Comparison of graft and patient outcomes following kidney transplantation in extended hour and conventional haemodialysis patients.

AIM: Differences in early graft function between kidney transplant recipients previously managed with either haemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis are well described. However, only two single-centre studies have compared graft and patient outcomes between extended hour and conventional HD patients, with conflicting results. METHODS: This study compared the outcomes of all extended hour (≥24 h/week) and conventional HD patients transplanted in Australia and New Zealand between 2000 and 2014. The primary outcome was delayed graft function (DGF), defined in an ordinal manner as either a spontaneous fall in serum creatinine of less than 10% within 24 h, or the need for dialysis within 72 h following transplantation. Secondary outcomes included the requirement for dialysis within 72 h post-transplant, acute rejection, estimated glomerular filtration rate at 12 months, death-censored graft failure, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and a composite of graft failure and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 4935 HD patients (378 extended hour HD, 4557 conventional HD) received a kidney transplant during the study period. Extended hour HD was associated with an increased likelihood of DGF compared with conventional HD (adjusted proportional odds ratio 1.33; 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.67). There was no significant difference between extended hour and conventional HD in terms of any of the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional HD, extended hour HD was associated with DGF, although long-term graft and patient outcomes were not different.

Green dialysis survey: Establishing a baseline for environmental sustainability across dialysis facilities in Victoria, Australia.

AIM: The Green Dialysis Survey aimed to (i) establish a baseline for environmental sustainability (ES) across Victorian dialysis facilities; and (ii) guide future initiatives to reduce the environmental impact of dialysis delivery. METHODS: Nurse unit managers of all Victorian public dialysis facilities received an online link to the survey, which asked 107 questions relevant to the ES of dialysis services. RESULTS: Responses were received from 71/83 dialysis facilities in Victoria (86%), representing 628/660 dialysis chairs (95%). Low energy lighting was present in 13 facilities (18%), 18 (25%) recycled reverse osmosis water and seven (10%) reported use of renewable energy. Fifty-six facilities (79%) performed comingled recycling but only 27 (38%) recycled polyvinyl chloride plastic. A minority educated staff in appropriate waste management (n = 30;42%) or formally audited waste generation and segregation (n = 19;27%). Forty-four (62%) provided secure bicycle parking but only 33 (46%) provided shower and changing facilities. There was limited use of tele- or video-conferencing to replace staff meetings (n = 19;27%) or patient clinic visits (n = 13;18%). A minority considered ES in procurement decisions (n = 28;39%) and there was minimal preparedness to cope with climate change. Only 39 services (49%) confirmed an ES policy and few had ever formed a green group (n = 14; 20%) or were currently undertaking a green project (n = 8;11%). Only 15 facilities (21%) made formal efforts to raise awareness of ES. CONCLUSION: This survey provides a baseline for practices that potentially impact the environmental sustainability of dialysis units in Victoria, Australia. It also identifies achievable targets for attention.

Climate change and us: What nephrologists should know.

Global warming poses significant risks to human health and the planet. If allowed to continue unchecked, its consequences will be devastating. While all populations will be effected with time, vulnerable groups, including those with kidney disease, are likely to be at primary risk. This paper summarizes the current state of scientific knowledge relevant to climate change. It discusses the contribution of the health-care system, and particularly dialysis programmes, to greenhouse gas emissions, and pathways that exist for nephrologists to mitigate their environmental impact.

How Australian nephrologists view home dialysis: results of a national survey.

AIM: Australia's commitment to home dialysis therapies has been significant. However, there is marked regional variation in the uptake of home haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) suggesting further scope for the expansion of these modalities. METHODS: Between 1 April and 5 August 2009, Australian nephrologists were invited to complete an online survey. Seventy-six questions were asked covering characteristics of the dialysis units, responders' experience, adequacy of facilities and support structures, attitudes to the use of home HD and PD and issues impeding the increased uptake of home dialysis. RESULTS: Completed surveys were received and analysed from 71 respondents; 27 from Heads of Units (35% response rate) and 44 (16%) from other nephrologists. There was strong agreement that HD with long hours was advantageous and that this was most easily accomplished in the home. PD was not considered to be an inferior therapy. A 'PD first' policy existed in 34% of Renal Units. The most commonly reported impediments to expanding home dialysis services were financial disadvantage for home HD patients, and lack of physical infrastructure for training, support and education. Areas of concern for expanding home dialysis programmes included psychiatry support, access to respite care and home visits, and lack of support from medical administration and government. The majority of nephrologists would recommend home dialysis to more patients if these impediments could be overcome. CONCLUSION: This survey identified support from nephrologists for the expansion of home dialysis in Australia and highlighted important barriers to improving access to these therapies.

Nocturnal haemodialysis: an Australian cost comparison with conventional satellite haemodialysis.

Dialysis is an expensive therapy, particularly considering its recurrent, protracted nature while patient numbers are also increasing. To afford dialysis for those in need, smarter, more efficient use of limited funds is mandatory. Newer techniques and improved equipment now permit safe, highly effective haemodialysis (HD) at home, alone and while asleep. Indeed, the increase in treatment hours and frequency achieved through nocturnal HD both increase HD efficiency and reduce cardiovascular stress when comparing nocturnal HD (6 nights/week for 8 h/treatment) to conventional daytime HD (4 h/treatment, three times/week). This study compares the expenditure of two distinct HD programmes in the same renal service during the Australian financial year 2003/2004. A conventional satellite HD unit (SHDU) and a nocturnal home HD programme (NHHD(6)) are compared, with both programmes 'notionalised' to 30 patients. The state-derived funding models under which these programmes operate are explained. All wage costs, recurrent expenditure, fixed costs and the estimated costs of building and infrastructure are included. The total NHHD(6) programme expenditure was 33,392 Australian dollars/patient per year (103.82 Australian dollars/treatment) and was 3,892 Australian dollars/patient per year less (a 10.75% saving) when compared with the SHDU expenditure of 36,284 Australian dollars/patient per year (232.58 Australian dollars/treatment). This represented an annual 116,750 Australian dollars programme saving for a 30 patient cohort. Potential additional NHHD(6) savings in erythropoietin, hospitalization and social security dependence were also identified. Home-based therapies are clinically sound, effective and fiscally prudent and efficient. Funding models should reward home-based HD. Health services should encourage home training and support systems, sustaining patients at home wherever possible.