Global variations in funding and use of hemodialysis accesses: an international report using the ISN Global Kidney Health Atlas.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of contemporary data describing global variations in vascular access for hemodialysis (HD). We used the third iteration of the International Society of Nephrology Global Kidney Health Atlas (ISN-GKHA) to highlight differences in funding and availability of hemodialysis accesses used for initiating HD across world regions. METHODS: Survey questions were directed at understanding the funding modules for obtaining vascular access and types of accesses used to initiate dialysis. An electronic survey was sent to national and regional key stakeholders affiliated with the ISN between June and September 2022. Countries that participated in the survey were categorized based on World Bank Income Classification (low-, lower-middle, upper-middle, and high-income) and by their regional affiliation with the ISN. RESULTS: Data on types of vascular access were available from 160 countries. Respondents from 35 countries (22% of surveyed countries) reported that > 50% of patients started HD with an arteriovenous fistula or graft (AVF or AVG). These rates were higher in Western Europe (n = 14; 64%), North & East Asia (n = 4; 67%), and among high-income countries (n = 24; 38%). The rates of > 50% of patients starting HD with a tunneled dialysis catheter were highest in North America & Caribbean region (n = 7; 58%) and lowest in South Asia and Newly Independent States and Russia (n = 0 in both regions). Respondents from 50% (n = 9) of low-income countries reported that > 75% of patients started HD using a temporary catheter, with the highest rates in Africa (n = 30; 75%) and Latin America (n = 14; 67%). Funding for the creation of vascular access was often through public funding and free at the point of delivery in high-income countries (n = 42; 67% for AVF/AVG, n = 44; 70% for central venous catheters). In low-income countries, private and out of pocket funding was reported as being more common (n = 8; 40% for AVF/AVG, n = 5; 25% for central venous catheters). CONCLUSIONS: High income countries exhibit variation in the use of AVF/AVG and tunneled catheters. In low-income countries, there is a higher use of temporary dialysis catheters and private funding models for access creation.

Derivation and Internal Validation of a Clinical Risk Prediction Tool for Hyperkalemia-Related Emergency Department Encounters Among Hemodialysis Patients.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 10% of emergency department (ED) visits among dialysis patients are for conditions that could potentially be managed in outpatient settings, such as hyperkalemia. OBJECTIVE: Using population-based data, we derived and internally validated a risk score to identify hemodialysis patients at increased risk of hyperkalemia-related ED events. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Ten in-center hemodialysis sites in southern Alberta, Canada. PATIENTS: All maintenance hemodialysis patients (≥18 years) between March 2009 and March 2017. MEASUREMENTS: Predictors of hyperkalemia-related ED events included patient demographics, comorbidities, health-system use, laboratory measurements, and dialysis information. The outcome of interest (hyperkalemia-related ED events) was defined by International Classification of Diseases (10th Revision; ICD-10) codes and/or serum potassium [K+] ≥6 mmol/L. METHODS: Bootstrapped logistic regression was used to derive and internally validate a model of important predictors of hyperkalemia-related ED events. A point system was created based on regression coefficients. Model discrimination was assessed by an optimism-adjusted C-statistic and calibration by deciles of risk and calibration slope. RESULTS: Of the 1533 maintenance hemodialysis patients in our cohort, 331 (21.6%) presented to the ED with 615 hyperkalemia-related ED events. A 9-point scale for risk of a hyperkalemia-related ED event was created with points assigned to 5 strong predictors based on their regression coefficients: ≥1 laboratory measurement of serum K+ ≥6 mmol/L in the prior 6 months (3 points); ≥1 Hemoglobin A1C [HbA1C] measurement ≥8% in the prior 12 months (1 point); mean ultrafiltration of ≥10 mL/kg/h over the preceding 2 weeks (2 points); ≥25 hours of cumulative time dialyzing over the preceding 2 weeks (1 point); and dialysis vintage of ≥2 years (2 points). Model discrimination (C-statistic: 0.75) and calibration were good. LIMITATIONS: Measures related to health behaviors, social determinants of health, and residual kidney function were not available for inclusion as potential predictors. CONCLUSIONS: While this tool requires external validation, it may help identify high-risk patients and allow for preventative strategies to avoid unnecessary ED visits and improve patient quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable-observational study design.

CONTEXTE: Environ 10 % des visites aux urgences des patients hémodialysés concernent des affections qui pourraient être prises en charge en ambulatoire, notamment l'hyperkaliémie. OBJECTIF: À l'aide de données populationnelles, nous avons dérivé et validé en interne une cote de risque pour dépister les patients hémodialysés présentant un risque accru de visites aux urgences liées à l'hyperkaliémie. TYPE D'ÉTUDE: Étude de cohorte rétrospective. CADRE: Dix sites d'hémodialyse en center du sud de l'Alberta (Canada). SUJETS: Tous les adultes sous hémodialyse chronique entre mars 2009 et mars 2017. MESURES: Les prédicteurs d'une visite aux urgences liée à l'hyperkaliémie incluaient les données démographiques du patient, les maladies concomitantes, l'utilization du système de santé, les mesures de laboratoire et les informations sur la dialyze. Le résultat d'intérêt (nombre de visites aux urgences liées à l'hyperkaliémie) a été défini par les codes CIM-10 et/ou une kaliémie [K+] égale ou supérieure à 6 mmol/L. MÉTHODOLOGIE: La régression logistique de type « bootstrap ¼ a été utilisée pour dériver et valider en interne un modèle des principaux prédicteurs d'une visites aux urgences liée à l'hyperkaliémie. Un système de pointage a été créé à partir des coefficients de régression. La discrimination du modèle a été évaluée par une statistique C corrigée selon l'optimisme, et l'étalonnage par des déciles de risque et une courbe d'étalonnage. RÉSULTATS: Des 1 533 patients de notre cohorte, 331 (21,6 %) se sont présentés aux urgences pour un total de 615 événements liés à l'hyperkaliémie. Une échelle à neuf points mesurant le risque a été créée, où un pointage a été attribué à cinq puissants prédicteurs en fonction du coefficient de régression: i) au moins une mesure de K+ égale ou supérieure à 6 mmol/L dans les six mois précédents (3 points); ii) au moins une mesure de l'hémoglobine A1C [HbA1C] égale ou supérieure à 8 % dans les 12 mois précédents (1 point); iii) une ultrafiltration moyenne d'au moins 10 mL/kg/heure dans les deux semaines précédentes (2 points); iv) un cumulatif d'au moins 25 heures de dialyze dans les deux semaines précédentes (1 point); et v) le fait d'être en dialyze depuis au moins 2 ans (2 points). La discrimination du modèle (statistique C: 0,75) et l'étalonnage ont été jugés bons. LIMITES: Les mesures relatives aux comportements en matière de santé, aux déterminants sociaux de la santé et à la fonction rénale résiduelle n'étaient pas disponibles pour leur inclusion comme prédicteurs potentiels. CONCLUSION: Bien que cet outil doive être validé en externe, il peut aider à dépister les patients présentant un risque élevé de visiter les urgences pour une hyperkaliémie. Il pourrait également favoriser l'élaboration de stratégies préventives visant à réduire les visites inutiles et à améliorer la qualité de vie des patients. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'ESSAI: Sans objet ­ essai observationnel.

Return on investment of the diabetes foot care clinical pathway implementation in Alberta, Canada.

AIMS: Based on best practices, the diabetes foot care clinical pathway (DFCCP) has been developed and implemented in several clinics in Alberta, Canada. We performed a return on investment (ROI) analysis of this implementation. METHODS: We used a cohort design comparing both cost and return (in terms of reduced health services utilization, HSU) between diabetes patients who were exposed and who were unexposed, to the intervention. We used a difference-in-difference approach and a propensity-score-matching technique to minimize biases due to differences in demographic and clinical characteristics between two cohorts. We used a 1-year time-horizon and converted all costs/savings to 2019 Canadian dollars (1 CA$ ~= 0.75 US$). RESULTS: The intervention helped avoid $3500 in costs of HSU per patient-year. Subtracting the intervention cost of $500, the net benefit of intervention was $3000 (ranged $2400-$3700) per patient-year. The ROI ratio was estimated at 7.4 (ranged 6.1 to 8.8) meaning that every invested $1 returned $7.4 (ranged $6.1-$8.8) for the health system. The probability of intervention being cost-saving ranged from 99.5-100%. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of DFCCP in Alberta is cost-saving. A continuation of the pathway implementation at studied clinics and a spread to other clinics are recommended.

Surveillance cultures of tunneled cuffed catheter exit sites in chronic hemodialysis patients are of no benefit.

Catheter-related infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in hemodialysis (HD) patients. This study evaluated the utility of surveillance swab cultures (Ssc) of tunneled cuffed catheter (TCC) exit sites as a prediction and prevention strategy for infection. A 6-month prospective-controlled trial with 94 chronic HD patients with a TCC who received monthly Ssc and were stratified by dialysis day into topical therapy based on Ssc results (Group A) or no therapy (Group B). Outcomes were exit site infection (ESI) and catheter-associated bacteremia (CAB). The overall monthly prevalence of positive Ssc was 14.9%. There was no difference in the number of positive Ssc (17.7% vs. 11.6%, p > 0.05) or ESI (19.6% vs.16.3%, p > 0.05) between Groups A and B, respectively. Catheter-associated bacteremia was higher in Group A (17.7% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.05). There were significantly more ESI in the patients treated for a positive Ssc. In Group A, the incidence of ESI was significantly higher in those treated for a positive vs. negative Ssc (55% vs. 12%, p = 0.009) and CAB rates trended higher with positive Ssc (22.2% vs. 16.7%, p > 0.05). The strategy of treating positive surveillance cultures is not beneficial. Positive Ssc do not predict the occurrence of catheter-related infection, and treatment of these cultures may lead to increased infection rates.