were enrolled with office SBP ≥ 150 and < 180 mmHg, office diastolic BP (DBP) ≥ 90 mmHg and mean 24 h SBP ≥ 140 and < 170 mmHg. Patients had been required to discontinue any anti-hypertensive medications and were randomized 1:1 to RDN or sham control. In this post-hoc analysis, cumulative incidence curves with Kaplan-Meier estimates of rate of patients meeting escape criteria were generated for RDN and sham control patients. There were 16 RDN (9.6%) and 28 sham control patients (17.0%) who met escape criteria between baseline and 3 months. There was a significantly higher rate of sham control patients meeting escape criteria compared to RDN for all escape patients (p = 0.032), as well as for patients with a hypertensive urgency with office SBP ≥ 180 mmHg (p = 0.046). Rate of escape was similar between RDN and sham control for patients without a measured BP exceeding 180 mmHg (p = 0.32). In the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED Pivotal trial, RDN patients were less likely to experience hypertensive urgencies that required immediate use of anti-hypertensive medications compared to sham control.

A Web-Based, Provider-Driven Mobile App to Enhance Patient Care Coordination Between Dialysis Facilities and Hospitals: Development and Pilot Implementation Study.

BACKGROUND: We piloted a web-based, provider-driven mobile app (DialysisConnect) to fill the communication and care coordination gap between hospitals and dialysis facilities. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the development and pilot implementation of DialysisConnect. METHODS: DialysisConnect was developed iteratively with focus group and user testing feedback and was made available to 120 potential users at 1 hospital (hospitalists, advanced practice providers [APPs], and care coordinators) and 4 affiliated dialysis facilities (nephrologists, APPs, nurses and nurse managers, social workers, and administrative personnel) before the start of the pilot (November 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021). Midpilot and end-of-pilot web-based surveys of potential users were also conducted. Descriptive statistics were used to describe system use patterns, ratings of multiple satisfaction items (1=not at all; 3=to a great extent), and provider-selected motivators of and barriers to using DialysisConnect. RESULTS: The pilot version of DialysisConnect included clinical information that was automatically uploaded from dialysis facilities, forms for entering critical admission and discharge information, and a direct communication channel. Although physicians comprised most of the potential users of DialysisConnect, APPs and dialysis nurses were the most active users. Activities were unevenly distributed; for example, 1 hospital-based APP recorded most of the admissions (280/309, 90.6%) among patients treated at the pilot dialysis facilities. End-of-pilot ratings of DialysisConnect were generally higher for users versus nonusers (eg, "I can see the potential value of DialysisConnect for my work with dialysis patients": mean 2.8, SD 0.4, vs mean 2.3, SD 0.6; P=.02). Providers most commonly selected reduced time and energy spent gathering information as a motivator (11/26, 42%) and a lack of time to use the system as a barrier (8/26, 31%) at the end of the pilot. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study found that APPs and nurses were most likely to engage with the system. Survey participants generally viewed the system favorably while identifying substantial barriers to its use. These results inform how best to motivate providers to use this system and similar systems and inform future pragmatic research in care coordination among this and other populations.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Kidney Replacement Therapies Among Adults With Kidney Failure: An Observational Study of Variation by Patient Age.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients present with kidney failure at younger ages than White patients. Younger patients are also more likely to receive transplants and home dialysis than in-center hemodialysis (ICHD), but it is unknown whether racial and ethnic disparities in treatment differ by age. We compared use of kidney replacement therapies between racial and ethnic groups among patients with incident kidney failure overall and by age. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 830,402 US adult (age >21 years) patients initiating kidney failure treatment during the period of 2011-2018. EXPOSURES: Patient race and ethnicity (non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, Hispanic, or other) and age group (22-44, 45-64, 65-74, or 75-99 years). OUTCOME: Treatment modality (transplant, peritoneal dialysis [PD], home hemodialysis [HHD], or ICHD) as of day 90 of treatment. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Differences in treatment modalities were quantified for patient subgroups defined by race and ethnicity and by age. Log-binomial regression models were fit to estimate adjusted risk ratios. RESULTS: 81% of patients were treated with ICHD, 3.0% underwent transplants (85% preemptive, 57% living-donor), 10.5% were treated with PD, and 0.7% were treated with HHD. Absolute disparities in treatment were most pronounced among patients aged 22-44 years. Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, whose percentages of treatment with transplant, PD, and HHD were 10.9%, 19.0%, and 1.2%, respectively, non-Hispanic Black patients were less commonly treated with each modality (unadjusted percentages, 1.8%, 13.8%, and 0.6%, respectively), as were Hispanic patients (4.4%, 16.9%, and 0.5%, respectively; all differences P < 0.001). After adjustment, the largest relative disparities were observed for transplant among the 22-44-year age group; compared with non-Hispanic White patients, the adjusted risk ratios for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients were 0.21 (95% CI, 0.19-0.23) and 0.47 (95% CI, 0.43, 0.51), respectively. LIMITATIONS: Race and ethnicity data not self-reported. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with incident kidney failure, racial and ethnic disparities in transplant and home dialysis use are most pronounced among the youngest adult patient age group.

Absence of SARS-CoV-2 infections among patients with end-stage renal disease following facility-wide testing in four outpatient hemodialysis facilities.

Facility-wide testing performed at 4 outpatient hemodialysis facilities in the absence of an outbreak or escalating community incidence did not identify new SARS-CoV-2 infections and illustrated key logistical considerations essential to successful implementation of SARS-CoV-2 screening. Facilities could consider prioritizing facility-wide SARS-CoV-2 testing during suspicion of an outbreak in the facility or escalating community spread without robust infection control strategies in place. Being prepared to address operational considerations will enhance implementation of facility-wide testing in the outpatient dialysis setting.

Epidemiology of COVID-19 Infection in Hospitalized End-Stage Kidney Disease Patients in a Predominantly African-American Population.

BACKGROUND: End-stage kidney disease patients on dialysis are particularly susceptible to COVID-19 infection due to comorbidities, age, and logistic constraints of dialysis making social distancing difficult. We describe our experience with hospitalized dialysis patients with COVID-19 and factors associated with mortality. METHODS: From March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020, all dialysis patients admitted to 4 Emory Hospitals and tested for COVID-19 were identified. Sociodemographic information and clinical and laboratory data were obtained from the medical record. Death was defined as an in-hospital death or transfer to hospice for end-of-life care. Patients were followed until discharge or death. RESULTS: Sixty-four dialysis patients with COVID-19 were identified. Eighty-four percent were African-American. The median age was 64 years, and 59% were males. Four patients were on peritoneal dialysis, and 60 were on hemodialysis for a median time of 3.8 years, while 31% were obese. Fever (72%), cough (61%), and diarrhea (22%) were the most common symptoms at presentation. Thirty-three percent required admission to intensive care unit, and 23% required mechanical ventilation. The median length of stay was 10 days, while 11 patients (17%) died during hospitalization and 17% were discharged to a temporary rehabilitation facility. Age >65 years (RR 13.7, CI: 1.9-100.7), C-reactive protein >100 mg/dL (RR 8.3, CI: 1.1-60.4), peak D-dimer >3,000 ng/mL (RR 4.3, CI: 1.03-18.2), bilirubin >1 mg/dL (RR 3.9, CI: 1.5-10.4), and history of peripheral vascular disease (RR 3.2, CI: 1.2-9.1) were associated with mortality. Dialysis COVID-19-infected patients were more likely to develop thromboembolic complications than those without COVID-19 (RR 3.7, CI: 1.3-10.1). CONCLUSION: In a predominantly African-American population, the mortality of end-stage kidney disease patients admitted with COVID-19 infection was 17%. Age, C-reactive protein, D-dimer, bilirubin, and history of peripheral vascular disease were associated with worse survival.

COVID-19 infection control measures and outcomes in urban dialysis centers in predominantly African American communities.

BACKGROUND: Emory Dialysis serves an urban and predominantly African American population at its four outpatient dialysis facilities. We describe COVID-19 infection control measures implemented and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 in the Emory Dialysis facilities. METHODS: Implementation of COVID-19 infection procedures commenced in February 2020. Subsequently, COVID-19 preparedness assessments were conducted at each facility. Patients with COVID-19 from March 1-May 31, 2020 were included; with a follow-up period spanning March-June 30, 2020. Percentages of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were calculated, and characteristics of COVID-19 patients were summarized as medians or percentage. Baseline characteristics of all patients receiving care at Emory Dialysis (i.e. Emory general dialysis population) were presented as medians and percentages. RESULTS: Of 751 dialysis patients, 23 (3.1%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. The median age was 67.0 years and 13 patients (56.6%) were female. Eleven patients (47.8%) were residents of nursing homes. Nineteen patients (82.6%) required hospitalization and 6 patients (26.1%) died; the average number of days from a positive SARS-CoV-2 (COVID) test to death was 16.8 days (range 1-34). Two patients dialyzing at adjacent dialysis stations and a dialysis staff who cared for them, were diagnosed with COVID-19 in a time frame that may suggest transmission in the dialysis facility. In response, universal masking in the facility was implemented (prior to national guidelines recommending universal masking), infection control audits and re-trainings of PPE were also done to bolster infection control practices. CONCLUSION: We successfully implemented recommended COVID-19 infection control measures aimed at mitigating the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Most of the patients with COVID-19 required hospitalizations. Dialysis facilities should remain vigilant and monitor for possible transmission of COVID-19 in the facility.

Association of Patient-Reported Difficulty with Adherence with Achievement of Clinical Targets Among Hemodialysis Patients.

BACKGROUND: Non-adherence to dialysis recommendations is common and associated with poor outcomes. We used data from a cohort of in-center hemodialysis patients to determine whether patients' reported difficulties with adherence were associated with achievement of clinical targets for treatment recommendations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 799 in-center patients receiving hemodialysis from February 2010 to October 2016 at Emory Dialysis (Atlanta, GA, USA). Patient-reported difficulty with adherence (yes vs no) across multiple domains (coming to dialysis, completing dialysis sessions, fluid restrictions, diet restrictions, taking medications) was obtained from baseline social worker assessments. Achievement of clinical targets for coming to dialysis (missing ≥3 expected sessions), completing dialysis sessions (shortening >3 sessions by ≥15 min), fluid restrictions (mean interdialytic weight gain ≥3 kg), diet restrictions (mean potassium ≥5.0 mEq/L, mean phosphate >5.5 mg/dL), and taking medications (mean phosphate >5.5 mg/dL) was estimated over the following 12 weeks, using electronic medical record data. Crude agreement was assessed, and multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the associations between these measures. RESULTS: Agreement between reported difficulty in adherence and failure to achieve clinical targets was generally poor across all domains (percent agreement: 52.9-65.3%). After adjustment, patients reporting difficulty with fluid restrictions were 62% more likely to have mean interdialytic weight gain ≥3 kg than those not reporting difficulty (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.08, 2.43). Patients reporting difficulty with coming to dialysis were 41% more likely to miss ≥3 expected dialysis sessions over 12 weeks (OR: 1.41, 95% CI: 0.96, 2.07); however, this association was not statistically significant. There were no significant associations between reported difficulty and failure to achieve clinical targets in other categories. CONCLUSION: While reported difficulty with only fluid restrictions and coming to dialysis were associated with failure to achieve clinical targets in our study, the general lack of agreement between reported difficulty with adherence and failure to achieve clinical targets highlights a gap that could be explored to develop and target educational interventions aimed at increasing adherence among dialysis patients.

Delivery of a patient-friendly functioning report to improve patient-centeredness of dialysis care: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Provider recognition of level of functioning may be suboptimal in the dialysis setting, and this lack of recognition may lead to less patient-centered care. We aimed to assess whether delivery of an app-based, individualized functioning report would improve patients' perceptions of patient-centeredness of care. METHODS: In this pre-post pilot study at three outpatient dialysis facilities in metropolitan Atlanta, an individualized functioning report-including information on physical performance, perceived physical functioning, and community mobility-was delivered to patients receiving hemodialysis (n = 43) and their providers. Qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to gather patient and provider feedback to develop and assess the report and app. Paired t test was used to test for differences in patient perception of patient-centeredness of care (PPPC) scores (range, 1 = most patient-centered to 4 = least patient-centered) 1 month after report delivery. RESULTS: Delivery of the reports to both patients and providers was not associated with a subsequent change in patients' perceptions of patient-centeredness of their care (follow-up vs. baseline PPPC scores of 2.35 vs. 2.36; P > 0.9). However, patients and providers generally saw the potential of the report to improve the patient-centeredness of care and reacted positively to the individualized reports delivered in the pilot. Patients also reported willingness to undergo future assessments. However, while two-thirds of surveyed providers reported always or sometimes discussing the reports they received, most (98%) participating patients reported that no one on the dialysis care team had discussed the report with them within 1 month. CONCLUSIONS: Potential lack of fidelity to the intervention precludes definitive conclusions about effects of the report on patient-centeredness of care. The disconnect between patients' and providers' perceptions of discussions of the report warrants future study. However, this study introduces a novel, individualized, multi-domain functional report that is easily implemented in the setting of hemodialysis. Our pilot study provides guidance for improving its use both clinically and in future pragmatic research studies, both within and beyond the dialysis population.

Association between patient psychosocial characteristics and receipt of in-center nocturnal hemodialysis among prevalent dialysis patients.

INTRODUCTION: Compared to traditional in-center hemodialysis (HD), in-center nocturnal dialysis (INHD) is characterized by longer sessions and nighttime administration, which may lead to better outcomes for some patients. Given the importance of patient choice in the decision to initiate INHD, we explored associations between patients' psychosocial characteristics and their receipt of INHD. METHODS: Among hemodialysis patients at a medium-sized dialysis organization, we identified INHD patients as those for whom ≥80% of dialysis sessions were INHD sessions-starting at 6:30 pm or later and lasting ≥5 hours-over the 3 months (≥20 sessions total) after their first INHD session. We extracted dialysis session data from electronic medical records and psychosocial data from social worker assessments. We tested associations of patients' psychosocial characteristics-as well as demographic and clinical characteristics-with INHD receipt among all hemodialysis patients (INHD and HD) in bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regression models. FINDINGS: Among 759 patients with complete data, we identified 47 (6.2%) as INHD patients. On average, these patients were more likely than HD patients to be employed (full-time 10.6% vs. 5.2%; part-time 17.0% vs. 4.2%; P < 0.001), and they were significantly less likely to require ambulatory assistance (14.9% vs. 39.6%, P < 0.001). In multivariable regressions, we found that part-time employment (versus being unemployed) was associated with a 7.1 percentage-point higher likelihood of being an INHD patient (P = 0.01), and the negative association with ambulatory assistance needs approached statistical significance (P = 0.056). No other psychosocial factors included in this main regression analysis were statistically significantly associated with INHD patient status. DISCUSSION: Researchers comparing the outcomes of patients undergoing INHD versus other treatment modalities will need to account for differences in employment status-and other factors like requiring ambulatory assistance and age which may predict the ability to work-between INHD users and comparison patients to avoid bias in estimates.

Long-term outcomes among Medicare patients readmitted in the first year of hemodialysis: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Readmission within 30 days of hospital discharge is common and costly among end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. Little is known about long-term outcomes after readmission. We estimated the association between hospital admissions and readmissions in the first year of dialysis and outcomes in the second year. METHODS: Data on incident dialysis patients with Medicare coverage were obtained from the United States Renal Data System (USRDS). Readmission patterns were summarized as no admissions in the first year of dialysis (Admit-), at least one admission but no readmissions within 30 days (Admit+/Readmit-), and admissions with at least one readmission within 30 days (Admit+/Readmit+).We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the association between readmission pattern and mortality, hospitalization, and kidney transplantation, accounting for demographic and clinical covariates. RESULTS: Among the 128,593 Medicare ESRD patients included in the study, 18.5% were Admit+/Readmit+, 30.5% were Admit+/Readmit-, and 51.0% were Admit-. Readmit+/Admit+ patients had substantially higher long-term risk of mortality (HR = 3.32 (95% CI, 3.21-3.44)), hospitalization (HR = 4.46 (95% CI, 4.36-4.56)), and lower likelihood of kidney transplantation (HR = 0.52 (95% CI, 0.44-0.62)) compared to Admit- patients; these associations were stronger than those among Admit+/Readmit- patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with readmissions in the first year of dialysis were at substantially higher risk of poor outcomes than either patients who had no admissions or patients who had hospital admissions but no readmissions. Identifying strategies to both prevent readmission and mitigate risk among patients who had a readmission may improve outcomes among this substantial, high-risk group of ESRD patients.

Burden and Correlates of Hospital Readmissions among U.S. Peritoneal Dialysis Patients.

Background:Hospital readmissions are common among in-center hemodialysis patients, but little is known about readmissions among peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. Using national administrative data, we aimed to examine the burden and correlates of hospital readmissions among U.S. PD patients.Methods:Among 10,505 adult U.S. PD patients with an index admission (first admission after 120 days on dialysis) between 31 January 2011 and 30 November 2014, readmissions were defined as new hospital admissions within 30 days of index discharge. Multivariable logistic regression was used to obtain adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for readmission.Results:Overall, 26.8% of index admissions were followed by a readmission. Readmitted patients were more likely to have congestive heart failure (31.0% vs 25.4%; p < 0.001) and peripheral arterial disease (11.6% vs 8.6%; p < 0.001) and had longer index admission length of stay (median = 4 vs 3 days; p < 0.001) than those who were not; age, sex, and race did not differ by readmission status. After adjustment for patient and index admission characteristics, longer length of stay (≥ 4 vs < 4 days, OR = 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35 - 1.62), peripheral arterial disease (OR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.16 - 1.57), congestive heart failure (OR = 1.25, 95% CI 1.13 - 1.39), and ischemic heart disease (OR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.01 - 1.24) were associated with higher likelihood of readmission; index admission due to peritonitis vs other causes was associated with lower likelihood of readmission (OR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 - 0.92).Conclusions:Our results suggest that, particularly in the absence of a PD-related cause of hospitalization such as peritonitis, PD patients may be at high risk for readmission and may benefit from closer post-discharge monitoring.

Association of social worker-assessed psychosocial factors with 30-day hospital readmissions among hemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the effect of psychosocial factors on hospital readmission in the setting of hemodialysis is limited. We examined whether social worker-assessed factors were associated with 30-day readmission among prevalent hemodialysis patients. METHODS: Data on 14 factors were extracted from the first available psychosocial assessment performed by social workers at three metropolitan Atlanta dialysis centers. Index admissions (first admission preceded by ≥30 days without a previous hospital discharge) were identified in the period 2/1/10-12/31/14, using linked national administrative hospitalization data. Readmission was defined as any admission within 30 days after index discharge. Associations of each of the psychosocial factors with readmission were assessed using multivariable logistic regression with adjustment for patient and index admission characteristics. RESULTS: Among 719 patients with index admissions, 22.1% were readmitted within 30 days. No psychosocial factors were statistically significantly associated with readmission risk. However, history of substance abuse vs. none was associated with a 29% higher risk of 30-day readmission [OR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.75-2.23], whereas depression/anxiety was associated with 20% lower risk [OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.47-1.36]. Patients who were never married and those who were divorced, or widowed had 38 and 17% higher risk of 30-day readmission, respectively, than those who were married [OR: 1.38, 95% CI: 0.84-2.72; OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.73-1.90]. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that psychosocial issues may be associated with risk of 30-day readmission among dialysis patients. Despite the limitations of lack of generalizability and potential misclassification due to patient self-report of psychosocial factors to social workers, further study is warranted to determine whether addressing these factors through targeted interventions could potentially reduce readmissions among hemodialysis patients.