Center-Effect of Incident Hemodialysis Vascular Access Use: Analysis of a Bi-national Registry.

Background: Commencing hemodialysis (HD) with an arteriovenous access is associated with superior patient outcomes compared with a catheter, but the majority of patients in Australia and New Zealand initiate HD with a central venous catheter. This study examined patient and center factors associated with arteriovenous fistula/graft access use at HD commencement. Methods: We included all adult patients starting chronic HD in Australia and New Zealand between 2004 and 2015. Access type at HD initiation was analyzed using logistic regression. Patient-level factors included sex, age, race, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, primary kidney disease, late nephrologist referral, comorbidities, and prior RRT. Center-level factors included size; transplant capability; home HD proportion; incident peritoneal dialysis (average number of patients commencing RRT with peritoneal dialysis per year); mean weekly HD hours; average blood flow; and achievement of phosphate, hemoglobin, and weekly Kt/V targets. The study included 27,123 patients from 61 centers. Results: Arteriovenous access use at HD commencement varied four-fold from 15% to 62% (median 39%) across centers. Incident arteriovenous access use was more likely in patients aged 51-72 years, males, and patients with a BMI of >25 kg/m2 and polycystic kidney disease; but use was less likely in patients with a BMI of <18.5 kg/m2, late nephrologist referral, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, and prior RRT. Starting HD with an arteriovenous access was less likely in centers with the highest proportion of home HD, and no center factor was associated with higher arteriovenous access use. Adjustment for center-level characteristics resulted in a 25% reduction in observed intercenter variability of arteriovenous access use at HD initiation compared with the model adjusted for only patient-level characteristics. Conclusions: This study identified several patient and center factors associated with incident HD access use, yet these factors did not fully explain the substantial variability in arteriovenous access use across centers.

Comparison of hemodialysis, hemofiltration, and acetate-free biofiltration for ESRD: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing hemodialysis (HD), hemofiltration (HF), hemodiafiltration (HDF), and acetate-free biofiltration (AFB) in the treatment of patients with end-stage renal disease to assess their clinical effectiveness. METHODS: The Cochrane CENTRAL Registry, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the American College of Physicians Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, and reference lists were searched for randomized trials of HF, HDF, and AFB compared with HD; HDF compared with AFB; and HF compared with HDF. Two reviewers extracted data for all-cause mortality; hypotension, headache, nausea, vomiting, and any other adverse symptoms; quality of life (QoL); hospitalization; dialysis adequacy; and end-of-treatment beta 2 -microglobulin levels. Analysis was by means of a random-effects model, and results are expressed as relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Eighteen eligible trials (588 patients) were identified. HDF was associated with significantly greater mortality risk than HD (4 trials, 326 patients; RR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.37 to 9.47). Risk for mortality was not different among the other comparisons. Risks for hypotension episodes and dialysis-related symptoms were not significantly different with HD, HF, HDF, and AFB (18 trials, 583 patients). QoL, assessed by using an unvalidated scoring tool, appeared to be significantly improved in patients on HDF therapy than those on HD therapy (1 trial, 67 patients; WMD, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.3 to 0.9), but this was not evident when validated QoL assessment tools were used. Use of AFB compared with HDF was not associated with a significant difference in risk for hospitalization (1 trial, 11 patients; WMD, -0.45; 95% CI, -1.42 to 0.52). HDF in comparison to HD did not reduce the risk for carpal tunnel syndrome (1 trial, 67 patients; RR, 2.04; 95% CI, 0.59 to 7.00). Kt/V was significantly different with HDF compared with HD (3 trials, 124 patients; WMD, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.22). No other substantial data for these interventions and their impact on major patient-centered outcomes were available. CONCLUSION: The trials assessed were not powered adequately and had suboptimal method quality. It is not possible on the basis of effectiveness to prefer one extracorporeal renal replacement therapy modality to the other for end-stage kidney disease because significant differences in clinically important outcomes have not been shown by available published RCTs.