Impact of Prior Abdominal Procedures on Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Outcomes: Findings From the North American Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Registry.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: A history of prior abdominal procedures may influence the likelihood of referral for peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion. To guide clinical decision making in this population, this study examined the association between prior abdominal procedures and outcomes in patients undergoing PD catheter insertion. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Adults undergoing their first PD catheter insertion between November 1, 2011, and November 1, 2020, at 11 institutions in Canada and the United States participating in the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis North American Catheter Registry. EXPOSURE: Prior abdominal procedure(s) defined as any procedure that enters the peritoneal cavity. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was time to the first of (1) abandonment of the PD catheter or (2) interruption/termination of PD. Secondary outcomes were rates of emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and procedures. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Cumulative incidence curves were used to describe the risk over time, and an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the association between the exposure and primary outcome. Models for count data were used to estimate the associations between the exposure and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of 855 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 31% had a history of a prior abdominal procedure and 20% experienced at least 1 PD catheter-related complication that led to the primary outcome. Prior abdominal procedures were not associated with an increased risk of the primary outcome (adjusted HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.68-1.84). Upper-abdominal procedures were associated with a higher adjusted hazard of the primary outcome, but there was no dose-response relationship concerning the number of procedures. There was no association between prior abdominal procedures and other secondary outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Observational study and cohort limited to a sample of patients believed to be potential candidates for PD catheter insertion. CONCLUSION: A history of prior abdominal procedure(s) does not appear to influence catheter outcomes following PD catheter insertion. Such a history should not be a contraindication to PD. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a life-saving therapy for individuals with kidney failure that can be done at home. PD requires the placement of a tube, or catheter, into the abdomen to allow the exchange of dialysis fluid during treatment. There is concern that individuals who have undergone prior abdominal procedures and are referred for a catheter might have scarring that could affect catheter function. In some institutions, they might not even be offered PD therapy as an option. In this study, we found that a history of prior abdominal procedures did not increase the risk of PD catheter complications and should not dissuade patients from choosing PD or providers from recommending it.

The Association of Intra-Abdominal Adhesions with Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter-Related Complications.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the association of intra-abdominal adhesions with the risk of peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter complications. METHODS: Individuals undergoing laparoscopic PD catheter insertion were prospectively enrolled from eight centers in Canada and the United States. Patients were grouped based on the presence of adhesions observed during catheter insertion. The primary outcome was the composite of PD never starting, termination of PD, or the need for an invasive procedure caused by flow restriction or abdominal pain. RESULTS: Seven hundred and fifty-eight individuals were enrolled, of whom 201 (27%) had adhesions during laparoscopic PD catheter insertion. The risk of the primary outcome occurred in 35 (17%) in the adhesion group compared with 58 (10%) in the no adhesion group (adjusted HR, 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 2.55) within 6 months of insertion. Lower abdominal or pelvic adhesions had an adjusted HR of 1.80 (95% CI, 1.09 to 2.98) compared with the no adhesion group. Invasive procedures were required in 26 (13%) and 47 (8%) of the adhesion and no adhesion groups, respectively (unadjusted HR, 1.60: 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.47) within 6 months of insertion. The adjusted odds ratio for adhesions for women was 1.65 (95% CI, 1.12 to 2.41), for body mass index per 5 kg/m 2 was 1.16 (95% CI, 1.003 to 1.34), and for prior abdominal surgery was 8.34 (95% CI, 5.5 to 12.34). Common abnormalities found during invasive procedures included PD catheter tip migration, occlusion of the lumen with fibrin, omental wrapping, adherence to the bowel, and the development of new adhesions. CONCLUSIONS: People with intra-abdominal adhesions undergoing PD catheter insertion were at higher risk for abdominal pain or flow restriction preventing PD from starting, PD termination, or requiring an invasive procedure. However, most patients, with or without adhesions, did not experience complications, and most complications did not lead to the termination of PD therapy.

The home hemodialysis patient experience: A qualitative assessment of modality use and discontinuation.

INTRODUCTION: Home hemodialysis (HHD) is an under-utilized renal replacement modality in the United States in part because of high rates of discontinuation and transfer to in-center hemodialysis. Understanding, from the perspective of patients, facilitators, and barriers to sustained use of HHD is important for increasing successful use of this modality. METHODS: We conducted 25 semistructured interviews with 15 current and 10 former adult patients treated with home hemodialysis (23 short daily HHD and 2 nocturnal HHD). Interview transcripts were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analyzed. FINDINGS: Five themes related to continuation or discontinuation of HHD emerged: (1) degree of independence (increased flexibility, burden of therapy), (2) availability of support (emotional and physical support and caregiver burden), (3) technical aspects (familiarity with machine), (4) home environment (ability to organize supplies, space in home), and (5) attitude and expectations (positive or negative outlook about performing HHD). For each theme, positive aspects facilitated continuation of HHD and negative aspects contributed to discontinuation of HHD. DISCUSSION: HHD can be burdensome to patients and family members, and some discontinuations may be preventable. Helping patients with scheduling and organization, improving communication about expectations and trouble-shooting, supporting patients as well as family members, adapting the dialysis prescription to the patient's lifestyle when possible, and providing respite when needed may make HHD more sustainable for patients.

Exploring Barriers and Potential Solutions in Home Dialysis: An NKF-KDOQI Conference Outcomes Report.

Home dialysis therapy, including home hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, is underused as a modality for the treatment of chronic kidney failure. The National Kidney Foundation-Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative sponsored a home dialysis conference in late 2017 that was designed to identify the barriers to starting and maintaining patients on home dialysis therapy. Clinical, operational, policy, and societal barriers were identified that need to be overcome to ensure that dialysis patients have the freedom to choose their treatment modality. Education of patients and patient partners, as well as health care providers, about home dialysis therapy, if offered at all, is often provided in a cursory manner. Lack of exposure to home dialysis therapies perpetuates a lack of familiarity and thus a hesitancy to refer patients to home dialysis therapies. Patient and care partner support, both psychosocial and financial, is also critical to minimize the risk for burnout leading to dropout from a home dialysis modality. Thus, the facilitation of home dialysis therapy will require a systematic change in chronic kidney disease education and the approach to dialysis therapy initiation, the creation of additional incentives for performing home dialysis, and breakthroughs to simplify the performance of home dialysis modalities. The home dialysis work group plans to develop strategies to overcome these barriers to home dialysis therapy, which will be presented at a follow-up home dialysis conference.

Home hemodialysis education during postdoctoral training: Challenges and innovations.

Inadequate education in home hemodialysis (HHD) fellowship training might contribute to underutilization of this modality in the United States. Most graduates of nephrology fellowships do not grade themselves as competent in HHD suggesting that fellowship training in HHD is inadequate. An essential component for fellow education is at least one faculty member with expertise in HHD who is passionate about promoting the use of this modality. At a minimum, fellow training should utilize a curriculum that includes both lectures about HHD and outpatient clinical exposure to this modality over a period of at least 6-12 months. Fellows benefit from the opportunity to transition at least three patients to a home modality to gain experience with modality education, access placement, initial prescriptions, and home dialysis training. They should spend time with HHD training nurses to learn more about modality education, observe nurse intake interviews with patients in order to learn the criteria for entrance into the home dialysis program as well as recognize how to identify potential barriers to successful home dialysis therapy. To expose fellows to problems that do not occur during clinic visits fellows are encouraged to take first call during the day for HHD patients. There are many opportunities to do research and quality improvement projects which might also propel some fellows into an academic career as a home dialysis nephrologist.

Factors Associated With Discontinuation of Home Hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Home hemodialysis (HHD) is associated with improved clinical and quality-of-life outcomes compared to in-center hemodialysis, but remains an underused modality in the United States. Discontinuation from HHD therapy may be an important contributor to the low use of this modality. This study aimed to describe the rate and timing of HHD therapy discontinuation, or technique failure, and identify contributing factors. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Using data from a large dialysis provider, we identified a nationally representative cohort of patients who initiated HHD therapy from 2007 to 2009 (N=2,840). FACTORS: Demographics, end-stage renal disease duration, kidney transplant listing status, comorbid conditions, level of urbanization or rurality based on residence zip code, socioeconomic status based on residence zip code, and dialysis facility factors. OUTCOMES: Discontinuation from HHD therapy, defined as 60 or more days with no HHD treatments. MEASUREMENTS: Competing-risk models were used to produce cumulative incidence plots and identify sociodemographic and clinical variables associated with HHD therapy discontinuation. Transplantation and death were treated as competing risks for HHD therapy discontinuation. RESULTS: The 1-year incidence of discontinuation was 24.9%, and the 1-year mortality estimate was 7.6%. Median end-stage renal disease duration prior to initiating HHD therapy was 2.1 years. Diabetes and smoking/alcohol/drug use were associated with increased risk for HHD discontinuation (HRs of 1.34 [95% CI, 1.07-1.68] and 1.34 [95% CI, 1.01-1.78], respectively). Listing for kidney transplantation and rural residence (rural-urban commuting area ≥ 7) were associated with decreased risk for HHD therapy discontinuation (HRs of 0.73 [95% CI, 0.61-0.87] and 0.78 [95% CI, 0.59-1.02], respectively). LIMITATIONS: Limited to variables available within the DaVita dialysis and US Renal Data System data sets. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of patients discontinue HHD therapy within the first 12 months of use of the modality. Patients with diabetes, substance use, nonlisting for kidney transplantation, and urban residence are at greater risk for discontinuation. Targeting high-risk patients for increased support from clinical teams is a potential strategy for reducing HHD therapy discontinuation and increasing technique survival.

Apolipoprotein E and kidney function in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggest that the ε4 and ε2 alleles of apolipoprotein E (APOE) may be associated with decreased and increased risks of CKD, respectively, but there are limited data in older adults. We evaluated the associations of apolipoprotein E alleles with kidney function among older adults in the cardiovascular health study (CHS). METHODS: Caucasian participants had APOE allelic analysis and serum creatinine and cystatin C measured at baseline (n = 3,844 for cross sectional analysis) and in follow up (n = 3,226 for longitudinal analysis). APOE variation was evaluated as an additive model with number of ε2, ε3 and ε4 alleles. GFR was estimated using the CKD epidemiology equation (eGFRcreat) and the cystatin C demographic equation (eGFRcys). The primary outcome was CKD defined by eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2. The secondary outcome was rapid progression defined by annual loss of eGFR > 3 ml/min/1.73 m2. RESULTS: Mean eGFRcreat was 72 ml/min/1.73 m2 (25% CKD). Compared with the ε3 allele, the APOE ε4 allele was associated with reduced risk of CKD by eGFRcreat: unadjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 (0.67 - 0.93) per allele, fully adjusted OR (95% CI) 0.80 (0.68 - 0.96) per allele. Results were consistent using eGFRcys. There was no association of the ε2 allele with CKD or between the apolipoprotein E gene with rapid progression. CONCLUSIONS: The apolipoprotein ε4 allele was associated with lower odds of CKD in elderly Caucasian individuals. Future research should confirm these findings in other races and explore mechanisms to explain these results.