Impact of Rescheduling a Missed Hemodialysis Treatment on Clinical Outcomes.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Among patients treated with in-center hemodialysis (HD), missed treatments are associated with higher subsequent rates of hospitalization and other adverse outcomes compared with attending treatment. The objective of this study was to determine whether and to what degree attending a rescheduled treatment on the day following a missed treatment ameliorates these risks. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, observational. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Included patients were those who were, as of any of 12 index dates during 2014, adult Medicare beneficiaries treated with in-center HD (vintage ≥ 90 days) on a Monday/Wednesday/Friday schedule. EXPOSURE: Treatment attendance on the index date and the subsequent day. OUTCOMES: Hospital admissions, emergency department visits, mortality, blood pressure, and anemia measures, considered during the 7- and 30-day periods following exposure. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: In parallel analyses, patients who missed or rescheduled treatment were each matched (1:5) to patients who attended treatment on the index date on the basis of index day of week and propensity score. Within the matched cohorts, outcomes were compared across exposures using repeated-measures generalized linear models. RESULTS: Compared with attending treatment (N = 19,260), a missed treatment (N = 3,852) was associated with a 2.09-fold higher rate of hospitalization in the subsequent 7 days; a rescheduled treatment (N = 2,128) was associated with a 1.68-fold higher rate of hospitalization than attending (N = 10,640). Compared with attending treatment, hospitalization rates were 1.39- and 1.28-fold higher among patients who missed and rescheduled treatment, respectively, during the 30-day outcome period. Emergency department visits followed a similar pattern of associations as hospitalization. No statistically significant associations were observed with respect to mortality for either missed or rescheduled treatments compared with attending treatment. LIMITATIONS: Possible influence of unmeasured confounding; unknown generalizability to patients with non-Medicare insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Attending a rescheduled in-center HD treatment attenuates but does not fully mitigate the adverse effects of a missed treatment.

Association of Chronic Condition Special Needs Plan With Hospitalization and Mortality Among Patients With End-Stage Kidney Disease.

Importance: While several studies have demonstrated the benefit of enrollment in chronic condition special needs plans (C-SNPs) for other chronic diseases (eg, diabetes), there is no evaluation of the association of C-SNPs with outcomes among patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Objective: To examine whether and to what degree C-SNP enrollment was associated with improved clinical outcomes and quality of life in patients with ESKD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study included 2718 patients who were newly enrolled in an ESKD C-SNP between January 1, 2013, and September 30, 2017, and receiving dialysis from DaVita Kidney Care. Patients were followed up until death, loss to follow-up, or end of study (ie, December 31, 2018). Enrollees in C-SNP were matched via multiple clinical and demographic characteristics with 2 different control populations, as follows: (1) those in the same facilities (n = 2545) or (2) those in similar counties (n = 1986). Patients enrolled in CareMore C-SNPs (n = 206) were excluded from the study. Data analysis was conducted June to December 2019. Exposures: Standard ESKD care with dialysis plus access to an integrated care team who worked with the patient and the dialysis team, comprehensive health assessments done by the integrated care team, and access to select benefits (such as vision and dental care) as a C-SNP enrollee. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospitalizations, mortality, laboratory values indicative of metabolic control, and Kidney Disease Quality of Life 36-item (KDQOL-36) survey scores. Results: The 2545 C-SNP enrollees in the facility-matched analysis had a mean (SD) age of 57.2 (12.9) years, and included 968 (38.0%) women, 1328 (52.2%) Hispanic individuals, and 553 (21.7%) African American individuals. The 1986 C-SNP enrollees in the county-matched analysis had a mean (SD) age of 57.8 (12.2) years, with 705 (35.5%) women, 1085 (54.6%) Hispanic individuals, and 472 (23.8%) African American individuals. Compared with patients not enrolled in C-SNP, enrollees had lower hospitalization rates, with incidence rate ratios of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.97; P = .006) in the facility-matched analysis and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.70-0.83; P < .001) in the county-matched analysis. Compared with patients not enrolled in C-SNP, enrollees had decreased mortality risk in the same facilities (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68-0.88; P < .001) and in the same counties (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.88; P < .001). No significant differences were observed between C-SNP enrollees and matched patients in metabolic laboratory values or KDQOL-36 survey scores. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found a positive association of C-SNP enrollment with lower rates of hospitalization and mortality. The findings suggest that the additional services and benefits C-SNPs provide may improve outcomes compared with standard of care for patients with ESKD.

Dialysate temperature of 36 °C: association with clinical outcomes.

Dialysate cooling, either individualized based upon patient body temperature, or to a standardized temperature below 37 °C, has been proposed to minimize hemodynamic insults and improve outcomes among hemodialysis patients. However, low dialysate temperatures (35-35.5 °C) are associated with patient discomfort, and individualized dialysate cooling is difficult to operationalize. Here, we tested whether a standardized dialysate temperature of 36 °C (dT36) was associated with improved clinical outcomes compared to the default temperature of 37 °C (dT37). Because patients with known hemodynamic instability may be selectively prescribed dT36, we minimized selection bias by considering only incident adult in-center hemodialysis patients who, between Jan 2011 and Dec 2013 received their first-ever hemodialysis treatment at a large dialysis organization. Exposure status was based on the treatment order for this first-ever treatment. 313 dT36 patients were identified and propensity-score matched (1:5) to 1565 dT37 controls. Death, hospitalization, and missed hemodialysis treatments were considered from the date of first-ever hemodialysis treatment until the earliest of death, loss to follow-up, crossover (month in which prescribed dialysate temperature was consistent with patient's exposure group for <80% of treatments), or study end (June 2015). During follow-up, rates of death, hospitalization and missed hemodialysis treatments did not differ between the two groups. This study therefor showed no benefit of dT36 vs. dT37 with respect to these clinical outcomes. Our results do not favor conversion to a default dialysate temperature of 36 °C. Individualized dialysate cooling may provide a more reliable approach to achieve the hemodynamic benefits associated with reduced dialysate temperature.

In-center hemodialysis absenteeism: prevalence and association with outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the rate of missed treatments among hemodialysis (HD) patients, and the association between treatment nonadherence and clinical outcomes. DATA SOURCE: The data used in this study were based on electronic medical records and Medicare claims. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective, observational study. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: HD patients miss 9.9% of all treatments. Approximately half of the missed treatments are due to observable medical events, predominantly hospitalizations, while half result from nonadherence ("absence"). A single absence is associated with a 1.4-fold greater risk of hospitalization, and a 2.2-fold greater risk of death in the subsequent 30 days. CONCLUSION: Treatment nonadherence is common among HD patients and is associated with adverse outcomes. Interventions that improve adherence may improve patient health and reduce costs.