Nephrology Referral Based on Laboratory Values, Kidney Failure Risk, or Both: A Study Using Veterans Affairs Health System Data.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines for nephrology referral are based on laboratory criteria. We sought to evaluate whether nephrology referral patterns reflect current clinical practice guidelines and to estimate the change in referral volume if they were based on the estimated risk of kidney failure. STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective study of 399,644 veterans with chronic kidney disease (October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016). EXPOSURE: Laboratory referral criteria based on Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense guidelines, categories of predicted risk for kidney failure using the Kidney Failure Risk Equation, and the combination of laboratory referral criteria and predicted risk. OUTCOME: Number of patients identified for referral. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: We evaluated the number of patients who were referred and their predicted 2-year risk for kidney failure. For each exposure, we estimated the number of patients who would be identified for referral. RESULTS: There were 66,276 patients who met laboratory indications for referral. Among these patients, 11,752 (17.7%) were referred to nephrology in the following year. The median 2-year predicted risk of kidney failure was 1.5% (interquartile range, 0.3%-4.7%) among all patients meeting the laboratory referral criteria. If referrals were restricted to patients with a predicted risk of ≥1% in addition to laboratory indications, the potential referral volume would be reduced from 66,276 to 38,229 patients. If referrals were based on predicted risk alone, a 2-year risk threshold of 1% or higher would identify a similar number of patients (72,948) as laboratory-based criteria with median predicted risk of 2.3% (interquartile range, 1.4%-4.6%). LIMITATIONS: Missing proteinuria measurements. CONCLUSIONS: The current laboratory-based guidelines for nephrology referral identify patients who are, on average, at low risk for progression, most of whom are not referred. As an alternative, referral based on a 2-year kidney failure risk exceeding 1% would identify a similar number of patients but with a higher median risk of kidney failure.

National Estimates of CKD Prevalence and Potential Impact of Estimating Glomerular Filtration Rate Without Race.

BACKGROUND: The implications of removing the adjustment for Black race in equations to eGFR on the prevalence of CKD and management strategies are incompletely understood. METHODS: We estimated changes in CKD prevalence and the potential effect on therapeutic drug prescriptions and prediction of kidney failure if race adjustment were removed from the CKD-EPI GFR estimating equation. We used cross-sectional and longitudinal data from adults aged ≥18 years in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2015 to 2016, and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System in 2015. In the VA cohort, we assessed use of common medications that require dose adjustment on the basis of kidney function, and compared the prognostic accuracy of the Kidney Failure Risk Equation with versus without race adjustment of eGFR. RESULTS: The prevalence of CKD among Black adults increased from 5.2% to 10.6% in NHANES, and from 12.4% to 21.6% in the VA cohort after eliminating race adjustment. Among Black veterans, 41.0% of gabapentin users, 33.5% of ciprofloxacin users, 24.0% of metformin users, 6.9% of atenolol users, 6.6% of rosuvastatin users, and 5.8% of tramadol users were reclassified to a lower eGFR for which dose adjustment or discontinuation is recommended. Without race adjustment of eGFR, discrimination of the Kidney Failure Risk Equation among Black adults remained high and calibration was marginally improved overall, with better calibration at higher levels of predicted risk. CONCLUSIONS: Removal of race adjustment from CKD-EPI eGFR would double the estimated prevalence of CKD among Black adults in the United States. Such a change is likely to affect a sizeable number of drug-dosing decisions. It may also improve the accuracy of kidney failure risk prediction among higher-risk Black adults.

Outcomes Among Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices Receiving Maintenance Outpatient Hemodialysis: A Case Series.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: The incidence of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation as destination therapy for heart failure is increasing and kidney failure requiring maintenance hemodialysis is a common complication. Because little is known about the safety or efficacy of outpatient hemodialysis among patients with LVADs, this study sought to describe their clinical course. STUDY DESIGN: Case series of patients with an LVAD undergoing maintenance outpatient hemodialysis whose clinical data were obtained from an electronic medical record. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Adults who received an LVAD, survived to hospital discharge, and were subsequently treated with maintenance hemodialysis by a not-for-profit dialysis provider between 2011 and 2019. RESULTS: 11 patients were included. 6 had a known history of chronic kidney disease. Patients underwent outpatient hemodialysis for a mean duration of 165.2 (range, 31-542) days, during which they were treated with 544 total dialysis sessions. 6 of these sessions were stopped early due to dialysis-related adverse events (1.1%). More than 80% of follow-up time was spent out of the hospital; however, 55% of patients were rehospitalized within 1 month of starting outpatient hemodialysis. The most common reason for hospitalization was infection (32%), followed by hypervolemia (14%), and cerebrovascular accident or transient ischemic attack (11%). 4 patients recovered kidney function, 1 underwent combined heart and kidney transplantation, 2 continued treatment, 2 died, and 2 were lost to follow-up. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design, small number of cases, and lack of complete follow-up data. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half the patients with complete follow-up either recovered kidney function or underwent combined heart and kidney transplantation. This case series demonstrates that outpatient hemodialysis centers, in partnership with LVAD treatment teams, can successfully provide hemodialysis to patients on LVAD support.

The effect of blood flow rate on dialysis recovery time in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis: A prospective, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: A majority of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on in-center hemodialysis (HD) require several hours to recover from an HD session. Patients and caregivers identify fatigue as a high priority for improvement. However, evidence for practical interventions to improve recovery time from conventional in-center HD is lacking. The effect of blood flow rate reduction on dialysis recovery time (DRT) is unknown. METHODS: Multicenter, single-blinded, randomized, parallel-design controlled trial of blood flow rate reduction vs. usual care. One-hundred two patients with ESRD undergoing maintenance HD in 18 centers with baseline DRT of greater than 6 hours were included as subjects. The intervention was a blood flow rate reduction of 100 mL/min, to a minimum of 300 mL/min. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in change in DRT. Secondary outcomes were changes in London Evaluation of Illness (LEVIL) survey responses from baseline. FINDINGS: Baseline median DRT was 720 (IQR 360-1013) minutes in controls and 720 (IQR 360-1106) minutes in the intervention group. DRT decreased in both groups. Mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) at Week 4 in the study was -324 (-473, -175) minutes in the control group and -120 (-329, 90) minutes in the intervention group. The change from baseline was more profound in the control group (P = 0.05). Secondary outcomes of measures of quality of life reported on the LEVIL survey showed more improvement in patients' feelings of general well-being in the control group (P = 0.01). Differences between groups in pain, feeling washed out or drained, sleep quality, shortness of breath, and appetite were not statistically significant. DISCUSSION: Blood flow rate reduction did not improve DRT over usual care. Though more work needs to be done to address patient-reported fatigue, a significant positive impact may not be achieved without substantial changes in dialysis prescription.