Intensive Home Hemodialysis Survival Comparable to Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Kidney transplantation (KT) remains the treatment of choice for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), but access to transplantation is limited by a disparity between supply and demand for suitable organs. This organ shortfall has resulted in the use of a wider range of donor kidneys and, in parallel, a reexamination of potential alternative renal replacement therapies. Previous studies comparing Canadian intensive home hemodialysis (IHHD) with deceased donor (DD) KT in the United States reported similar survival, suggesting IHHD might be a plausible alternative. METHODS: Using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and an experienced US-based IHHD program in Lynchburg, VA, we retrospectively compared mortality outcomes of a cohort of IHHD patients with transplant recipients within the same geographic region between October 1997 and June 2014. RESULTS: We identified 3073 transplant recipients and 116 IHHD patients. Living donor KT (n = 1212) had the highest survival and 47% reduction in risk of death compared with IHHD (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34-0.83). Survival of IHHD patients did not statistically differ from that of DD transplant recipients (n = 1834) in adjusted analyses (HR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.62-1.48) or when exclusively compared with marginal (Kidney Donor Profile Index >85%) transplant recipients (HR: 1.35; 95% CI: 0.84-2.16). CONCLUSION: Our study showed comparable overall survival between IHHD and DD KT. For appropriate patients, IHHD could serve as bridging therapy to transplant and a tenable long-term renal replacement therapy.

Improving Incident ESRD Care Via a Transitional Care Unit.

Dialysis care in the United States continues to move toward an emphasis on continuous quality improvement and performance benchmarking. Government- and industry-sponsored programs have evolved to assess and incentivize outcomes for many components of end-stage renal disease care. One aspect that remains largely unaddressed at a systemic level is the high-risk transition period from chronic kidney disease and acute kidney injury to permanent dialysis dependence. Incident dialysis patients experience disproportionately high mortality and hospitalization rates coupled with high costs. This article reviews the clinical case for a special emphasis on this transition period, reviews published literature regarding prior transitional care programs, and proposes a novel iteration of the first 30 days of dialysis care: the transitional care unit (TCU). The goal of a TCU is to improve awareness of all aspects of renal replacement therapy, including modalities, access, transplantation options, and nutritional and psychosocial aspects of the disease. This enables patients to make truly informed decisions regarding their care. The TCU model is open to all patients, including incident patients with end-stage renal disease, those for whom peritoneal dialysis is failing, or those with failing transplants. This model may be especially beneficial to those who are deemed inadequately prepared or "crash start" patients.

Cognitive changes associated with switching to frequent nocturnal hemodialysis or renal transplantation.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether switching to frequent nocturnal hemodialysis improves cognitive function in well-dialyzed patients and how this compares to patients who receive a kidney transplant. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter observational study with longitudinal follow-up of the effect on cognitive performance of switching dialysis treatment modality from conventional thrice-weekly hemodialysis to frequent nocturnal hemodialysis, a functioning renal transplant or remaining on thrice-weekly conventional hemodialysis. Neuropsychological tests of memory, attention, psychomotor processing speed, executive function and fluency as well as measures of solute clearance were performed at baseline and again after switching modality. The change in cognitive performance measured by neuropsychological tests assessing multiple cognitive domains at baseline, 4 and 12 months after switching dialysis modality were analyzed using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were enrolled; 21 of these 77 patients were recruited from the randomized Frequent Hemodialysis Network (FHN) Nocturnal Trial. Of these, 18 patients started frequent nocturnal hemodialysis, 28 patients received a kidney transplant and 31 patients remained on conventional thrice-weekly hemodialysis. Forty-eight patients (62 %) returned for the 12-month follow-up. Despite a significant improvement in solute clearance, 12 months treatment with frequent nocturnal hemodialysis was not associated with substantial improvement in cognitive performance. By contrast, renal transplantation, which led to near normalization of solute clearance was associated with clinically relevant and significant improvements in verbal learning and memory with a trend towards improvements in psychomotor processing speed. Cognitive performance in patients on conventional hemodialysis remained stable with the exception of an improvement in psychomotor processing speed and a decline in verbal fluency. CONCLUSIONS: In patients on conventional thrice-weekly hemodialysis, receiving a functioning renal transplant was associated with improvement in auditory-verbal memory and psychomotor processing speed, which was not observed after 12 months of frequent nocturnal hemodialysis.

Long-term Effects of Frequent Nocturnal Hemodialysis on Mortality: The Frequent Hemodialysis Network (FHN) Nocturnal Trial.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available regarding the long-term mortality rate for patients receiving nocturnal home hemodialysis. STUDY DESIGN: Posttrial observational study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Frequent Hemodialysis Network (FHN) Nocturnal Trial participants who consented to extended follow-up. INTERVENTION: The FHN Nocturnal Trial randomly assigned 87 individuals to 6-times-weekly home nocturnal hemodialysis or 3-times-weekly hemodialysis for 1 year. Patients were enrolled starting in March 2006 and follow-up was completed by May 2010. After the 1-year trial concluded, FHN Nocturnal participants were free to modify their hemodialysis prescription. OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS: We obtained dates of death and kidney transplantation through July 2011 using linkage to the US Renal Data System and queries of study centers. We used log-rank tests and Cox regression to relate mortality to the initial randomization assignment. RESULTS: Median follow-up for the trial and posttrial observational period was 3.7 years. In the nocturnal arm, there were 2 deaths during the 12-month trial period and an additional 12 deaths during the extended follow-up. In the conventional arm, the numbers of deaths were 1 and 4, respectively. In the nocturnal dialysis group, the overall mortality HR was 3.88 (95% CI, 1.27-11.79; P=0.01). Using as-treated analysis with a 12-month running treatment average, the HR for mortality was 3.06 (95% CI, 1.11-8.43; P=0.03). Six-month running treatment data analysis showed an HR of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.44-3.22; P=0.7). LIMITATIONS: These results should be interpreted cautiously due to a surprisingly low (0.03 deaths/patient-year) mortality rate for individuals randomly assigned to conventional home hemodialysis, low statistical power for the mortality comparison due to the small sample size, and the high rate of hemodialysis prescription changes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients randomly assigned to nocturnal hemodialysis had a higher mortality rate than those randomly assigned to conventional dialysis. The implications of this result require further investigation.

Catheter-related bacteremia and mortality in frequent nocturnal home hemodialysis.

Frequent nightly home hemodialysis (NHHD) has emerged as an attractive alternative to thrice weekly in-center hemodialysis, albeit with preponderant long-term hemodialysis catheter used. Sixty-three NHHD patients from University of Virginia Lynchburg Dialysis Facility were matched 1:2 with 121 conventional hemodialysis patients admitted to Fresenius Medical Care North America facilities from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2010. Matching considered age (± 5 years), gender, race, dialysis vintage, and diabetes. The primary end-point was the combined incidence of bacteremia/sepsis, for up to 20 months or upon changing to a fistula/graft (with catheter removal), transferring to peritoneal dialysis (PD), or at the time of kidney transplant or death. No significant differences were observed in rate of fistula/graft conversion, transfer to PD, transplant, or death between NHHD and in-center hemodialysis (IHD) groups. For the first catheter used, the rate of catheter-related sepsis was not significantly different between the NHHD (1.77 per 100 patient months) and IHD (2.03 per 100 patient months; P = 0.21). Combining all catheters, the rate of bacteremia/sepsis per 100 patient months in the NHHD group was 1.51 and in the IHD group was 2.01 (P = 0.35). Median catheter lifespan for the first catheter was 5.6 (1.7∼19.0) for NHHD and 4.6 (2.7∼7.8) for the IHD group (P = 0.64), and for all catheters used was 5.2 (Q1∼Q3 = 1.5∼15.2) months in NHHD group, and 4.1 (2.0∼6.8) months in IHD group (P = 0.20). The rate of bacteremia and death is not different for up to 20 months in catheter users who dialyze via frequent NHHD vs. thrice weekly IHD.

Nephrologists' perspectives on dialysis treatment: results of an international survey.

BACKGROUND: In-centre haemodialysis (ICHD) is the most common dialysis method used by patients worldwide. However, quality of life and clinical outcomes in patients treated via ICHD have not improved for some time. 'High-dose' haemodialysis (HD) regimens--which are longer and/or more frequent than conventional regimens and are particularly suitable to delivery in the home--may offer a route to improved outcomes and quality of life. This survey aimed to determine nephrologists' views on the validity of alternatives to ICHD, particularly home HD and high-dose HD. METHODS: A total of 1,500 nephrologists from Europe, Canada and the United States were asked to respond to an online questionnaire that was designed following previous qualitative research. Certified nephrologists in practice for 2-35 years who managed >25 adult dialysis patients were eligible to take part. RESULTS: A total of 324 nephrologists completed the survey. ICHD was the most common type of dialysis used by respondents' current patients (90%), followed by peritoneal dialysis (8%) and home HD (2%). The majority of respondents believed that: home HD provides better quality of life; increasing the frequency of dialysis beyond three times per week significantly improves clinical outcomes; and longer dialysis sessions performed nocturnally would result in significantly better clinical outcomes than traditional ICHD. CONCLUSIONS: Survey results indicated that many nephrologists believe that home HD and high-dose HD are better for the patient. However, the majority of their patients were using ICHD. Education, training and support on alternative dialysis regimens are needed.

Risk of vascular access complications with frequent hemodialysis.

Frequent hemodialysis requires using the vascular access more often than with conventional hemodialysis, but whether this increases the risk for access-related complications is unknown. In two separate trials, we randomly assigned 245 patients to receive in-center daily hemodialysis (6 days per week) or conventional hemodialysis (3 days per week) and 87 patients to receive home nocturnal hemodialysis (6 nights per week) or conventional hemodialysis, for 12 months. The primary vascular access outcome was time to first access event (repair, loss, or access-related hospitalization). Secondary outcomes were time to all repairs and time to all losses. In the Daily Trial, 77 (31%) of 245 patients had a primary outcome event: 33 repairs and 15 losses in the daily group and 17 repairs, 11 losses, and 1 hospitalization in the conventional group. Overall, the risk for a first access event was 76% higher with daily hemodialysis than with conventional hemodialysis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-2.79; P=0.017); among the 198 patients with an arteriovenous (AV) access at randomization, the risk was 90% higher with daily hemodialysis (HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.11-3.25; P=0.02). Daily hemodialysis patients had significantly more total AV access repairs than conventional hemodialysis patients (P=0.011), with 55% of all repairs involving thrombectomy or surgical revision. Losses of AV access did not differ between groups (P=0.58). We observed similar trends in the Nocturnal Trial, although the results were not statistically significant. In conclusion, frequent hemodialysis increases the risk of vascular access complications. The nature of the AV access repairs suggests that this risk likely results from increased hemodialysis frequency rather than heightened surveillance.

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.

The effects of frequent nocturnal home hemodialysis: the Frequent Hemodialysis Network Nocturnal Trial.

Prior small studies have shown multiple benefits of frequent nocturnal hemodialysis compared to conventional three times per week treatments. To study this further, we randomized 87 patients to three times per week conventional hemodialysis or to nocturnal hemodialysis six times per week, all with single-use high-flux dialyzers. The 45 patients in the frequent nocturnal arm had a 1.82-fold higher mean weekly stdKt/V(urea), a 1.74-fold higher average number of treatments per week, and a 2.45-fold higher average weekly treatment time than the 42 patients in the conventional arm. We did not find a significant effect of nocturnal hemodialysis for either of the two coprimary outcomes (death or left ventricular mass (measured by MRI) with a hazard ratio of 0.68, or of death or RAND Physical Health Composite with a hazard ratio of 0.91). Possible explanations for the left ventricular mass result include limited sample size and patient characteristics. Secondary outcomes included cognitive performance, self-reported depression, laboratory markers of nutrition, mineral metabolism and anemia, blood pressure and rates of hospitalization, and vascular access interventions. Patients in the nocturnal arm had improved control of hyperphosphatemia and hypertension, but no significant benefit among the other main secondary outcomes. There was a trend for increased vascular access events in the nocturnal arm. Thus, we were unable to demonstrate a definitive benefit of more frequent nocturnal hemodialysis for either coprimary outcome.

Nightly home hemodialysis: outcome and factors associated with survival.

Nightly home hemodialysis (NHHD) has been reported to have a much better survival than the excessive mortality of thrice-weekly in-center dialysis, but the factors influencing survival of NHHD have not been investigated in detail. We studied the association of survival in a 12-year study of 87 NHHD patients from a single center evaluating demographic, sociologic, and anthropomorphic factors, diagnosis, comorbidity, vintage, and dialysis performance and efficiency. Secondly, we compared the survival of the 87 NHHD patients with that reported by the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) using standardized mortality rate (SMR). The average patient age was 52 ± 15 years, and 59% were males, 51% African Americans, and 25% had diabetes. The patients dialyzed 40 ± 6 hours weekly with a stdKt/V of 5.25 ± 0.84. Thirteen patients died. The cumulative survival was 79% at 5 years and 64% at 10 years. Using Cox proportional hazards univariate analysis, 7 of 26 factors studied were associated with mortality: less than high school education, hour of each dialysis, comorbidities, secondary renal disease, congestive heart failure, Leypoldt's eKt/V, and Daugirdas Kt/V. In backward stepwise Cox analysis, education and hour of dialysis were the only factors independently associated with survival. The standardized mortality rate was only 0.30 of that reported by the United States Renal Data System for patients on thrice-weekly hemodialysis adjusted for age, gender, race, and diagnosis. The influence of education was the most significantly associated with survival, and the duration of each dialysis treatment was important. The survival rate of NHHD patients appeared to be superior to intermittent hemodialysis.

Recruitment and training for home hemodialysis: experience and lessons from the Nocturnal Dialysis Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We assessed perceived barriers and incentives to home hemodialysis and evaluated potential correlates with the duration of home hemodialysis training. DESIGN, SETTINGS, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Surveys were sent to the principal investigator and study coordinator for each clinical center in the Frequent Hemodialysis Network Nocturnal Trial. Baseline data were obtained on medical comorbidities, cognitive and physical functioning, sessions required for home hemodialysis training, and costs of home renovations. RESULTS: The most commonly perceived barriers included lack of patient motivation, unwillingness to change from in-center modality, and fear of self-cannulation. The most common incentives were greater scheduling flexibility and reduced travel time. The median costs for home renovations varied between $1191 and $4018. The mean number of home hemodialysis training sessions was 27.7 +/- 10.4 (11-59 days). Average training time was less for patients with experience in either self-care or both self-care and cannulation. The number of training sessions was unrelated to the score on the Modified Mini Mental Status or Trailmaking B tests or patient's education level. Training time also did not correlate with the SF-36 Physical Function subscale but did with the modified Charlson comorbidity score and older patient age. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of patient or family motivation and fear of the dialysis process are surmountable barriers for accepting home hemodialysis as a modality for renal replacement therapy. Formal education and scores on cognitive function tests are not predictors of training time.

Survival and hospitalization among patients using nocturnal and short daily compared to conventional hemodialysis: a USRDS study.

We estimated the survival and hospitalization among frequent hemodialysis users in comparison to those patients undergoing thrice-weekly conventional hemodialysis. All patients had similar characteristics and medical histories. In this cohort study of frequent hemodialysis users and propensity score-matched controls, the collaborating clinicians identified 94 patients who used nocturnal hermodialysis (NHD) and 43 patients who used short-duration daily hemodialysis (SDHD) for a minimum of 60 days. Ten propensity score-matched control patients for each NHD and SDHD patient were identified from the United States Renal Data System database. Primary outcomes were risk for all-cause mortality and risk for the composite outcome of mortality or major morbid event (acute myocardial infarction or stroke) estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. Risks for all-cause, cardiovascular-related, infection-related, and vascular access-related hospital admissions were also studied. Nocturnal hemodialysis was associated with significant reductions in mortality risk and risk for mortality or major morbid event when compared to conventional hemodialysis. There was a reduced but non-significant risk of death for patients using SDHD compared to controls. All-cause and specific hospitalizations did not differ significantly between NHD and SDHD patients and their matched control cohorts. Our study suggests that NHD may improve patient survival.

Short and long nightly hemodialysis in the United States.

When hemodialysis first started in the United States in the 1960s, a large percentage of patients performed their treatments at home. However, because of reimbursement issues, home hemodialysis (HHD) gradually succumbed to an in-center approach and eventually a mindset. Since the introduction of nightly HHD by Uldall and Pierratos in 1993, there has been a resurgence of interest in HHD. This paper describes the different types of home hemodialysis being performed as of December 31, 2007 in this country. Because neither the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) nor the End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Networks break down home dialysis into the different modalities, a provider questionnaire was sent out to 2 major providers, a number of mid-level providers and other providers known to do HHD. In addition, a questionnaire was sent out to 3 machine providers to obtain the number of patients using their machine for HHD as of December 31, 2007. The results showed that 91.7% of patients are dialyzing in-center, 7.3% are doing peritoneal dialysis, and 0.7% are doing HHD. Currently about 1% of ESRD patients in the United States are doing home hemodialysis. NxStage, however, has started 1000 patients in the past year on short-daily home hemodialysis. Patients are beginning to understand that there are better options than 3 times a week in-center dialysis. And as a result of the "HEMO Study," nephrologists now believe that longer and more frequent dialysis is a better therapy for ESRD patients. Therefore, promotion of HHD should become a priority for the renal community in the future.

Short daily hemodialysis and nocturnal hemodialysis at home: practical considerations.

There are currently over 350,000 patients in the United States on dialysis, with more than 90% receiving conventional in-center thrice-weekly hemodialysis (HD). Less than 1% of patients receiving HD are at home, and of these approximately 1500 patients receive more frequent and usually longer dialysis sessions. This article provides a historical perspective of HD at home, followed by practical considerations for short daily HD (SDHD) and long nocturnal HD, contrasting the strengths and limitations of these modalities. Finally, frequent and longer dialysis therapy is put forth as the best way to improve patient outcomes. It suggested that the optimal location in the present dialysis delivery system for more frequent and longer dialysis is in the home.