First-year mortality in incident dialysis patients: results of the Peridialysis study.

BACKGROUND: Controversy surrounds which factors are important for predicting early mortality after dialysis initiation (DI). We investigated associations of predialysis course and circumstances affecting planning and execution of DI with mortality following DI. METHODS: Among 1580 patients participating in the Peridialysis study, a study of causes and timing of DI, we registered features of predialysis course, clinical and biochemical data at DI, incidence of unplanned suboptimal DI, contraindications to peritoneal dialysis (PD) or hemodialysis (HD), and modality preference, actual choice, and cause of modality choice. Patients were followed for 12 months or until transplantation. A flexible parametric model was used to identify independent factors associated with all-cause mortality. RESULTS: First-year mortality was 19.33%. Independent factors predicting death were high age, comorbidity, clinical contraindications to PD or HD, suboptimal DI, high eGFR, low serum albumin, hyperphosphatemia, high C-reactive protein, signs of overhydration and cerebral symptoms at DI. Among 1061 (67.2%) patients who could select dialysis modality based on personal choice, 654 (61.6%) chose PD, 368 (34.7%) center HD and 39 (3.7%) home HD. The 12-months survival did not differ significantly between patients receiving PD and in-center HD. CONCLUSIONS: First-year mortality in incident dialysis patients was in addition to high age and comorbidity, associated with clinical contraindications to PD or HD, clinical symptoms, hyperphosphatemia, inflammation, and suboptimal DI. In patients with a "free" choice of dialysis modality based on their personal preferences, PD and in-center HD led to broadly similar short-term outcomes.

Choice of dialysis modality among patients initiating dialysis: results of the Peridialysis study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), home dialysis offers socio-economic and health benefits compared with in-centre dialysis but is generally underutilized. We hypothesized that the pre-dialysis course and institutional factors affect the choice of dialysis modality after dialysis initiation (DI). METHODS: The Peridialysis study is a multinational, multicentre prospective observational study assessing the causes and timing of DI and consequences of suboptimal DI. Clinical and biochemical data, details of the pre-dialytic course, reasons for DI and causes of the choice of dialysis modality were registered. RESULTS: Among 1587 included patients, 516 (32.5%) were judged unsuitable for home dialysis due to contraindications [384 ( 24.2%)] or no assessment [106 (6.7%); mainly due to late referral and/or suboptimal DI] or death [26 (1.6%)]. Older age, comorbidity, late referral, suboptimal DI, acute illness and rapid loss of renal function associated with unsuitability. Of the remaining 1071 patients, 700 (65.4%) chose peritoneal dialysis (61.7%) or home haemodialysis (HD; 3.6%), while 371 (34.6%) chose in-centre HD. Somatic differences between patients choosing home dialysis and in-centre dialysis were minor; factors linked to the choice of in-centre dialysis were late referral, suboptimal DI, acute illness and absence of a 'home dialysis first' institutional policy. CONCLUSIONS: Given a personal choice with shared decision making, 65.4% of ESKD patients choose home dialysis. Our data indicate that the incidence of home dialysis potentially could be further increased to reduce the incidence of late referral and unplanned DI and, in acutely ill patients, by implementing an educational programme after improvement of their clinical condition.

Suboptimal dialysis initiation is associated with comorbidities and uraemia progression rate but not with estimated glomerular filtration rate.

BACKGROUND: Despite early referral of uraemic patients to nephrological care, suboptimal dialysis initiation (SDI) remains a common problem associated with increased morbimortality. We hypothesized that SDI is related to pre-dialysis care. METHODS: In the 'Peridialysis' study, time and reasons for dialysis initiation (DI), clinical and biochemical data and centre characteristics were registered during the pre- and peri-dialytic period for 1583 end-stage kidney disease patients starting dialysis over a 3-year period at 15 nephrology departments in the Nordic and Baltic countries to identify factors associated with SDI. RESULTS: SDI occurred in 42%. Risk factors for SDI were late referral, cachexia, comorbidity (particularly cardiovascular), hypoalbuminaemia and rapid uraemia progression. Patients with polycystic renal disease had a lower incidence of SDI. High urea and C-reactive protein levels, acidosis and other electrolyte disorders were markers of SDI, independently of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). SDI patients had higher eGFR than non-SDI patients during the pre-dialysis period, but lower eGFR at DI. eGFR as such did not predict SDI. Patients with comorbidities had higher eGFR at DI. Centre practice and policy did not associate with the incidence of SDI. CONCLUSIONS: SDI occurred in 42% of all DIs. SDI was associated with hypoalbuminaemia, comorbidity and rate of eGFR loss, but not with the degree of renal failure as assessed by eGFR.

Abdominal Aortic Calcifications Predict Survival in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease and vascular calcifications contribute significantly to the outcome of dialysis patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic role of severity of abdominal aortic calcifications and peripheral arterial disease on outcome of peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients using methods easily available in everyday clinical practice. METHODS: We enrolled 249 PD patients (mean age 61 years, 67% male) in this prospective, observational, multicenter study from 2009 to 2013. The abdominal aortic calcification score (AACS) was assessed using lateral lumbar X ray, and the ankle-brachial index (ABI) using a Doppler device. RESULTS: The median AACS was 11 (range 0 - 24). In 58% of the patients, all 4 segments of the abdominal aorta showed deposits, while 19% of patients had no visible deposits (AACS 0). Ankle-brachial index was normal in 49%, low (< 0.9) in 17%, and high (> 1.3) in 34% of patients. Altogether 91 patients (37%) died during the median follow-up of 46 months. Only 2 patients (5%) with AACS 0 died compared with 50% of the patients with AACS ≥ 7 (p < 0.001). The adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 4.85 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.94 - 24.46) for aortic calcification (AACS ≥ 7), 2.14 for diabetes (yes/no), 0.93 for albumin (per 1 g/L), and 1.04 for age (per year). A low or high ABI were not independently associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Severe aortic calcification was a strong predictor of all-cause mortality in PD patients. The evaluation of aortic calcifications by lateral X ray is a simple method that allows the identification of high-risk patients.

A new safety device for hemodialysis.

Accidental venous needle dislodgement during hemodialysis may cause serious bleeding including a sometimes fatal outcome. The venous pressure gauge of the dialysis monitor does not react when dislodgement occurs. A sensor patch put as an adhesive over the venous needle puncture site connected to an alarm unit by an optic fiber has been clinically tested in 5 dialysis departments. A small amount of blood on the sensor activates a light and sound alarm. A simple questionnaire was filled out by the nurses at each dialysis concerning their feeling of safety when the new device was used. Forty-one patients, mean age 65 years, have tested the new safety device. Two hundred test dialyses were studied, after exclusion of 13 tests. One hundred seventy-nine tests reacted positively on blood. In another 6 dialyses, a warning light appeared on the alarm unit indicating a failure in the sensor patch. Thus, the alarm functioned in 92.5% of all tests. After a small modification of the sensor patches there were only 2 dialyses (2/71) without an activated alarm on blood, i.e., 97.2% positive alarm reactions. The answers of the nurses indicated that they had an increased feeling of safety when using the new safety device, with a mean value of 3.4 points on a visual scale from 0 to 5 where 5 meant very much increased safety. In a situation when the dialysis monitors today do not react on bleedings from venous needle dislodgements, the new alarm safety device fulfils a known shortage in routine dialysis safety. In situations where supervision during a dialysis session may be insufficient as, for example, in home hemodialysis and self-care dialysis or in other situations when the patient is sleeping, the device may be life saving.