Effect of Low-Sodium versus Conventional Sodium Dialysate on Left Ventricular Mass in Home and Self-Care Satellite Facility Hemodialysis Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Fluid overload in patients undergoing hemodialysis contributes to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. There is a global trend to lower dialysate sodium with the goal of reducing fluid overload. METHODS: To investigate whether lower dialysate sodium during hemodialysis reduces left ventricular mass, we conducted a randomized trial in which patients received either low-sodium dialysate (135 mM) or conventional dialysate (140 mM) for 12 months. We included participants who were aged >18 years old, had a predialysis serum sodium ≥135 mM, and were receiving hemodialysis at home or a self-care satellite facility. Exclusion criteria included hemodialysis frequency >3.5 times per week and use of sodium profiling or hemodiafiltration. The main outcome was left ventricular mass index by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: The 99 participants had a median age of 51 years old; 67 were men, 31 had diabetes mellitus, and 59 had left ventricular hypertrophy. Over 12 months of follow-up, relative to control, a dialysate sodium concentration of 135 mmol/L did not change the left ventricular mass index, despite significant reductions at 6 and 12 months in interdialytic weight gain, in extracellular fluid volume, and in plasma B-type natriuretic peptide concentration (ratio of intervention to control). The intervention increased intradialytic hypotension (odds ratio [OR], 7.5; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.1 to 49.8 at 6 months and OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 0.5 to 28.8 at 12 months). Five participants in the intervention arm could not complete the trial because of hypotension. We found no effect on health-related quality of life measures, perceived thirst or xerostomia, or dietary sodium intake. CONCLUSIONS: Dialysate sodium of 135 mmol/L did not reduce left ventricular mass relative to control, despite improving fluid status. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: The Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12611000975998.

Effect of centre- and patient-related factors on uptake of haemodiafiltration in Australia and New Zealand: A cohort study using ANZDATA.

BACKGROUND: The use of haemodiafiltration (HDF) for the management of patients with end-stage kidney failure is increasing worldwide. Factors associated with HDF use have not been studied and may vary in different countries and jurisdictions. The aim of this study was to document the pattern of increase and variability in uptake of HDF in Australia and New Zealand, and to describe patient- and centre-related factors associated with its use. METHODS: Using the Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry, all incident patients commencing haemodialysis (HD) between 2000 and 2014 were included. The primary outcome was HDF commencement over time, which was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression stratified by country. RESULTS: Of 27 433 patients starting HD, 3339 (14.4%) of 23 194 patients in Australia and 810 (19.1%) of 4239 in New Zealand received HDF. HDF uptake increased over time in both countries but was more rapid in New Zealand than Australia. In Australia, HDF use was more likely in males (odds ratio (OR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.03-1.24, P = 0.009) and less likely with older age (reference <40 years; 40-54 years OR = 0.85; 95% CI = 0.72-0.99; 55-69 years OR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.67-0.91; >70 years OR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.41-0.56); higher body mass index (body mass index (BMI) < 18.5 kg/m2 OR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.46-0.84; 18.5-29.9 kg/m2 reference; >30 kg/m2 OR = 1.46; 95% CI = 1.33-1.61), chronic lung disease (OR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.76-0.94; P < 0.001), cerebrovascular disease (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.67-0.85; P < 0.001) and peripheral vascular disease (OR = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.70-0.85; P < 0.001). No association was identified with race. In New Zealand, HDF use was more likely in Maori and Pacific Islanders (OR = 1.32; 95% CI = 1.05-1.66) and Asians (OR = 1.75; 95% CI = 1.15-2.68) compared to Caucasians, and less likely in males (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.62-0.94; P = 0.01). No association was identified with BMI or co-morbidities. In both countries, centres with a higher ratio of HD to peritoneal dialysis (PD) were more likely to prescribe HDF. Larger Australian centres were more likely to prescribe HDF (36-147 new patients/year OR = 26.75, 95% CI = 18.54-38.59; 17-35/year OR = 7.51, 95% CI = 5.35-10.55; 7-16/year OR = 3.00; 95% CI = 2.19-4.13; ≤6/year reference). CONCLUSION: Haemodiafiltration uptake is increasing, variable and associated with both patient and centre characteristics. Centre characteristics not explicitly captured elsewhere explained 36% of variability in HDF uptake in Australia and 48% in New Zealand.

Patient survival on haemodiafiltration and haemodialysis: a cohort study using the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry.

Background: It is unclear if haemodiafiltration improves patient survival compared with standard haemodialysis. Observational studies have tended to show benefit with haemodiafiltration, while meta-analyses have not provided definitive proof of superiority. Methods: Using data from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry, this binational inception cohort study compared all adult patients who commenced haemodialysis in Australia and New Zealand between 2000 and 2014. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Cardiovascular mortality was the secondary outcome. Outcomes were measured from the first haemodialysis treatment and were examined using multivariable Cox regression analyses. Patients were censored at permanent discontinuation of haemodialysis or at 31 December 2014. Analyses were stratified by country. Results: The study included 26 961 patients (4110 haemodiafiltration, 22 851 standard haemodialysis; 22 774 Australia, 4187 New Zealand) with a median follow-up of 5.31 (interquartile range 2.87-8.36) years. Median age was 62 years, 61% were male, 71% were Caucasian. Compared with standard haemodialysis, haemodiafiltration was associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for Australia 0.79, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.72-0.87; adjusted HR for New Zealand 0.88, 95% CI 0.78-1.00]. In Australian patients, there was also an association between haemodiafiltration and reduced cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.95). Conclusion: Haemodiafiltration was associated with superior survival across patient subgroups of age, sex and comorbidity.

Psychosocial interventions for preventing and treating depression in dialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: People with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) treated with dialysis are frequently affected by major depression. Dialysis patients have prioritised depression as a critically important clinical outcome in nephrology trials. Psychological and social support are potential treatments for depression, although a Cochrane review in 2005 identified zero eligible studies. This is an update of the Cochrane review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of using psychosocial interventions versus usual care or a second psychosocial intervention for preventing and treating depression in patients with ESKD treated with dialysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Register of Studies up to 21 June 2019 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of psychosocial interventions for prevention and treatment of depression among adults treated with long-term dialysis. We assessed effects of interventions on changes in mental state (depression, anxiety, cognition), suicide, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), withdrawal from dialysis treatment, withdrawal from intervention, death (any cause), hospitalisation and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted study data. We applied the Cochrane 'Risk of Bias' tool and used the GRADE process to assess evidence certainty. We estimated treatment effects using random-effects meta-analysis. Results for continuous outcomes were expressed as a mean difference (MD) or as a standardised mean difference (SMD) when investigators used different scales. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratios. All estimates were reported together with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 studies enrolling 2056 participants. Twenty-six new studies were added to this 2019 update. Seven studies originally excluded from the 2005 review were included as they met the updated review eligibility criteria, which have been expanded to include RCTs in which participants did not meet criteria for depression as an inclusion criterion. Psychosocial interventions included acupressure, cognitive-behavioural therapy, counselling, education, exercise, meditation, motivational interviewing, relaxation techniques, social activity, spiritual practices, support groups, telephone support, visualisation, and voice-recording of a psychological intervention. The duration of study follow-up ranged between three weeks and one year. Studies included between nine and 235 participants. The mean study age ranged between 36.1 and 73.9 years. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were at low risk of bias in eight and one studies respectively. One study reported low risk methods for blinding of participants and investigators, and outcome assessment was blinded in seven studies. Twelve studies were at low risk of attrition bias, eight studies were at low risk of selective reporting bias, and 21 studies were at low risk of other potential sources of bias. Cognitive behavioural therapy probably improves depressive symptoms measured using the Beck Depression Inventory (4 studies, 230 participants: MD -6.10, 95% CI -8.63 to -3.57), based on moderate certainty evidence. Cognitive behavioural therapy compared to usual care probably improves HRQoL measured either with the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument Short Form or the Quality of Life Scale, with a 0.5 standardised mean difference representing a moderate effect size (4 studies, 230 participants: SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.83) , based on moderate certainty evidence. Cognitive behavioural therapy may reduce major depression symptoms (one study) and anxiety, and increase self-efficacy (one study). Cognitive behavioural therapy studies did not report hospitalisation. We found low-certainty evidence that counselling may slightly reduce depressive symptoms measured with the Beck Depression Inventory (3 studies, 99 participants: MD -3.84, 95% CI -6.14 to -1.53) compared to usual care. Counselling reported no difference in HRQoL (one study). Counselling studies did not measure risk of major depression, suicide, or hospitalisation. Exercise may reduce or prevent major depression (3 studies, 108 participants: RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.81), depression of any severity (3 studies, 108 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.87) and improve HRQoL measured with Quality of Life Index score (2 studies, 64 participants: MD 3.06, 95% CI 2.29 to 3.83) compared to usual care with low certainty. With moderate certainty, exercise probably improves depression symptoms measured with the Beck Depression Inventory (3 studies, 108 participants: MD -7.61, 95% CI -9.59 to -5.63). Exercise may reduce anxiety (one study). No exercise studies measured suicide risk or withdrawal from dialysis. We found moderate-certainty evidence that relaxation techniques probably reduce depressive symptoms measured with the Beck Depression Inventory (2 studies, 122 participants: MD -5.77, 95% CI -8.76 to -2.78). Relaxation techniques reported no difference in HRQoL (one study). Relaxation studies did not measure risk of major depression or suicide. Spiritual practices have uncertain effects on depressive symptoms measured either with the Beck Depression Inventory or the Brief Symptom Inventory (2 studies, 116 participants: SMD -1.00, 95% CI -3.52 to 1.53; very low certainty evidence). No differences between spiritual practices and usual care were reported on anxiety (one study), and HRQoL (one study). No study of spiritual practices evaluated effects on suicide risk, withdrawal from dialysis or hospitalisation. There were few or no data on acupressure, telephone support, meditation and adverse events related to psychosocial interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive behavioural therapy, exercise or relaxation techniques probably reduce depressive symptoms (moderate-certainty evidence) for adults with ESKD treated with dialysis. Cognitive behavioural therapy probably increases health-related quality of life. Evidence for spiritual practices, acupressure, telephone support, and meditation is of low certainty . Similarly, evidence for effects of psychosocial interventions on suicide risk, major depression, hospitalisation, withdrawal from dialysis, and adverse events is of low or very low certainty.

High-volume haemofiltration for sepsis in adults.

BACKGROUND: Severe sepsis and septic shock are leading causes of death in the intensive care unit (ICU), despite advances in the treatment of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, including early recognition, appropriate treatment with antibiotics and support of organs that may have been affected by the illness. High-volume haemofiltration (HVHF) is a blood purification technique that may improve outcomes in severe sepsis or septic shock. The technique of HVHF has evolved from renal replacement therapies used in the ICU to treat critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). This review was first published in 2013 and was updated in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether HVHF improves outcomes in critically ill adults admitted to the intensive care unit with severe sepsis or septic shock. The primary outcome of this systematic review is patient mortality; secondary outcomes include duration of stay, severity of organ dysfunction and adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: For this updated version, we extended searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Web of Science and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) to 31 December 2015. The original search was performed in 2011. We also searched trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials comparing HVHF or high-volume haemodiafiltration versus standard or usual dialysis therapy, as well as RCTs and quasi-randomized trials comparing HVHF or high-volume haemodiafiltration versus no similar dialysis therapy. These studies involved adults treated in critical care units. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We sought additional information from trialists as required. MAIN RESULTS: We included four randomized trials involving 200 participants. Owing to small numbers of studies and participants, it was not possible to combine data for all outcomes. Two trials reported 28-day mortality, and one trial reported hospital mortality; in the third trial, the number of deaths stated did not match the quoted mortality rates. The pooled risk ratio (95% confidence interval) for 28-day mortality associated with HVHF was 0.89 (0.60 to 1.32, two trials, 146 participants, low-quality evidence). One study (137 participants, low-quality evidence) reported length of stay in the ICU. Two trials (170 participants, low-quality evidence) reported organ dysfunction, but we could not pool results owing to reporting differences. Three studies (189 participants, low-quality evidence) reported on haemodynamic changes, but we could not pool results owing to reporting differences. Investigators reported no adverse events. Overall, the included studies had low risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Investigators reported no adverse effects of HVHF (low-quality evidence). The results of this meta-analysis show that very few studies have been conducted to investigate the use of HVHF in critically ill patients with severe sepsis or septic shock (four studies, 201 participants, low-quality evidence). Researchers should consider additional randomized controlled trials that are large and multi-centred and have clinically relevant outcome measures. The cost-effectiveness of HVHF should also be studied. .

Antidepressants for treating depression in adults with end-stage kidney disease treated with dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Depression affects approximately one-quarter of people treated with dialysis and is considered an important research uncertainty by patients and health professionals. Treatment for depression in dialysis patients may have different benefits and harms compared to the general population due to different clearances of antidepressant medication and the severity of somatic symptoms associated with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Guidelines suggest treatment of depression in dialysis patients with pharmacological therapy, preferably a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. This is an update of a review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefit and harms of antidepressants for treating depression in adults with ESKD treated with dialysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 20 January 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antidepressant treatment with placebo or no treatment, or compared to another antidepressant medication or psychological intervention in adults with ESKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 15 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted by two authors independently onto a standard form and subsequently entered into Review Manager. Risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). MAIN RESULTS: Four studies in 170 participants compared antidepressant therapy (fluoxetine, sertraline, citalopram or escitalopram) versus placebo or psychological training for 8 to 12 weeks. In generally very low or ungradeable evidence, compared to placebo, antidepressant therapy had no evidence of benefit on quality of life, had uncertain effects on increasing the risk of hypotension (3 studies, 144 participants: RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.92), headache (2 studies 56 participants: RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.57), and sexual dysfunction (2 studies, 101 participants: RR 3.83, 95% CI 0.63 to 23.34), and increased nausea (3 studies, 114 participants: RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.26 to 5.68). There were few or no data for hospitalisation, suicide or all-cause mortality resulting in inconclusive evidence. Antidepressant therapy may reduce depression scores during treatment compared to placebo (1 study, 43 participants: MD -7.50, 95% CI -11.94 to -3.06). Antidepressant therapy was not statistically different from group psychological therapy for effects on depression scores or withdrawal from treatment and a range of other outcomes were not measured. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high prevalence of depression in dialysis patients and the relative priority that patients place on effective treatments, evidence for antidepressant medication in the dialysis setting is sparse and data are generally inconclusive. The relative benefits and harms of antidepressant therapy in dialysis patients are poorly known and large randomised studies of antidepressants versus placebo are required.

Double bag or Y-set versus standard transfer systems for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in end-stage kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Peritonitis is the most frequent serious complication of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). It has a major influence on the number of patients switching from CAPD to haemodialysis and has probably restricted the wider acceptance and uptake of CAPD as an alternative mode of dialysis.This is an update of a review first published in 2000. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review sought to determine if modifications of the transfer set (Y-set or double bag systems) used in CAPD exchanges are associated with a reduction in peritonitis and an improvement in other relevant outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Date of last search: 22 October 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing double bag, Y-set and standard peritoneal dialysis (PD) exchange systems in patients with end-stage kidney disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted by a single investigator onto a standard form and analysed by Review Manager. Analysis was by a random effects model and results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: Twelve eligible trials with a total of 991 randomised patients were identified. Despite the large total number of patients, few trials covered the same interventions, small numbers of patients were enrolled in each trial and the methodological quality was suboptimal. Y-set and twin-bag systems were superior to conventional spike systems (7 trials, 485 patients, RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.77) in preventing peritonitis in PD. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Disconnect systems should be the preferred exchange systems in CAPD.

High-volume haemofiltration for sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Severe sepsis and septic shock are leading causes of death in the intensive care unit (ICU). This is despite advances in the management of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock including early recognition, source control, timely and appropriate administration of antimicrobial agents, and goal directed haemodynamic, ventilatory and metabolic therapies. High-volume haemofiltration (HVHF) is a blood purification technique which may improve outcomes in critically ill patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. The technique of HVHF has evolved from renal replacement therapies used to treat acute kidney injury (AKI) in critically ill patients in the ICU. OBJECTIVES: This review assessed whether HVHF improves clinical outcome in adult critically ill patients with sepsis in an ICU setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2011, Issue 7); MEDLINE (1990 to August 2011), EMBASE (1990 to August 2011); LILACS (1982 to August 2011), Web of Science (1990 to August 2011), CINAHL (1982 to August 2011) and specific websites. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials comparing HVHF or high-volume haemodiafiltration to standard or usual dialysis therapy; and RCTs and quasi-randomized trials comparing HVHF or high-volume haemodiafiltration to no similar dialysis therapy. The studies involved adults in critical care units. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We sought additional information as required from trialists. MAIN RESULTS: We included three randomized trials involving 64 participants. Due to the small number of studies and participants, it was not possible to combine data or perform sub-group analyses. One trial reported ICU and 28-day mortality, one trial reported hospital mortality and in the third, the number of deaths stated did not match the quoted mortality rates. No trials reported length of stay in ICU or hospital and one reported organ dysfunction. No adverse events were reported. Overall, the included studies had a low risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There were no adverse effects of HVHF reported.There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of HVHF in critically ill patients with severe sepsis and or septic shock except as interventions being investigated in the setting of a randomized clinical trial. These trials should be large, multi-centred and have clinically relevant outcome measures. Financial implications should also be assessed.

High-flux versus low-flux membranes for end-stage kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines regarding the use of high-flux haemodialysis membranes vary widely. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to analyse the current evidence reported for the benefits and harms of high-flux and low-flux haemodialysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register (July 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1948 to March 2011), and EMBASE (1947 to March 2011) without language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared high-flux haemodialysis with low-flux haemodialysis in people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) who required long-term haemodialysis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted independently by two authors for study characteristics (participants and interventions), risks of bias, and outcomes (all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality, hospitalisation, health-related quality of life, carpal tunnel syndrome, dialysis-related arthropathy, kidney function, and symptoms) among people on haemodialysis. Treatment effects were expressed as a risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 studies that involved 3820 participants with ESKD. High-flux membranes reduced cardiovascular mortality (5 studies, 2612 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.99) but not all-cause mortality (10 studies, 2915 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.04) or infection-related mortality (3 studies, 2547 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.14). In absolute terms, high-flux membranes may prevent three cardiovascular deaths in 100 people treated with haemodialysis for two years. While high-flux membranes reduced predialysis beta-2 microglobulin levels (MD -12.17 mg/L, 95% CI -15.83 to -8.51 mg/L), insufficient data were available to reliably estimate the effects of membrane flux on hospitalisation, carpal tunnel syndrome, or amyloid-related arthropathy. Evidence for effects of high-flux membranes was limited by selective reporting in a few studies. Insufficient numbers of studies limited our ability to conduct subgroup analyses for membrane type, biocompatibility, or reuse. In general, the risk of bias was either high or unclear in the majority of studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High-flux haemodialysis may reduce cardiovascular mortality in people requiring haemodialysis by about 15%. A large well-designed RCT is now required to confirm this finding.

Ultrasound use for the placement of haemodialysis catheters.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of patients starting dialysis do so with a temporary or tunnelled haemodialysis catheter. Insertion of these catheters can be achieved either by using the anatomical landmarks for the veins into which they are inserted or using ultrasound guidance. It has been suggested that the use of ultrasound guidance reduces the immediate complications of haemodialysis catheter insertions such as pneumothorax or arterial puncture. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the review was to compare the use of real-time 2-dimensional (2-D) Doppler ultrasound venous imaging in the insertion of percutaneous central venous catheters for dialysis versus the traditional "blind" landmark method. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Reference lists of identified studies and relevant narrative reviews were also screened. Search date: January 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating ultrasound guidance in the percutaneous insertion of central venous catheters for dialysis (both cuffed and uncuffed) against the traditional blind landmark method. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and the results expressed as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes or mean difference (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We identified seven studies enrolling 767 patients and with 830 catheter insertions. Three of seven studies described the method of random sequence generation, none described allocation concealment, and blinding of participants and personnel was not possible. Real-time ultrasound guidance was found to significantly reduce the risk of catheter placement failure on the first attempt (5 studies, 595 catheters): RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.52), significantly reduce the risk of arterial puncture (6 studies, 535 catheters: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.37) and haematomas (4 studies, 323 catheters: RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.81) when compared to the landmark method. The time taken for successful cannulation was significantly lower with the use of real-time ultrasound guidance (1 study, 73 catheters: MD -1.40 min, 95% CI -2.17 to -0.63) and there were less attempts/catheter insertion (1 study, 110 catheters: -0.35, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.16). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Use of real-time 2-D Doppler ultrasound guidance has significant benefits with respect to the number if catheters successfully inserted on the first attempt, reduction in the risk of arterial puncture and haematomas and the time taken for successful vein puncture.

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.

Systematic review of antimicrobials for the prevention of haemodialysis catheter-related infections.

BACKGROUND: Almost 30% of chronic haemodialysis (HD) patients are dependent on central venous catheters (CVCs) for their vascular access, and catheter-related bacteraemia (CRB) is the major reason for catheter loss and has been associated with substantial morbidity, including meta-static infections. This systematic review evaluates the benefits and harms of antimicrobial interventions for the prevention of catheter-related infections (CRIs). METHODS: MEDLINE (1950-May 2009), EMBASE (1980-May 2009) CENTRAL (up to May 2009) and bibliographies of retrieved articles were searched for relevant RCTs. Analysis was by a random effects model and results expressed as rate ratio, relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: A total of 29 trials with 2886 patients and 3005 catheters were included. Antimicrobial catheter locks (AMLs) significantly reduced the rates of CRBs (rate ratio, 0.33, 95% CI 0.24-0.45) and exit-site infections (ESIs) (rate ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.47-0.96). Exit-site antimicrobial application also significantly reduced the rates of CRBs (rate ratio 0.21, 95% CI 0.12-0.36) and ESIs (rate ratio 0.22, 95% CI 0.10-0.47). Antimicrobial coating of HD catheters and the use of peri-operative antimicrobials did not result in significant reduction in rates of CRBs and ESIs. CONCLUSION: The use of AMLs and exit-site antimicrobials are useful measures in the reduction of CRIs, whereas antimicrobial impregnated catheters and peri-operative systemic antimicrobial administration have not been found to be beneficial. Further head-to-head trials of various AMLs and exit-site antimicrobials are needed to know about their comparative clinical efficacy.

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.

Automated vs continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) with all forms of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) was performed to assess their comparative clinical effectiveness. METHODS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL, were searched for relevant RCTs. Analysis was by a random effects model and results expressed as relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Three trials (139 patients) were identified. APD when compared to CAPD was found to have significantly lower peritonitis rates (two trials, 107 patients, rate ratio 0.54, 95% CI 0.35-0.83) and hospitalization rates (one trial, 82 patients, rate ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.39-0.93) but not exit-site infection rates (two trials, 107 patients, rate ratio 1.00, 95% CI 0.56-1.76). However no differences were detected between APD and CAPD in respect to risk of mortality (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.51-4.37), peritonitis (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50-1.11), switching from the original peritoneal dialysis (PD) modality to a different dialysis modality including an alternative form of PD (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25-1.02), PD catheter removal (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.27-1.48) and hospital admissions (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.43-2.17). Patients on APD were found to have significantly more time for work, family and social activities. CONCLUSIONS: APD appears to be more beneficial than CAPD, in terms of reducing peritonitis rates and with respect to certain social issues that impact on patients' quality of life. Further, adequately powered trials are required to confirm the benefits for APD found in this review and detect differences with respect to other clinically important outcomes that may have been missed by the trials included in this review due to their small size and short follow-up periods.