Proton pump inhibitors may enhance the risk of citalopram- and escitalopram-associated sudden cardiac death among patients receiving hemodialysis.

PURPOSE: Polypharmacy is common in the hemodialysis population and increases the likelihood that patients will be exposed to clinically significant drug-drug interactions. Concurrent use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) with citalopram or escitalopram may potentiate the QT-prolonging effects of these selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors through pharmacodynamic and/or pharmacokinetic interactions. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the U.S. Renal Data System (2007-2017) and a new-user design to examine the differential risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) associated with citalopram/escitalopram initiation vs. sertraline initiation in the presence and absence of PPI use among adults receiving hemodialysis. We studied 72 559 patients:14 983 (21%) citalopram/escitalopram initiators using a PPI; 26 503 (36%) citalopram/escitalopram initiators not using a PPI;10 779 (15%) sertraline initiators using a PPI; and 20 294 (28%) sertraline initiators not using a PPI (referent). The outcome of interest was 1-year SCD. We used inverse probability of treatment weighted survival models to estimate weighted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Compared with sertraline initiators not using a PPI, citalopram/escitalopram initiators using a PPI had the numerically highest risk of SCD (HR [95% CI] = 1.31 [1.11-1.54]), followed by citalopram/escitalopram initiators not using a PPI (HR [95% CI] = 1.22 [1.06-1.41]). Sertraline initiators using a PPI had a similar risk of SCD compared with those not using a PPI (HR [95% CI] = 1.03 [0.85-1.26]). CONCLUSIONS: Existing PPI use may elevate the risk of SCD associated with citalopram or escitalopram initiation among hemodialysis patients.

Targeting Patient and Health System Barriers To Improve Rates of Hemodialysis Initiation with an Arteriovenous Access.

Background: Guidelines recommend pre-emptive creation of arteriovenous (AV) access. However, <20% of US patients initiate hemodialysis (HD) with a functional AV access. We implemented a quality improvement (QI) program to improve pre-HD vascular access care. Methods: After conducting qualitative research with key informants, we implemented a 7-month vascular access support QI program at Geisinger Health. The program targeted patient and health system barriers to AV access through education, needs assessment, peer support, care navigation, and electronic supports. We performed pre-, intra-, and postprogram stakeholder interviews to identify program barriers and facilitators and to assess acceptability. In a research substudy, we compared pre- and postprogram self-efficacy, knowledge, and confidence navigating vascular access care. Results: There were 37 patient and 32 clinician/personnel participants. Of the 37 patients, 34 (92%) completed vascular access-specific education, 33 (89%) underwent needs assessment, eight (22%) engaged with peer mentors, 21 (57%) had vein mapping, 18 (49%) had an initial surgical appointment, 15 (40%) underwent AV access surgery, and six (16%) started HD during the 7-month program. Qualitative findings demonstrated program acceptability to participants and suggested that education provision and emotional barrier identification were important to engaging patients in vascular access care. Research findings showed pre- to postprogram improvements in patient self-efficacy (28.1-30.8, P=0.05) and knowledge (4.9-6.9, P=0.004), and trends toward improvements in confidence among patients (8.0-8.7, P=0.2) and providers (7.5-7.8, P=0.1). Conclusions: Our intervention targeting patient and health system barriers improved patient vascular access knowledge and self-efficacy. Clinical Trial registry name and registration number: Breaking Down Care Process and Patient-level Barriers to Arteriovenous Access Creation Prior to Hemodialysis Initiation, NCT04032613.

Effect of ultrafiltration profiling on outcomes among maintenance hemodialysis patients: a pilot randomized crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: More rapid fluid removal during hemodialysis is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes and longer dialysis recovery times. The effect of ultrafiltration (UF) profiling, independent of concomitant sodium profiling, on markers of intradialytic hemodynamics and other outcomes has been inadequately studied. METHODS: Four-phase, blinded crossover trial. Participants (UF rates > 10 mL/h/kg) were assigned in random order to receive hemodialysis with UF profiling (constantly declining UF rate, intervention) vs. hemodialysis with conventional UF (control). Each 3-week 9-treatment period was followed by a 1-week 3-treatment washout period. Participants crossed into each study arm twice (2 phases/arm); 18 treatments per treatment type. The primary outcomes were intradialytic hypotension, pre- to post-dialysis troponin T change, and change from baseline in left ventricular global longitudinal strain. Other outcomes included intradialytic symptoms and blood volume measured-plasma refill (post-dialysis volume status measure), among others. Each participant served as their own control. RESULTS: On average, the 34 randomized patients (mean age 56 years, 24% female, mean dialysis vintage 6.3 years) had UF rates > 10 mL/h/kg in 56% of treatments during the screening period. All but 2 patients completed the 15-week study (prolonged hospitalization, kidney transplant). There was no significant difference in intradialytic hypotension, troponin T change, or left ventricular strain between hemodialysis with UF profiling and conventional UF. With UF profiling, participants had significantly lower odds of light-headedness and plasma refill compared to hemodialysis with conventional UF. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrafiltration (UF) profiling did not reduce the odds of treatment-related cardiac stress but did reduce the odds of light-headedness and post-dialysis hypervolemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03301740 (registered October 4, 2017).

Use of QT Prolonging Medications by Hemodialysis Patients and Individuals Without End-Stage Kidney Disease.

Background The rate of sudden cardiac death in the hemodialysis population exceeds that of the general population by >20-fold. Hemodialysis patients may be particularly susceptible to sudden cardiac death provoked by drug-induced QT prolongation because of their substantial cardiovascular disease burden, exposure to electrolyte shifts during dialysis, and extensive polypharmacy. However, population-specific data regarding the frequency and patterns of QT prolonging medication use are limited. Methods and Results We conducted a descriptive drug utilization study using 3 administrative databases, the United States Renal Data System, MarketScan, and Medicare claims. We characterized the extent and patterns of QT prolonging medication use by adult hemodialysis patients and individuals without end-stage kidney disease annually from 2012 to 2016. We also identified instances of high-risk QT prolonging medication use among hemodialysis patients. In total, 338 515 hemodialysis patients and 40.7 million individuals without end-stage kidney disease were studied. Annual utilization rates of QT prolonging medications with known torsades de pointes risk in hemodialysis patients were ~1.4 to ~2.5 times higher than utilization rates in individuals without end-stage kidney disease. Hemodialysis patients with demographic and clinical risk factors for drug-induced QT prolongation were exposed to medications with known torsades de pointes risk more often than patients without risk factors. Conclusions Hemodialysis patients use QT prolonging medications with known torsades de pointes risk more extensively than individuals without end-stage kidney disease. Given the widespread use and instances of high-risk prescribing, future studies evaluating the cardiac safety of these drugs in the hemodialysis population are needed.

Comparative Cardiac Safety of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors among Individuals Receiving Maintenance Hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Individuals receiving maintenance hemodialysis may be particularly susceptible to the lethal cardiac consequences of drug-induced QT prolongation because they have a substantial cardiovascular disease burden and high level of polypharmacy, as well as recurrent exposure to electrolyte shifts during dialysis. Electrophysiologic data indicate that among the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), citalopram and escitalopram prolong the QT interval to the greatest extent. However, the relative cardiac safety of SSRIs in the hemodialysis population is unknown. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used data from a cohort of Medicare beneficiaries receiving hemodialysis included in the US Renal Data System registry (2007-2014). We used a new-user design to compare the 1-year risk of sudden cardiac death among hemodialysis patients initiating SSRIs with a higher potential for prolonging the QT interval (citalopram, escitalopram) versus the risk among those initiating SSRIs with lower QT-prolonging potential (fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, sertraline). We estimated adjusted hazard ratios using inverse probability of treatment weighted survival models. Nonsudden cardiac death was treated as a competing event. RESULTS: The study included 30,932 (47.1%) hemodialysis patients who initiated SSRIs with higher QT-prolonging potential and 34,722 (52.9%) who initiated SSRIs with lower QT-prolonging potential. Initiation of an SSRI with higher versus lower QT-prolonging potential was associated with higher risk of sudden cardiac death (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.05 to 1.31). This association was more pronounced among elderly individuals, females, patients with conduction disorders, and those treated with other non-SSRI QT-prolonging medications. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneous QT-prolonging potential of SSRIs may differentially affect cardiac outcomes in the hemodialysis population.

Target weight achievement and ultrafiltration rate thresholds: potential patient implications.

BACKGROUND: Higher ultrafiltration (UF) rates and extracellular hypo- and hypervolemia are associated with adverse outcomes among maintenance hemodialysis patients. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently considered UF rate and target weight achievement measures for ESRD Quality Incentive Program inclusion. The dual measures were intended to promote balance between too aggressive and too conservative fluid removal. The National Quality Forum endorsed the UF rate measure but not the target weight measure. We examined the proposed target weight measure and quantified weight gains if UF rate thresholds were applied without treatment time (TT) extension or interdialytic weight gain (IDWG) reduction. METHODS: Data were taken from the 2012 database of a large dialysis organization. Analyses considered 152,196 United States hemodialysis patients. We described monthly patient and dialysis facility target weight achievement patterns and examined differences in patient characteristics across target weight achievement status and differences in facilities across target weight measure scores. We computed the cumulative, theoretical 1-month fluid-related weight gain that would occur if UF rates were capped at 13 mL/h/kg without concurrent TT extension or IDWG reduction. RESULTS: Target weight achievement patterns were stable over the year. Patients who did not achieve target weight (post-dialysis weight ≥ 1 kg above or below target weight) tended to be younger, black and dialyze via catheter, and had shorter dialysis vintage, greater body weight, higher UF rate and more missed treatments compared with patients who achieved target weight. Facilities had, on average, 27.1 ± 9.7% of patients with average post-dialysis weight ≥ 1 kg above or below the prescribed target weight. In adjusted analyses, facilities located in the midwest and south and facilities with higher proportions of black and Hispanic patients and higher proportions of patients with shorter TTs were more likely to have unfavorable facility target weight measure scores. Without TT extension or IDWG reduction, UF rate threshold (13 mL/h/kg) implementation led to an average theoretical 1-month, fluid-related weight gain of 1.4 ± 3.0 kg. CONCLUSIONS: Target weight achievement patterns vary across clinical subgroups. Implementation of a maximum UF rate threshold without adequate attention to extracellular volume status may lead to fluid-related weight gain.

Predictors of 30-Day Hospital Readmission among Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients: A Hospital's Perspective.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Over 35% of patients on maintenance dialysis are readmitted to the hospital within 30 days of hospital discharge. Outpatient dialysis facilities often assume responsibility for readmission prevention. Hospital care and discharge practices may increase readmission risk. We undertook this study to elucidate risk factors identifiable from hospital-derived data for 30-day readmission among patients on hemodialysis. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Data were taken from patients on maintenance hemodialysis discharged from University of North Carolina Hospitals between May of 2008 and June of 2013 who received in-patient hemodialysis during their index hospitalizations. Multivariable logistic regression models with 30-day readmission as the dependent outcome were used to identify readmission risk factors. Models considered variables available at hospital admission and discharge separately. RESULTS: Among 349 patients, 112 (32.1%) had a 30-day hospital readmission. The discharge (versus admission) model was more predictive of 30-day readmission. In the discharge model, malignancy comorbid condition (odds ratio [OR], 2.08; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.04 to 3.11), three or more hospitalizations in the prior year (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.06 to 3.64), ≥10 outpatient medications at hospital admission (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.00 to 2.88), catheter vascular access (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.01 to 3.65), outpatient dialysis at a nonuniversity-affiliated dialysis facility (OR, 3.59; 95% CI, 2.03 to 6.36), intradialytic hypotension (OR, 3.10; 95% CI, 1.45 to 6.61), weekend discharge day (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.01 to 3.31), and serum albumin <3.3 g/dl (OR, 4.28; 95% CI, 2.37 to 7.73) were associated with higher readmission odds. A decrease in prescribed medications from admission to discharge (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.51) was associated with lower readmission odds. Findings were robust across different model-building approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Models containing discharge day data had greater predictive capacity of 30-day readmission than admission models. Identified modifiable readmission risk factors suggest that improved medication education and improved transitions from hospital to community may potentially reduce readmissions. Studies evaluating targeted transition programs among patients on dialysis are needed.