Filter clotting with continuous renal replacement therapy in COVID-19.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appears to be associated with increased arterial and venous thromboembolic disease. These presumed abnormalities in hemostasis have been associated with filter clotting during continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). We aimed to characterize the burden of CRRT filter clotting in COVID-19 infection and to describe a CRRT anticoagulation protocol that used anti-factor Xa levels for systemic heparin dosing. Multi-center study of consecutive patients with COVID-19 receiving CRRT. Primary outcome was CRRT filter loss. Sixty-five patients were analyzed, including 17 using an anti-factor Xa protocol to guide systemic heparin dosing. Fifty-four out of 65 patients (83%) lost at least one filter. Median first filter survival time was 6.5 [2.5, 33.5] h. There was no difference in first or second filter loss between the anti-Xa protocol and standard of care anticoagulation groups, however fewer patients lost their third filter in the protocolized group (55% vs. 93%) resulting in a longer median third filter survival time (24 [15.1, 54.2] vs. 17.3 [9.5, 35.1] h, p = 0.04). The rate of CRRT filter loss is high in COVID-19 infection. An anticoagulation protocol using systemic unfractionated heparin, dosed by anti-factor Xa levels is reasonable approach to anticoagulation in this population.

Use of a Supportive Kidney Care Video Decision Aid in Older Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: There are few studies of patient-facing decision aids that include supportive kidney care as an option. We tested the efficacy of a video decision aid on knowledge of supportive kidney care among older patients with advanced CKD. METHODS: Participants (age ≥ 65 years with advanced CKD) were randomized to receive verbal or video education. Primary outcome was knowledge of supportive kidney care (score range 0-3). Secondary outcomes included preference for supportive kidney care, and satisfaction and acceptability of the video. RESULTS: Among all participants (n = 100), knowledge of supportive kidney care increased significantly after receiving education (p < 0.01); however, there was no difference between study arms (p = 0.68). There was no difference in preference for supportive kidney care between study arms (p = 0.49). In adjusted analyses, total health literacy score (aOR 1.08 [95% CI: 1.003-1.165]) and nephrologists' answer of "No" to the Surprise Question (aOR 4.87 [95% CI: 1.22-19.43]) were associated with preference for supportive kidney care. Most felt comfortable watching the video (96%), felt the content was helpful (96%), and would recommend the video to others (96%). CONCLUSIONS: Among older patients with advanced CKD, we did not detect a significant difference between an educational verbal script and a video decision aid in improving knowledge of supportive kidney care or preferences. However, patients who received video education reported high satisfaction and acceptability ratings. Future research will determine the effectiveness of a supportive kidney care video decision aid on real-world patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02698722 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Caring for older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease and considering their needs: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease often do not understand treatment options for renal replacement therapy, conservative kidney management, and advance care planning. It is unclear whether both clinicians and patients have similar perspectives on these treatments and end-of-life care. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore clinician and patient/caregiver perceptions of treatments for end-stage renal disease and advance care planning. METHODS: This was a qualitative interview study of nephrologists (n = 8), primary care physicians (n = 8), patients (n = 10, ≥ 65 years and estimated glomerular filtration rate < 20), and their caregivers (n = 5). Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was reached. Transcripts were transcribed using TranscribeMe. Using Nvivo 12, we identified key themes via narrative analysis. RESULTS: We identified three key areas in which nephrologists', primary care physicians', and patients' expectations and/or experiences did not align: 1) dialysis discussions; 2) dialysis decision-making; and 3) processes of advance care planning. Nephrologist felt most comfortable specifically managing renal disease whereas primary care physicians felt their primary role was to advocate for patients and lead advance care planning discussions. Patients and caregivers had many concerns about the impact of dialysis on their lives and did not fully understand advance care planning. Clinicians' perspectives were aligned with each other but not with patient/caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the differences in experiences and expectations between clinicians, patients, and their caregivers regarding treatment decisions and advance care planning. Despite clinician agreement on their responsibilities, patients and caregivers were unclear about several aspects of their care. Further research is needed to test feasible models of patient-centered education and communication to ensure that all stakeholders are informed and feel engaged.