Is the cost of the new home dialysis techniques still advantageous compared to in-center hemodialysis? An Italian single center analysis and comparison with experiences from western countries.

Introduction: Potential advantages of home dialysis remained a questionable issue. Three main factors have to be considered: the progressive reduction in the cost of consumables for in-Center hemodialysis (IC-HD), the widespread use of incremental Peritoneal Dialysis (PD), and the renewed interest in home hemodialysis (H-HD) in the pandemic era. Registries data on prevalence of dialysis modalities generally report widespread underemployment of home dialysis despite PD and H-HD could potentially provide clinical benefits, improve quality of life, and contrast the diffusion of new infection among immunocompromised patients. Methods: We examined the economic impact of home dialysis by comparing the direct and indirect costs of PD (53 patients), H-HD (21 patients) and IC-HD (180 patients) in a single hospital of North-west Italy. In order to achieve comparable weekly costs, the average weekly frequency of dialysis sessions based on the dialysis modality was calculated, the cost of individual sessions per patient per week normalized, and the monthly and yearly costs were derived. Results: As expected, PD resulted the least expensive procedure (€ 23,314.79 per patient per year), but, notably, H-HD has a lower average cost than IC-HD (€ 35,535.00 vs. € 40,798.98). A cost analysis of the different dialysis procedures confirms the lower cost of PD, especially continuous ambulatory PD, compared to any extracorporeal technique. Discussion: Among the hemodialysis techniques, home bicarbonate HD showed the lowest costs, while the weekly cost of Frequent Home Hemodialysis was found to be comparable to In-Center Bicarbonate Hemodialysis.

[Trend in PD in non-pediatric public centers in Italy: results of the 2010 GSDP-SIN census and comparison with the 2008 and 2005 censuses]. / Andamento della DP in Italia nei centri pubblici non pediatrici: Risultati del censimento GSDP-SIN 2010 e confronto con i censimenti 2008 e 2005.

The 2010 Italian Society of Nephrology Peritoneal Dialysis Study Group (GSPD-SIN) census (Cs-10) involved the 224 Centers performing PD in Italy. PD was used as 1st treatment in 23.3% (1429/4695) of pts (Cs-08:22.8%; Cs-05:24.2%), with 53.4% of them using CAPD. The use of incremental CAPD increased in Cs-10 (Cs-10:35.3%; Cs-08:25.7%; Cs-05:13.6%; p<0.0001). The number of prevalent pts was 4,222 (Cs-10:16.6%; Cs-08:16.6%; Cs-05:16.8%; p=NS), 45.7% of whom were on CAPD; 24.4% (Cs-08:21.8%; p<0.05) required assistance (family member:80.6%; caregiver:12.6%; nurse: 3.0%; RSA:3.4%). In Cs-10 the PD out rate (1,354 pts, of whom ep/100pt-yrs for drop-out: 12.4; death: 12.9; Tx: 7.5) was not different to previous years. The peritonitis rate was 0.30 ep/yr/pt, 18.5% of which with negative culture. There were 44 episodes of EPS in the period 2009-10 (0.53 ep/100yrs); while in the previous 5-year period there were 146 (0.70 ep/100pt-yrs). PET is performed by 98% of the centers, mostly using 2.27% (70.5%). Home visits are carried out by 59.1% of the centers. If regular (8.9% of the centers), they are associated with fewer ep/mth of peritonitis (61.2 vs 38.8) and lower drop-out (8.6 vs 12.8 ep/100 pt/yr - p<0.05) Cs-10 confirms the good results PD is having in the Centers that use it. Incremental CAPD and assisted PD are increasing. EPS remains a rare event. Standard PET is the most frequently-used evaluation of the peritoneal membrane. Though home visits are associated with lower peritonitis and drop-out rates, they are carried out regularly by a minority of the Centers.

A load volume suitable for reaching dialysis adequacy targets in anuric patients on 4-exchange CAPD.

INTRODUCTION: Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) depuration indexes are targeted to get a minimum total weekly peritoneal urea clearance (Kt/V) of 1.70 and creatinine clearance/1.73 m(2) (pCrCL) of 50 l. In anuric patients these targets are difficult to achieve. Since dialysis volumes (load, VOL(in); drain, VOL(out)) are the main determinants of peritoneal clearances (pCLs), we aimed to estimate the minimum volumes required to fulfill these targets in anuric patients. METHODS: Sixty-nine CAPD anuric patients from eight dialysis units were observed retrospectively. Demographic data, dialysis schedule, VOLs and depuration indexes were recorded. The relationship between normalized VOLs and pCLs was estimated by linear regression analysis as a whole (95 % confidence interval of the fit) and stratified by tertiles of body weight (BW) and surface area (BSA). RESULTS: Mean weekly pKt/V was 1.89 ± 0.29, pCrCL 52.9 ± 8.0, VOL(in) 32.9 ± 5.3 ml/kg and VOL(out) 37.4 ± 6.7 ml/kg exchange. VOL(in) and VOL(out) correlated with depuration indexes only if normalized. A VOL(in) of 28.5 ml/kg exchange (27.0-30.0) was associated with a pKt/V of 1.70, and a VOL(in) of 29.5 (26.5-31.5) with a pCrCL of 50 l, with a VOL(out) of 31.7 ml/kg (29.5-33.5) and 32.4 (27.2-35.5), respectively. Smaller patients needed a lower normalized VOL(in)/exchange to obtain pKt/V = 1.70 (1st vs. 2nd vs. 3rd BW tertiles: 28.3 vs. 28.9 vs. 29.0 ml/kg; BSA tertiles: 1,696 vs. 1,935 vs. 2,086 ml/1.73). CONCLUSIONS: In CAPD anuric patients VOL(in) prescription could be tailored to body mass to reach the minimum depuration target. Normalized VOL(in) might be prescribed in slightly higher doses (from 27 to 30 ml/kg exchange) for patients with higher body mass.

The peritoneal dialysis catheter.

The results obtained from the positioning and management of the catheter for peritoneal dialysis depend on the techniques used, but also and above all, on the experience of the practitioners. A comparison between practitioners may help to change their convictions, as well as to further improve results, in the interests of patient welfare. This is the aim of these Best Practice Guidelines..

Peritoneal ultrafiltration in patients with advanced decompensated heart failure.

The aim of the Best Practice guidelines on peritoneal ultrafiltration (UF) in patients with treatment-resistant advanced decompensated heart failure (TR-AHDF) is to achieve a common approach to the management of decompensated heart failure in those situations in which all conventional treatment options have been unsuccessful, and to stimulate a closer cooperation between nephrologists and cardiologists. The standardization of the case series of different centers would allow a better definition of the results published in the literature, without which they are nothing more than anecdotes. TR-AHDF is characterized by the persistence of severe symptoms even when all possible pharmacological and surgical options have been exhausted. These patients are often treated with methods that allow extracorporeal UF - slow continuous ultrafiltration (SCUF) and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) - which have to be performed in hospital facilities. Peritoneal ultrafiltration (PUF) can be considered a treatment option in patients with TR-AHDF when, despite the fact that all treatment options have been used, patients meet the following criteria: • stage D decompensated heart failure (ACC/AHA classification); • INTERMACS level 4 decompensated heart failure; • INTERMACS frequent flyer profile; • chronic renal failure (estimated glomerular filtration rate <50 ml/min per 1.73 m2: KDOQI classification stage 3 chronic kidney disease); • no obvious contraindications to peritoneal UF. PUF treatment modes are derived from the treatment regimens proposed by various authors to obtain systemic UF in patients with severe decompensated heart failure, using manual and automated incremental peritoneal dialysis involving various glucose concentrations in addition to the single icodextrin exchange. These guidelines also identify a minimum set of tests and procedures for the follow-up phase, to be supplemented, according to the center's resources and policy, with other tests that are less routine or more complex also from a logistic/organizational standpoint, emphasizing the need for the patient's clinical and treatment program to involve both the nephrologist and the cardiologist. The pathophysiological aspects of a deterioration in kidney function in patients with decompensated heart failure are also considered, and the results of PUF in patients with decompensated heart failure reported in the various case series are reviewed.

[Indications from the first audit on peritoneal dialysis in Piedmont and Aosta valley]. / Indicazioni dal primo audit sulla dialisi peritoneale in Piemonte e in Valle D'Aosta.

In March 2009 a clinical audit was held in Turin on peritoneal dialysis in order to analyze the problems that still hinder the effective deployment of the technique in Piedmont-Aosta Valley. Various data about epidemiological and clinical management were collected by means of a questionnaire that all 26 nephrology centers of the two regions responded to. The two major critical issues highlighted were the role of the outpatient facility dedicated to uremic patients and why the peritoneal technique was not chosen for new dialysis patients. With regard to the first issue, the presence of a well structured outpatient facility dedicated to chronic renal failure seems to direct more uremic patients to peritoneal dialysis, at the same time decreasing the rate of late referrals. Regarding the second issue, patient choice was the leading cause followed by problems related to the partner, while traditional clinical contraindications interfered to a lesser extent with the choice of dialysis technique. We therefore believe that it will be possible to increase the use of peritoneal dialysis by improving organizational aspects of the dialysis center and trying to remedy the lack of social support. Accurate information and early care of uremic patients by dedicated outpatient facilities are in fact able to lead more patients to choose peritoneal dialysis. The implementation of measures of support, such as financial incentives to dialysis patients following a recent decision of the Piedmont region, could help to overcome problems related to the lack or unhelpfulness of a partner.