Effects of a Knowledge-Translation Intervention on Early Dialysis Initiation: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The Initiating Dialysis Early and Late (IDEAL) trial, published in 2009, found no clinically measurable benefit with respect to risk of mortality or early complications with early dialysis initiation versus deferred dialysis start. After these findings, guidelines recommended an intent-to-defer approach to dialysis initiation, with the goal of deferring it until clinical symptoms arise. METHODS: To evaluate a four-component knowledge translation intervention aimed at promoting an intent-to-defer strategy for dialysis initiation, we conducted a cluster randomized trial in Canada between October 2014 and November 2015. We randomized 55 clinics, 27 to the intervention group and 28 to the control group. The educational intervention, using knowledge-translation tools, included telephone surveys from a knowledge-translation broker, a 1-year center-specific audit with feedback, delivery of a guidelines package, and an academic detailing visit. Participants included adults who had at least 3 months of predialysis care and who started dialysis in the first year after the intervention. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients who initiated dialysis early (at eGFR >10.5 ml/min per 1.73 m2). The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients who initiated in the acute inpatient setting. RESULTS: The analysis included 3424 patients initiating dialysis in the 1-year follow-up period. Of these, 509 of 1592 (32.0%) in the intervention arm and 605 of 1832 (33.0%) in the control arm started dialysis early. There was no difference in the proportion of individuals initiating dialysis early or in the proportion of individuals initiating dialysis as an acute inpatient. CONCLUSIONS: A multifaceted knowledge translation intervention failed to reduce the proportion of early dialysis starts in patients with CKD followed in multidisciplinary clinics. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02183987. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02183987.

Fit for Dialysis: a qualitative exploration of the impact of a research-based film for the promotion of exercise in hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Exercise improves functional outcomes and quality of life of older patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing hemodialysis. Yet exercise is not promoted as part of routine care. Health care providers and family carers rarely provide encouragement for patients to exercise, and the majority of older patients remain largely inactive. There is thus the need for a shift in the culture of hemodialysis care towards the promotion of exercise for wellness, including expectations of exercise participation by older patients, and encouragement by health care providers and family carers. Film-based educational initiatives hold promise to effect cultures of best practice, but have yet to be utilized in this population. METHODS: We developed a research-based film, Fit for Dialysis, to promote exercise for wellness in hemodialysis care. Using a qualitative approach, we evaluated the effects that resulted from engagement with this film (e.g. knowledge/attitudes regarding the importance of exercise-based principles of wellness) as well as the generative mechanisms of these effects (e.g. realism, aesthetics). We also explored the factors related to patients, family carers, and health care providers that influenced engagement with the film, and the successful uptake of the key messages of Fit for Dialysis. We conducted qualitative interviews with 10 patients, 10 health care providers, and 10 family carers. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The film was perceived to be effective in increasing patients', family carers' and health care providers' understanding of the importance of exercise and its benefits, motivating patients to exercise, and in increasing encouragement by family carers and health care providers of patient exercise. Realism (e.g. character identification) and aesthetic qualities of the film (e.g. dialogue) were identified as central generative mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: Fit for Dialysis is well-positioned to optimize the health and wellbeing of older adults undergoing hemodialysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02754271 ( ClinicalTrials.gov ), retroactively registered on April 21, 2016.

Pro: Buttonhole cannulation of arteriovenous fistulae.

Arteriovenous fistulae remain the access of choice for most hemodialysis patients. However, several factors limit their uptake and long-term patency, resulting in suboptimal prevalent rates in many high-income countries. Patients place considerable value on the avoidance of vascular access complications, pain and disfigurement. The approach to cannulation is a modifiable practice that could improve patient-important outcomes, with buttonhole needling offering some theoretical advantages over the standard rope-ladder and area methods. In this narrative review, we summarize key findings of studies reporting the benefits and risks associated with the buttonhole method, highlighting methodological limitations as well as recent refinements to the technique that may represent potential opportunities for reducing infection risk. We highlight the need for greater certainty surrounding the potential benefits of the buttonhole cannulation technique and propose some directions for future research.

The risk of hospitalization and modality failure with home dialysis.

While home dialysis is being promoted, there are few comparative effectiveness studies of home-based modalities to guide patient decisions. To address this, we matched 1116 daily home hemodialysis (DHD) patients by propensity scores to 2784 contemporaneous USRDS patients receiving home peritoneal dialysis (PD), and compared hospitalization rates from cardiovascular, infectious, access-related or bleeding causes (prespecified composite), and modality failure risk. We performed similar analyses for 1187 DHD patients matched to 3173 USRDS patients receiving in-center conventional hemodialysis (CHD). The composite hospitalization rate was significantly lower with DHD than with PD (0.93 vs. 1.35/patient-year, hazard ratio=0.73 (95% CI=0.67-0.79)). DHD patients spent significantly fewer days in hospital than PD patients (5.2 vs. 9.2 days/patient-year), and significantly more DHD patients remained admission-free (52% DHD vs. 32% PD). In contrast, there was no significant difference in hospitalizations between DHD and CHD (DHD vs. CHD: 0.93 vs. 1.10/patient-year, hazard ratio 0.92 (0.85-1.00)). Cardiovascular hospitalizations were lower with DHD than with CHD (0.68 (0.61-0.77)), while infectious and access hospitalizations were higher (1.15 (1.04-1.29) and 1.25 (1.08-1.43), respectively). Significantly more PD than DHD patients switched back to in-center HD (44% vs. 15%; 3.4 (2.9-4.0)). In this prevalent cohort, home DHD was associated with fewer admissions and hospital days than PD, and a substantially lower risk of modality failure.

High-performance information search filters for CKD content in PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE.

BACKGROUND: Finding relevant articles in large bibliographic databases such as PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE to inform care and future research is challenging. Articles relevant to chronic kidney disease (CKD) are particularly difficult to find because they are often published under different terminology and are found across a wide range of journal types. STUDY DESIGN: We used computer automation within a diagnostic test assessment framework to develop and validate information search filters to identify CKD articles in large bibliographic databases. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 22,992 full-text articles in PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, or EMBASE. INDEX TEST: 1,374,148 unique search filters. REFERENCE TEST: We established the reference standard of article relevance to CKD by manual review of all full-text articles using prespecified criteria to determine whether each article contained CKD content or not. We then assessed filter performance by calculating sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value for the retrieval of CKD articles. Filters with high sensitivity and specificity for the identification of CKD articles in the development phase (two-thirds of the sample) were then retested in the validation phase (remaining one-third of the sample). RESULTS: We developed and validated high-performance CKD search filters for each bibliographic database. Filters optimized for sensitivity reached at least 99% sensitivity, and filters optimized for specificity reached at least 97% specificity. The filters were complex; for example, one PubMed filter included more than 89 terms used in combination, including "chronic kidney disease," "renal insufficiency," and "renal fibrosis." In proof-of-concept searches, physicians found more articles relevant to the topic of CKD with the use of these filters. LIMITATIONS: As knowledge of the pathogenesis of CKD grows and definitions change, these filters will need to be updated to incorporate new terminology used to index relevant articles. CONCLUSIONS: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE can be filtered reliably for articles relevant to CKD. These high-performance information filters are now available online and can be used to better identify CKD content in large bibliographic databases.

A multinational cohort study of in-center daily hemodialysis and patient survival.

Increasing hemodialysis frequency from three to six times per week improves left-ventricular mass and health-related quality of life; however, effects on survival remain uncertain. To study this, we identified 556 patients in the International Quotidian Dialysis Registry who received daily hemodialysis (more than five times per week) between 2001 and 2010. Using propensity score-based matching, we matched 318 of these patients to 575 contemporaneous patients receiving conventional (three times weekly) hemodialysis in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study. All patients had session times of <5 h, and received dialysis in the clinic or hospital setting. Mortality rates between groups were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression. Mean dialysis frequency in the daily group was 5.8 sessions per week. Mean weekly treatment time was 15.7 h for daily and 11.9 h for conventional patients. During 1382 patient-years of follow-up, 170 patients died. Those receiving daily hemodialysis had a significantly higher mortality rate than those receiving conventional hemodialysis (15.6 and 10.9 deaths per 100 patient-years, respectively: hazard ratio 1.6). Similar results were found in prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Unlike previous studies, we found that in-center daily hemodialysis was not associated with any mortality benefit. Thus, decisions to undertake daily hemodialysis should be based on quality-of-life improvements, rather than on claims of improved survival.

Canadian Society of Nephrology guidelines for the management of patients with ESRD treated with intensive hemodialysis.

Intensive (longer and more frequent) hemodialysis has emerged as an alternative to conventional hemodialysis for the treatment of patients with end-stage renal disease. However, given the differences in dialysis delivery and models of care associated with intensive dialysis, alternative approaches to patient management may be required. The purpose of this work was to develop a clinical practice guideline for the Canadian Society of Nephrology. We applied the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for guideline development and performed targeted systematic reviews and meta-analysis (when appropriate) to address prioritized clinical management questions. We included studies addressing the treatment of patients with end-stage renal disease with short daily (≥5 days per week, <3 hours per session), long (3-4 days per week, ≥5.5 hours per session), or long-frequent (≥5 days per week, ≥5.5 hours per session) hemodialysis. We included clinical trials and observational studies with or without a control arm (1990 and later). Based on a prioritization exercise, 6 interventions of interest included optimal vascular access type, buttonhole cannulation, antimicrobial prophylaxis for buttonhole cannulation, closed connector devices, and dialysate calcium and dialysate phosphate additives for patients receiving intensive hemodialysis. We developed 6 recommendations addressing the interventions of interest. Overall quality of the evidence was very low and all recommendations were conditional. We provide detailed commentaries to guide in shared decision making. The main limitation was the very low overall quality of evidence that precluded strong recommendations. Most included studies were small single-arm observational studies. Three randomized controlled trials were applicable, but provided only indirect evidence. Published information for patient values and preference was lacking. In conclusion, we provide 6 recommendations for the practice of intensive hemodialysis. However, due to very low-quality evidence, all recommendations were conditional. We therefore also highlight priorities for future research.

Dialysate calcium concentration and mineral metabolism in long and long-frequent hemodialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis for a Canadian Society of Nephrology clinical practice guideline.

BACKGROUND: Patients treated with conventional hemodialysis (HD) develop disorders of mineral metabolism that are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. More frequent and longer HD has been associated with improvement in hyperphosphatemia that may improve outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis to inform the clinical practice guideline on intensive dialysis for the Canadian Society of Nephrology. SETTING & POPULATION: Adult patients receiving outpatient long (≥5.5 hours/session; 3-4 times per week) or long-frequent (≥5.5 hours/session, ≥5 sessions per week) HD. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: We included clinical trials, cohort studies, case series, case reports, and systematic reviews. INTERVENTIONS: Dialysate calcium concentration ≥1.5 mmol/L and/or phosphate additive. OUTCOMES: Fragility fracture, peripheral arterial and coronary artery disease, calcific uremic arteriolopathy, mortality, intradialytic hypotension, parathyroidectomy, extraosseous calcification, markers of mineral metabolism, diet liberalization, phosphate-binder use, and muscle mass. RESULTS: 21 studies were identified: 2 randomized controlled trials, 2 reanalyses of data from the randomized controlled trials, and 17 observational studies. Dialysate calcium concentration ≥1.5 mmol/L for patients treated with long and long-frequent HD prevents an increase in parathyroid hormone levels and a decline in bone mineral density without causing harm. Both long and long-frequent HD were associated with a reduction in serum phosphate level of 0.42-0.45 mmol/L and a reduction in phosphate-binder use. There was no direct evidence to support the use of a dialysate phosphate additive. LIMITATIONS: Almost all the available information is related to changes in laboratory values and surrogate outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Dialysate calcium concentration ≥1.5 mmol/L for most patients treated with long and long-frequent dialysis prevents an increase in parathyroid hormone levels and decline in bone mineral density without increased risk of calcification. It seems prudent to add phosphate to the dialysate for patients with a low predialysis phosphate level or very low postdialysis phosphate level until more evidence becomes available.

Vascular access for intensive maintenance hemodialysis: a systematic review for a Canadian Society of Nephrology clinical practice guideline.

BACKGROUND: Practices in vascular access management with intensive hemodialysis may differ from those used in conventional hemodialysis. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review to inform clinical practice guidelines for the provision of intensive hemodialysis. SETTING & POPULATION: Adult patients receiving maintenance (>3 months) intensive hemodialysis (frequent [≥5 hemodialysis treatments per week] and/or long [>5.5 hours per hemodialysis treatment]). SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE (1990-2011) for randomized and observational studies. We also searched conference proceedings (2007-2011). INTERVENTIONS: (1) Central venous catheter (CVC) versus arteriovenous (AV) access, (2) buttonhole versus rope-ladder cannulation, (3) topical antimicrobial cream versus none in buttonhole cannulation, and (4) closed connector devices among CVC users. OUTCOMES: Access-related infection, survival, hospitalization, patency, access survival, intervention rates, and quality of life. RESULTS: We included 23, 7, and 5 reports describing effectiveness by access type, buttonhole cannulation, and closed connector device, respectively. No study directly compared CVC with AV access. On average, bacteremia and local infection rates were higher with CVC compared with AV access. Access intervention rates were higher with more frequent hemodialysis, but access survival did not differ. Buttonhole cannulation was associated with bacteremia rates similar to those seen with CVCs in some series. Topical mupirocin seemed to attenuate this effect. No direct comparisons of closed connector devices versus standard luer-locking devices were found. Low rates of actual or averted (near misses) air embolism and bleeding were reported with closed connector devices. LIMITATIONS: Overall, evidence quality was very low. Limited direct comparisons addressing main review questions, small sample sizes, selective outcome reporting, publication bias, and residual confounding were major factors. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights several differences in the management of vascular access in conventional and intensive hemodialysis populations. We identify a need for standardization of vascular access outcome reporting and a number of priorities for future research.

Biofeedback dialysis for hypotension and hypervolemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is associated with morbidity and mortality. We conducted a systematic review to determine whether biofeedback hemodialysis (HD) can improve IDH and other outcomes, compared with HD without biofeedback. METHODS: Data sources included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science. We included randomized trials that enrolled adult patients (>18 years) with IDH or extracellular fluid expansion and that used biofeedback to guide ultrafiltration and/or dialysate conductivity. Two authors assessed trial quality and independently extracted data in duplicate. We assessed heterogeneity using I(2). We applied the GRADE framework for rating the quality of evidence. RESULTS: We found two parallel-arm randomized controlled clinical trials and six randomized crossover trials meeting inclusion criteria. All trials were open-label and at least four were industry-sponsored. Studies were small (median n = 27). No study evaluated hospitalization and the evidence for effect on mortality was of very low quality. Three studies assessed quality of life (QoL); none demonstrated benefit or harm, and quality of evidence was very low. Biofeedback significantly reduced IDH (risk ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.86; I(2)= 0%). Quality of evidence for this outcome was low due to risk of bias and potential publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Biofeedback dialysis significantly reduces the frequency of IDH. Large and well-designed randomized trials are needed to assess the effects on survival, hospitalization and QoL.

Intensive hemodialysis associates with improved survival compared with conventional hemodialysis.

Patients undergoing conventional maintenance hemodialysis typically receive three sessions per week, each lasting 2.5-5.5 hours. Recently, the use of more intensive hemodialysis (>5.5 hours, three to seven times per week) has increased, but the effects of these regimens on survival are uncertain. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to examine whether intensive hemodialysis associates with better survival than conventional hemodialysis. We identified 420 patients in the International Quotidian Dialysis Registry who received intensive home hemodialysis in France, the United States, and Canada between January 2000 and August 2010. We matched 338 of these patients to 1388 patients in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study who received in-center conventional hemodialysis during the same time period by country, ESRD duration, and propensity score. The intensive hemodialysis group received a mean (SD) 4.8 (1.1) sessions per week with a mean treatment time of 7.4 (0.87) hours per session; the conventional group received three sessions per week with a mean treatment time of 3.9 (0.32) hours per session. During 3008 patient-years of follow-up, 45 (13%) of 338 patients receiving intensive hemodialysis died compared with 293 (21%) of 1388 patients receiving conventional hemodialysis (6.1 versus 10.5 deaths per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.55 [95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.87]). The strength and direction of the observed association between intensive hemodialysis and improved survival were consistent across all prespecified subgroups and sensitivity analyses. In conclusion, there is a strong association between intensive home hemodialysis and improved survival, but whether this relationship is causal remains unknown.

Multifaceted Intervention to Increase the Use of Home Dialysis: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Home dialysis therapies (peritoneal and home hemodialysis) are less expensive and provide similar outcomes to in-center hemodialysis, but they are underutilized in most health systems. Given this, we designed a multifaceted intervention to increase the use of home dialysis. In this study, our objective was to evaluate the effect of this intervention on home dialysis use in CKD clinics across Canada. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial in 55 CKD clinic clusters in nine provinces in Canada between October 2014 and November 2015. Participants included all adult patients who initiated dialysis in the year following the intervention. We evaluated the implementation of a four-component intervention, which included phone surveys from a knowledge translation broker, a 1-year center-specific audit/feedback on home dialysis use, delivery of an educational package (including tools aimed at both providers and patients), and an academic detailing visit. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients using home dialysis at 180 days after dialysis initiation. RESULTS: A total of 55 clinics were randomized (27 in the intervention and 28 in the control), with 5312 patients initiating dialysis in the 1-year follow-up period. In the primary analysis, there was no difference in the use of home dialysis at 180 days in the intervention and control clusters (absolute risk difference, 4%; 95% confidence interval, -2% to 10%). Using a difference-in-difference comparison, the use of home dialysis at 180 days was similar before and after implementation of the intervention (difference of 0% in intervention clinics; 95% confidence interval, -2% to 3%; difference of 0.8% in control clinics; 95% confidence interval, -1% to 3%; P=0.84). CONCLUSIONS: A multifaceted intervention did not increase the use of home dialysis in adults initiating dialysis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: A Cluster Randomized Trial to Assess the Impact of Patient and Provider Education on Use of Home Dialysis, NCT02202018.

Kidney Function and Potassium Monitoring After Initiation of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Blockade Therapy and Outcomes in 2 North American Populations.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines recommend routine kidney function and serum potassium testing within 30 days of initiating ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker therapy. However, evidence is lacking about whether follow-up testing reduces therapy-related adverse outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted 2 population-based retrospective cohort studies in Kaiser Permanente Northern California and Ontario, Canada. Patients with outpatient serum creatinine and potassium tests in the 30 days after starting ACE inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker therapy were matched 1:1 to patients without follow-up tests. We evaluated the association of follow-up testing with 30-day all-cause mortality and hospitalization with acute kidney injury or hyperkalemia using Cox regression. We also developed and externally validated a risk score to identify patients at risk of having abnormally high serum creatinine and potassium values in follow-up. We identified 75 251 matched pairs initiating ACE inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker therapy between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2017, in Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Follow-up testing was not significantly associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in Kaiser Permanente Northern California (hazard ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.54-1.06]) and was associated with higher mortality in 84 905 matched pairs in Ontario (hazard ratio, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.07-1.62]). In Kaiser Permanente Northern California, follow-up testing was significantly associated with higher rates of hospitalization with acute kidney injury (hazard ratio, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.10-2.22]) and hyperkalemia (hazard ratio, 3.36 [95% CI, 1.08-10.41]), as was observed in Ontario. The risk score for abnormal potassium provided good discrimination (area under the curve [AUC], 0.75) and excellent calibration of predicted risks, while the risk score for abnormal serum creatinine provided moderate discrimination (AUC, 0.62) but excellent calibration. CONCLUSIONS: Routine laboratory monitoring after ACE inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker initiation was not associated with a lower risk of 30-day mortality. We identified patient subgroups in which targeted testing may be effective in identifying therapy-related changes in serum potassium or kidney function.

Major Outcomes With Personalized Dialysate TEMPerature (MyTEMP): Rationale and Design of a Pragmatic, Registry-Based, Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Small randomized trials demonstrated that a lower compared with higher dialysate temperature reduced the average drop in intradialytic blood pressure. Some observational studies demonstrated that a lower compared with higher dialysate temperature was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. There is now the need for a large randomized trial that compares the effect of a low vs high dialysate temperature on major cardiovascular outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to test the effect of outpatient hemodialysis centers randomized to (1) a personalized temperature-reduced dialysate protocol or (2) a standard-temperature dialysate protocol for 4 years on cardiovascular-related death and hospitalizations. DESIGN: The design of the study is a pragmatic, registry-based, open-label, cluster randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Hemodialysis centers in Ontario, Canada, were randomized on February 1, 2017, for a trial start date of April 3, 2017, and end date of March 31, 2021. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 84 hemodialysis centers will care for approximately 15 500 patients and provide over 4 million dialysis sessions over a 4-year follow-up. INTERVENTION: Hemodialysis centers were randomized (1:1) to provide (1) a personalized temperature-reduced dialysate protocol or (2) a standard-temperature dialysate protocol of 36.5°C. For the personalized protocol, nurses set the dialysate temperature between 0.5°C and 0.9°C below the patient's predialysis body temperature for each dialysis session, to a minimum dialysate temperature of 35.5°C. PRIMARY OUTCOME: A composite of cardiovascular-related death or major cardiovascular-related hospitalization (a hospital admission with myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or ischemic stroke) captured in Ontario health care administrative databases. PLANNED PRIMARY ANALYSIS: The primary analysis will follow an intent-to-treat approach. The hazard ratio of time-to-first event will be estimated from a Cox model. Within-center correlation will be considered using a robust sandwich estimator. Observation time will be censored on the trial end date or when patients die from a noncardiovascular event. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov; identifier: NCT02628366.

CONTEXTE: De petits essais à répartition aléatoire ont montré que l'utilisation d'un dialysat à basse température réduisait le risque d'hypotension intra-dialytique. De même, certaines études observationnelles ont démontré qu'un dialysat à basse température était associé à un plus faible risque de mortalité toute cause ou d'origine cardiovasculaire. Le temps est venu de procéder à un vaste essai à répartition aléatoire comparant les effets d'un dialysat à basse température et à température standard sur les principaux résultats cardiovasculaires. OBJECTIF: Répartir aléatoirement des centres d'hémodialyse ambulatoire pour qu'ils suivent pendant quatre ans (i) un protocole personnalisé de dialysat à basse température ou (ii) un protocole de dialysat à température standard, et tester l'effet sur les hospitalisations et la mortalité attribuables à des événements cardiovasculaires. TYPE D'ÉTUDE: Un essai clinique à répartition aléatoire en grappes. CADRE: Le 1er février 2017, des centres d'hémodialyse de l'Ontario (Canada) ont été répartis aléatoirement en vue d'un essai qui a débuté le 3 avril 2017 et qui se poursuivra jusqu'au 31 mars 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Quatre-vingt-quatre centres d'hémodialyse qui prendront en charge environ 15 500 patients pendant les quatre ans de suivi. INTERVENTION: Les centres d'hémodialyse ont été répartis aléatoirement (1:1) pour offrir (i) un protocole personnalisé de dialysat à température réduite ou (ii) un protocole de dialysat à 36,5°C. Pour le protocole personnalisé, les infirmières règlent la température du dialysat entre 0,5 et 0,9°C sous la température corporelle du patient mesurée avant la dialyse, jusqu'à une température minimale de 35,5°C. PRINCIPAUX RÉSULTATS: Un ensemble d'hospitalisations attribuables à un événement cardiovasculaire majeur (accident ischémique cérébral non fatal, infarctus du myocarde ou insuffisance cardiaque congestive) et de décès d'origine cardiovasculaire consignés dans les bases de données de santé de l'Ontario. PRINCIPALE ANALYSE ENVISAGÉE: L'analyse primaire adoptera une approche fondée sur l'intention de traiter. Un modèle de Cox servira à estimer le rapport de risque du temps écoulé jusqu'au premier événement. La corrélation intra-centre sera prise en compte à l'aide d'un estimateur sandwich robuste. Le temps d'observation sera censuré à la date de fin de l'essai ou au moment d'un décès non lié à un événement cardiovasculaire.

Buttonhole versus Stepladder Cannulation for Home Hemodialysis: A Multicenter, Randomized, Pilot Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Canadian home hemodialysis guidelines highlight the potential differences in complications associated with arteriovenous fistula (AVF) cannulation technique as a research priority. Our primary objective was to determine the feasibility of randomizing patients with ESKD training for home hemodialysis to buttonhole versus stepladder cannulation of the AVF. Secondary objectives included training time, pain with needling, complications, and cost by cannulation technique. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: All patients training for home hemodialysis at seven Canadian hospitals were assessed for eligibility, and demographic information and access type was collected on everyone. Patients who consented to participate were randomized to buttonhole or stepladder cannulation technique. Time to train for home hemodialysis, pain scores on cannulation, and complications over 12 months was recorded. For eligible but not randomized patients, reasons for not participating in the trial were documented. RESULTS: Patient recruitment was November 2013 to November 2015. During this time, 158 patients began training for home hemodialysis, and 108 were ineligible for the trial. Diabetes mellitus as a cause of ESKD (31% versus 12%) and central venous catheter use (74% versus 6%) were more common in ineligible patients. Of the 50 eligible patients, 14 patients from four out of seven sites consented to participate in the study (28%). The most common reason for declining to participate was a strong preference for a particular cannulation technique (33%). Patients randomized to buttonhole versus stepladder cannulation required a shorter time to complete home hemodialysis training. We did not observe a reduction in cannulation pain or complications with the buttonhole method. Data linkages for a formal cost analysis were not conducted. CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to demonstrate the feasibility of conducting a randomized, controlled trial of buttonhole versus stepladder cannulation in Canada with a sufficient number of patients on home hemodialysis to be able to draw meaningful conclusions.

Association Between the Publication of the Initiating Dialysis Early and Late Trial and the Timing of Dialysis Initiation in Canada.

Importance: Published in 2010, the Initiating Dialysis Early and Late (IDEAL) randomized clinical trial, which randomized patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) between 10 and 15 mL/min/1.73 m2 to planned initiation of dialysis with an estimated GFR between 10 and 14 mL/min/1.73 m2 (early start) or an estimated GFR between 5 and 7 mL/min/1.73 m2 (late start), concluded that early initiation was not associated with improved survival or clinical outcomes. Objective: To assess the association between the IDEAL trial results and the proportion of early dialysis starts over time. Design, Setting, and Participants: This interrupted time series analysis used data from the Canadian Organ Replacement Register to study adult (≥18 years of age) patients with incident chronic dialysis between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2015, in Canada, which has a universal health care system. Patients from the province of Quebec were excluded because its privacy laws preclude submission of deidentified data without first-person consent. The patients included in the study (n = 28 468) had at least 90 days of nephrologist care before starting dialysis and a recorded estimated GFR at dialysis initiation. Data analyses were performed from November 2016 to January 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of early dialysis starts (estimated GFR >10.5 mL/min/1.73 m2), and the secondary outcomes included the proportions of acute inpatient dialysis starts, patients who started dialysis using a home modality, and patients receiving hemodialysis who started with an arteriovenous access. Measures included the trend prior to the IDEAL trial publication, the change in this trend after publication, and the immediate consequence of publication. Results: The final cohort comprised 28 468 patients, of whom 17 342 (60.9%) were male and the mean (SD) age was 64.8 (14.6) years. Before the IDEAL trial, a statistically significant increasing trend was observed in the monthly proportion of early dialysis starts (adjusted rate ratio, 1.002; 95% CI, 1.001-1.004; P = .004). After the IDEAL trial, an immediate decrease was observed in the proportion of early dialysis starts (rate ratio, 0.874; 95% CI, 0.818-0.933; P < .001), along with a statistically significant change in trend between the pretrial and posttrial periods (rate ratio, 0.994; 95% CI, 0.992-0.996; P < .001). No statistically significant differences were found in acute inpatient dialysis initiations, the proportion of patients receiving home dialysis as the initial modality, or the proportion of arteriovenous access creation at hemodialysis initiation after the IDEAL trial publication. Conclusions and Relevance: The publication of the IDEAL trial appeared to be associated with an immediate and meaningful change in the timing of dialysis initiation in Canada.

Cultivating Innovative Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Registry Trials Embedded in Hemodialysis Care: Workshop Proceedings From 2018.

Hemodialysis is a life-sustaining treatment for persons with kidney failure. However, those on hemodialysis still face a poor quality of life and a short life expectancy. High-quality research evidence from large randomized controlled trials is needed to identify interventions that improve the experiences, outcomes, and health care of persons receiving hemodialysis. With the support of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and its Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research, the Innovative Clinical Trials in Hemodialysis Centers initiative brought together Canadian and international kidney researchers, patients, health care providers, and health administrators to participate in a workshop held in Toronto, Canada, on June 2 and 3, 2018. The workshop served to increase knowledge and awareness about the conduct of innovative, pragmatic, cluster-randomized registry trials embedded into routine hemodialysis care and provided an opportunity to discuss and build support for new trial ideas. The workshop content included structured presentations, facilitated group discussions, and expert panel feedback. Partnerships and promising trial ideas borne out of the workshop will continue to be developed to support the implementation of future large-scale trials.

L'hémodialyse constitue un traitement essentiel au maintien de la vie pour les personnes atteintes d'insuffisance rénale. Les patients hémodialysés voient cependant leur qualité et leur espérance de vie réduites. Des données de recherches probantes, provenant de vastes essais cliniques contrôlés à répartition aléatoire, sont nécessaires pour améliorer l'expérience, les résultats et les soins des patients hémodialysés. Grâce au soutien des Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada (IRSC) et de leur Stratégie de recherche axée sur le patient (SRAP), l'initiative sur les essais cliniques novateurs (ECN) en centres d'hémodialyse a réuni divers intervenants en santé rénale (chercheurs, patients, fournisseurs de soins et administrateurs), du Canada et de partout dans le monde, lors d'un colloque qui s'est tenu à Toronto les 2 et 3 juin 2018. Ce colloque a permis d'accroître la sensibilisation et les connaissances sur la conduite d'essais cliniques novateurs, répartis en grappes, pragmatiques et intégrés aux soins d'hémodialyse de routine. Cette rencontre a également fourni une occasion de discuter de nouvelles idées d'essais cliniques et de susciter les appuis nécessaires à leur réalisation. Le colloque s'est déroulé sous forme de présentations structurées, de discussions animées en groupe et de rétroaction de la part d'un comité d'experts. Les idées de recherche prometteuses et les partenariats issus de ce colloque continueront d'être développés pour soutenir la réalisation d'essais cliniques futurs de grande envergure.