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.

Exploring the Impact of In Basket Metrics on the Adoption of a New Electronic Health Record System Among Specialists in a Tertiary Hospital in Alberta: Descriptive Study.

BACKGROUND: Health care organizations implement electronic health record (EHR) systems with the expectation of improved patient care and enhanced provider performance. However, while these technologies hold the potential to create improved care and system efficiencies, they can also lead to unintended negative consequences, such as patient safety issues, communication problems, and provider burnout. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to document metrics related to the In Basket communication hub (time in In Basket per day, time in In Basket per appointment, In Basket messages received per day, and turnaround time) of the EHR system implemented by Alberta Health Services, the province-wide health delivery system called Connect Care (Epic Systems). The objective was to identify how a newly implemented EHR system was used, the timing of its use, and the duration of use specifically related to In Basket activities. METHODS: A descriptive study was conducted. Due to the diversity of specialties, the providers were grouped into medical and surgical based on previous similar studies. The participants were further subgrouped based on their self-reported clinical full-time equivalent (FTE ) measure. This resulted in 3 subgroups for analysis: medical FTE <0.5, medical FTE >0.5, and surgical (all of whom reported FTE >0.5). The analysis was limited to outpatient clinical interactions and explicitly excluded inpatient activities. RESULTS: A total of 72 participants from 19 different specialties enrolled in this study. The providers had, on average, 8.31 appointments per day during the reporting periods. The providers received, on average, 21.93 messages per day, and they spent 7.61 minutes on average in the time in In Basket per day metric and 1.84 minutes on average in the time in In Basket per appointment metric. The time for the providers to mark messages as done (turnaround time) was on average 11.45 days during the reporting period. Although the surgical group had, on average, approximately twice as many appointments per scheduled day, they spent considerably less connected time (based on almost all time metrics) than the medical group. However, the surgical group took much longer than the medical group to mark messages as done (turnaround time). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a range of patterns with no consistent direction. There does not seem to be evidence of a "learning curve," which would have shown a consistent reduction in time spent on the system over time due to familiarity and experience. While this study does not show how the included metrics could be used as predictors of providers' satisfaction or feelings of burnout, the use trends could be used to start discussions about future Canadian studies needed in this area.

Technique Failure in a Multicenter Canadian Home Hemodialysis Cohort.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Increasing uptake of home hemodialysis (HD) has led to interest in characteristics that predict discontinuation of home HD therapy for reasons other than death or transplantation. Recent reports of practice pattern variability led to the hypothesis that there are patient- and center-specific factors that influence these discontinuations. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Incident home HD patients at 7 centers in Canada between 2000 and 2010. PREDICTOR: Treatment center, case-mix, and process-of-care variables. OUTCOMES: Technique failure (defined as discontinuation of home HD therapy for any reason other than training failure, death, or transplantation) and mortality. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Regression modeling of technique failure using Cox proportional hazard models adjusting for treatment center and modifiable and nonmodifiable patient-level variables, censored for death and transplantation. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 579 patients. Mean age was 49.9±14.1 years, 74% were of European ancestry, median dialysis vintage was 1.9 (IQR, 0.6-5.2) years, and 68% used an arteriovenous access. Mean duration of dialysis was 31.2±12.6 hours per week. Unadjusted 1- and 2-year technique survival and overall survival were 90% and 83% and 94% and 87%, respectively. Treating center was a strong predictor of technique failure and mortality, with HRs ranging from 0.37 to 5.11 for technique failure (1 of 6 centers with P<0.05 relative to the reference) and 0.17 to 8.73 for mortality (3 of 6 centers with P<0.05 relative to the reference). With baseline adjustment for center, only older age and more than 3 treatments per week remained significant predictors of technique failure, while no individual-level variables remained as significant predictors of survival. LIMITATIONS: Limited statistical power. CONCLUSIONS: Home HD treating centers may influence technique failure and patient mortality independent of case-mix. The relationship between processes of care and patient outcomes requires further investigation.

Predictors of Care Gaps in Home Dialysis: The Home Dialysis Virtual Ward Study.

BACKGROUND: Home dialysis patients may be at an increased risk of adverse events after transitional states. The home dialysis virtual ward (HDVW) trial was conducted in Canadian dialysis centers and aimed to evaluate potential care gaps and patient satisfaction during the HDVW. METHODS: The HDVW was a multicenter single-arm trial including peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis patients after 4 different events (hospital discharge, medical procedure, antibiotics, completion of training). Telephone-led interviews using a standardized assessment tool were performed over a 2-week period to assess a patient's care and adjust treatment as required. Upon completion, patients were surveyed to evaluate their perceived impact on domains of care using a rating scale; 1 not satisfied to 10 completely satisfied. RESULTS: The HDVW trial included 193 patients with a median number of potential care gaps/interventions of 1 (0-2) per patient. Patients admitted to the HDVW after hospital discharge were at a higher risk of potential gaps in care (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.29-3.62), while longer dialysis vintage was -associated with a lower number of gaps/interventions (OR 0.97 per year, 95% CI 0.95-0.98). A total of 105/193 (54%) patients completed satisfaction surveys. Patients were highly satisfied with the HDVW (median rating scale score 8, IQR 2) and felt it had a positive impact (rating scale score ≥7) on their overall health, understanding of treatment and access to a nephrologist. CONCLUSION: The HDVW was effective at identifying several potential care gaps, and patients were satisfied across several domains of care. This intervention may be valuable in supporting home dialysis patients during care transitions.

In-Center Nocturnal Hemodialysis Versus Conventional Hemodialysis: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Owing to its longer treatment duration-up to 8 hours per dialysis treatment-in-center thrice-weekly nocturnal hemodialysis (HD) is receiving greater attention. To better understand the evidence for in-center nocturnal HD, we sought to systematically review the literature to determine the effects of in-center nocturnal HD versus conventional HD on clinically relevant outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (EBMR), Web of Science, and Scopus from the earliest date in the database to November 2016. SETTING & POPULATION: Adults receiving in-center nocturnal HD compared with those receiving conventional HD. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: All quasi-experimental and observational studies were considered; randomized trials were sought but not found. PREDICTOR: Nocturnal vs conventional in-center HD. OUTCOMES: Indexes of blood pressure and left ventricular hypertrophy, markers of anemia, measures of bone mineral metabolism, nutrition, quality of life, sleep quality, episodes of intradialytic hypotension, hospitalization, and mortality. RESULTS: Of 2,086 identified citations, 21 met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 1,165 in-center nocturnal HD patients and 15,865 conventional HD patients. Although there was substantial heterogeneity in reporting of outcomes, we pooled data for measures of blood pressure, anemia, and mineral metabolism. Though heterogeneity was generally high, in-center nocturnal HD was associated with improved systolic blood pressure (-3.18 [95% CI, -5.58 to -0.78) mm Hg, increased hemoglobin levels (0.53 [95% CI, 0.11-0.94] g/dL), and lower serum phosphate levels (-0.97 [95% CI, -1.48 to -0.46] mg/dL). LIMITATIONS: No randomized trials have been conducted to address the clinical effects of in-center nocturnal HD. The quality of the observational literature contributing to the results of this review was generally poor to moderate. Confounded outcomes are a significant concern. Publication bias and outcome reporting bias remain possibilities. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to conventional HD, in-center nocturnal HD was associated with improvements in several clinically relevant outcomes. Other benefits may not have been detected due to small sample sizes of included studies; no prespecified outcome was worse with in-center nocturnal HD.

Clinical safety and performance of VIVIA: a novel home hemodialysis system.

Background: The VIVIA Hemodialysis System (Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Deerfield, IL, USA) was designed for patient use at home to reduce the burden of treatment and improve patient safety. It has unique features including extended use of the dialyzer and blood set through in situ hot-water disinfection between treatments; generation of on-line infusible-quality dialysate for automated priming, rinseback and hemodynamic support during hypotension and a fully integrated access disconnect sensor. Methods: The safety and performance of VIVIA were assessed in two clinical studies. A first-in-man study was a prospective, single-arm study that involved 22 prevalent hemodialysis (HD) patients who were treated for ∼4 h, four times a week, for 10 weeks. A second clinical study was a prospective, single-arm study (6-8 h of dialysis treatment at night three times a week) that involved 17 prevalent patients treated for 6 weeks. Results: There were 1114 treatments from the two studies (first-in-man study, 816; extended duration study, 298). Adverse events (AEs) were similar in the two studies to those expected for prevalent HD patients. No deaths and no device-related serious AEs occurred. Adequacy of dialysis ( Kt / V ) urea in both clinical trials was well above the clinical guidelines. VIVIA performed ultrafiltration accurately as prescribed in the two studies. The majority of patients achieved 10 or more uses of the dialyzer. Endotoxin levels and bacterial dialysate sampling met infusible-quality dialysate standards. Conclusion: These results confirm the safety and expected performance of VIVIA.

Delivering home hemodialysis: is there still a role for real-time treatment monitoring?

Remote real-time treatment monitoring for home hemodialysis (HHD) was driven by concerns over patient safety in the early era of HHD. However, decades of clinical experience supported by objective data suggest that HHD is very safe and that remote monitoring is unlikely to avert serious adverse events. As a result, such remote monitoring is not routinely offered in the current era and is generally considered an unnecessary expense. However, a one-size-fits-all approach to abandon remote monitoring may overlook potential opportunities: to improve the clinical care of patients dialyzing at home; and to give patients the confidence to perform HHD in an unsupervised setting.

Procedure-related serious adverse events among home hemodialysis patients: a quality assurance perspective.

BACKGROUND: There has been resurgent interest in home hemodialysis (HD) in recent years because of the reported benefits and its excellent safety record. However, the potential for adverse events, including potentially catastrophic ones, exists when patients are performing HD in their homes without supervision. There is a lack of literature on this important topic. STUDY DESIGN: Quality improvement report. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: We present the experience of 2 adult home HD programs in Canada from 2001 to 2012, including a total of 190 patients and approximately 500 patient-years of treatments. QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN: We retrospectively reviewed all life-threatening adverse events occurring in our programs and re-examined our approach to patient training, retraining, and safety monitoring. RESULTS: We report 1 death and 6 potentially fatal adverse events, yielding a crude rate of 0.060 events/1,000 dialysis treatments. Six of 7 events involved significant blood loss (including 1 exsanguination); 5 of 7 events involved human error with lapses in protocol adherence. Because such events are rare, evaluation of specific intervention strategies will require much longer follow-up. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective identification of cases. A specific quality improvement initiative was not undertaken. CONCLUSIONS: Life-threatening adverse events in home HD are uncommon; however, when one does occur, this should prompt review of home HD-related policies and procedures to make this therapy even safer.

Buttonhole versus rope-ladder cannulation of arteriovenous fistulas for hemodialysis: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The buttonhole technique is an alternative method of cannulating the arteriovenous fistula (AVF) in hemodialysis (HD), frequently used for home HD patients. However, the balance of risks and benefits of the buttonhole compared with the rope-ladder technique is uncertain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized trials and observational studies (case reports, case series, studies without a control group, non-English studies, and abstracts were excluded). SETTING & POPULATION: HD patients (both in-center conventional HD and home HD) using an AVF for vascular access. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL from the earliest date in the databases to March 2014 for studies comparing clinical outcomes of the buttonhole versus rope-ladder technique. INTERVENTION: Buttonhole versus rope-ladder cannulation technique. OUTCOMES: The primary outcomes of interest were patient-reported cannulation pain and rates of AVF-related local and systemic infections. Secondary outcomes included access survival, intervention, hospitalization, and mortality, as well as hematoma and aneurysm formation, time to hemostasis, and all-cause hospitalization and mortality. RESULTS: Of 1,044 identified citations, 23 studies were selected for inclusion. There was equivocal evidence with respect to cannulation pain: pooled observational studies yielded a statistical reduction in pain with buttonhole cannulation (standardized mean difference, -0.76 [95%CI, -1.38 to -0.15] standard deviations), but no difference in cannulation pain was found among randomized controlled trials (standardized mean difference, 0.34 [95%CI, -0.76 to 1.43] standard deviations). Buttonhole, as compared to rope-ladder, technique appeared to be associated with increased risk of local and systemic infections. LIMITATIONS: Overall poor quality and substantial heterogeneity among studies precluded pooling of most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence does not support the preferential use of buttonhole over rope-ladder cannulation in either facility-based conventional HD or home HD. This does not preclude buttonhole cannulation as being appropriate for some patients with difficult-to-access AVFs.

Rationale for a home dialysis virtual ward: design and implementation.

BACKGROUND: Home-based renal replacement therapy (RRT) [peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD)] offers independent quality of life and clinical advantages compared to conventional in-center hemodialysis. However, follow-up may be less complete for home dialysis patients following a change in care settings such as post hospitalization. We aim to implement a Home Dialysis Virtual Ward (HDVW) strategy, which is targeted to minimize gaps of care. METHODS/DESIGN: The HDVW Pilot Study will enroll consecutive PD and HHD patients who fulfilled any one of our inclusion criteria: 1. following discharge from hospital, 2. after interventional procedure(s), 3. prescription of anti-microbial agents, or 4. following completion of home dialysis training. Clinician-led telephone interviews are performed weekly for 2 weeks until VW discharge. Case-mix (modified Charlson Comorbidity Index), symptoms (the modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale) and patient satisfaction are assessed serially. The number of VW interventions relating to eight pre-specified domains will be measured. Adverse events such as re-hospitalization and health-services utilization will be ascertained through telephone follow-up after discharge from the VW at 2, 4, 12 weeks. The VW re-hospitalization rate will be compared with a contemporary cohort (matched for age, gender, renal replacement therapy and co-morbidities). Our protocol has been approved by research ethics board (UHN: 12-5397-AE). Written informed consent for participation in the study will be obtained from participants. DISCUSSION: This report serves as a blueprint for the design and implementation of a novel health service delivery model for home dialysis patients. The major goal of the HDVW initiative is to provide appropriate and effective supports to medically complex patients in a targeted window of vulnerability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (NCT01912001).

Patient Training and Patient Safety in Home Hemodialysis.

The success of a home hemodialysis program depends largely on a patient safety framework and the risk tolerance of a home dialysis program. Dialysis treatments require operators to perform dozens of steps repeatedly and reliably in a complex procedure. For home hemodialysis, those operators are patients themselves or their care partners, so attention to safety and risk mitigation is front of mind. While newer, smaller, and more user-friendly dialysis machines designed explicitly for home use are slowly entering the marketplace, teaching patients to perform their own treatments in an unsupervised setting hundreds of times remains a foundational programmatic obligation regardless of machine. Just how safe is home hemodialysis? How does patient training affect this safety? There is a surprising lack of literature surrounding these questions. No consensus exists among home hemodialysis programs regarding optimized training schedules or methods, with each program adopting its own approach on the basis of local experience. Furthermore, there are little available data on the safety of home hemodialysis as compared with conventional in-center hemodialysis. This review will outline considerations for training patients on home hemodialysis, discuss the safety of home hemodialysis with an emphasis on the risk of serious and life-threatening adverse effects, and address the methods by which adverse events are monitored and prevented.

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.

Canadian Society of Nephrology guidelines for the management of patients with ESRD treated with intensive hemodialysis.

Intensive (longer and more frequent) hemodialysis has emerged as an alternative to conventional hemodialysis for the treatment of patients with end-stage renal disease. However, given the differences in dialysis delivery and models of care associated with intensive dialysis, alternative approaches to patient management may be required. The purpose of this work was to develop a clinical practice guideline for the Canadian Society of Nephrology. We applied the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for guideline development and performed targeted systematic reviews and meta-analysis (when appropriate) to address prioritized clinical management questions. We included studies addressing the treatment of patients with end-stage renal disease with short daily (≥5 days per week, <3 hours per session), long (3-4 days per week, ≥5.5 hours per session), or long-frequent (≥5 days per week, ≥5.5 hours per session) hemodialysis. We included clinical trials and observational studies with or without a control arm (1990 and later). Based on a prioritization exercise, 6 interventions of interest included optimal vascular access type, buttonhole cannulation, antimicrobial prophylaxis for buttonhole cannulation, closed connector devices, and dialysate calcium and dialysate phosphate additives for patients receiving intensive hemodialysis. We developed 6 recommendations addressing the interventions of interest. Overall quality of the evidence was very low and all recommendations were conditional. We provide detailed commentaries to guide in shared decision making. The main limitation was the very low overall quality of evidence that precluded strong recommendations. Most included studies were small single-arm observational studies. Three randomized controlled trials were applicable, but provided only indirect evidence. Published information for patient values and preference was lacking. In conclusion, we provide 6 recommendations for the practice of intensive hemodialysis. However, due to very low-quality evidence, all recommendations were conditional. We therefore also highlight priorities for future research.

Dialysate calcium concentration and mineral metabolism in long and long-frequent hemodialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis for a Canadian Society of Nephrology clinical practice guideline.

BACKGROUND: Patients treated with conventional hemodialysis (HD) develop disorders of mineral metabolism that are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. More frequent and longer HD has been associated with improvement in hyperphosphatemia that may improve outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis to inform the clinical practice guideline on intensive dialysis for the Canadian Society of Nephrology. SETTING & POPULATION: Adult patients receiving outpatient long (≥5.5 hours/session; 3-4 times per week) or long-frequent (≥5.5 hours/session, ≥5 sessions per week) HD. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: We included clinical trials, cohort studies, case series, case reports, and systematic reviews. INTERVENTIONS: Dialysate calcium concentration ≥1.5 mmol/L and/or phosphate additive. OUTCOMES: Fragility fracture, peripheral arterial and coronary artery disease, calcific uremic arteriolopathy, mortality, intradialytic hypotension, parathyroidectomy, extraosseous calcification, markers of mineral metabolism, diet liberalization, phosphate-binder use, and muscle mass. RESULTS: 21 studies were identified: 2 randomized controlled trials, 2 reanalyses of data from the randomized controlled trials, and 17 observational studies. Dialysate calcium concentration ≥1.5 mmol/L for patients treated with long and long-frequent HD prevents an increase in parathyroid hormone levels and a decline in bone mineral density without causing harm. Both long and long-frequent HD were associated with a reduction in serum phosphate level of 0.42-0.45 mmol/L and a reduction in phosphate-binder use. There was no direct evidence to support the use of a dialysate phosphate additive. LIMITATIONS: Almost all the available information is related to changes in laboratory values and surrogate outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Dialysate calcium concentration ≥1.5 mmol/L for most patients treated with long and long-frequent dialysis prevents an increase in parathyroid hormone levels and decline in bone mineral density without increased risk of calcification. It seems prudent to add phosphate to the dialysate for patients with a low predialysis phosphate level or very low postdialysis phosphate level until more evidence becomes available.

Vascular access for intensive maintenance hemodialysis: a systematic review for a Canadian Society of Nephrology clinical practice guideline.

BACKGROUND: Practices in vascular access management with intensive hemodialysis may differ from those used in conventional hemodialysis. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review to inform clinical practice guidelines for the provision of intensive hemodialysis. SETTING & POPULATION: Adult patients receiving maintenance (>3 months) intensive hemodialysis (frequent [≥5 hemodialysis treatments per week] and/or long [>5.5 hours per hemodialysis treatment]). SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE (1990-2011) for randomized and observational studies. We also searched conference proceedings (2007-2011). INTERVENTIONS: (1) Central venous catheter (CVC) versus arteriovenous (AV) access, (2) buttonhole versus rope-ladder cannulation, (3) topical antimicrobial cream versus none in buttonhole cannulation, and (4) closed connector devices among CVC users. OUTCOMES: Access-related infection, survival, hospitalization, patency, access survival, intervention rates, and quality of life. RESULTS: We included 23, 7, and 5 reports describing effectiveness by access type, buttonhole cannulation, and closed connector device, respectively. No study directly compared CVC with AV access. On average, bacteremia and local infection rates were higher with CVC compared with AV access. Access intervention rates were higher with more frequent hemodialysis, but access survival did not differ. Buttonhole cannulation was associated with bacteremia rates similar to those seen with CVCs in some series. Topical mupirocin seemed to attenuate this effect. No direct comparisons of closed connector devices versus standard luer-locking devices were found. Low rates of actual or averted (near misses) air embolism and bleeding were reported with closed connector devices. LIMITATIONS: Overall, evidence quality was very low. Limited direct comparisons addressing main review questions, small sample sizes, selective outcome reporting, publication bias, and residual confounding were major factors. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights several differences in the management of vascular access in conventional and intensive hemodialysis populations. We identify a need for standardization of vascular access outcome reporting and a number of priorities for future research.

Survival comparison between intensive hemodialysis and transplantation in the context of the existing literature surrounding nocturnal and short-daily hemodialysis.

Our contemporary paradigms of nocturnal and short-daily hemodialysis (NHD and SDHD) have their origins in the earliest era of dialysis care for end-stage renal disease. However, these therapies have received considerably more attention in recent years owing to an increasing body of literature, suggesting a myriad of benefits attributable to these intensive dialysis regimens compared with conventional thrice-weekly hemodialysis. Analyses suggest a survival benefit for NHD and SDHD versus traditional hemodialysis prescriptions, and it is in this context that survival comparisons between intensive dialysis and transplantation must be considered. This literature and its limitations are reviewed here.

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.

Comparative survival literature in intensive hemodialysis: limitations and future directions.

Modality comparisons focusing on survival outcomes of nocturnal hemodialysis (NHD) or short daily hemodialysis (SDHD) versus other treatment paradigms of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are sparse. The existing literature consists of cohort studies that are small, retrospective, underpowered, and poorly controlled. The only randomized controlled trial that included mortality as part of a complex composite endpoint is unable to provide information on survival only. Even if concerns with internal validity of this literature are set aside, the generalizability of a few hundred NHD and SDHD patients is an important consideration as it remains uncertain whether or not the purported survival benefits of intensive hemodialysis readily translate into similar benefits for the global ESRD population. The most feasible and definitive study design to compare NHD or SDHD to other treatment modalities (and to each other) is a large, prospective, matched cohort study.

International practice patterns and factors associated with non-conventional hemodialysis utilization.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of our study was to determine characteristics that influence the utilization of non-conventional hemodialysis (NCHD) therapies and its subtypes (nocturnal (NHD), short daily (SDHD), long conventional (LCHD) and conventional hemodialysis (CHD) as well as provider attitudes regarding the evidence for NCHD use. METHODS: An international cohort of subscribers of a nephrology education website http://www.nephrologynow.com was invited to participate in an online survey. Non-conventional hemodialysis was defined as any forms of hemodialysis delivered > 3 treatments per week and/or > 4 hours per session. NHD and SDHD included both home and in-centre. Respondents were categorized as CHD if their centre only offered conventional thrice weekly hemodialysis. Variables associated with NCHD and its subtypes were determined using multivariate logistic regression analysis. The survey assessed multiple domains regarding NCHD including reasons for initiating and discontinuing, for not offering and attitudes regarding evidence. RESULTS: 544 surveys were completed leading to a 15.6% response rate. The final cohort was limited to 311 physicians. Dialysis modalities utilized among the respondents were as follows: NCHD194 (62.4%), NHD 83 (26.7%), SDHD 107 (34.4%), LCHD 81 (26%) and CHD 117 (37.6%). The geographic regions of participants were as follows: 11.9% Canada, 26.7% USA, 21.5% Europe, 6.1% Australia/New Zealand, 10% Africa/Middle East, 10.9% Asia and 12.9% South America. Variables associated with NCHD utilization included NCHD training (OR 2.47 CI 1.25-4.16), government physician reimbursement (OR 2.66, CI 1.11-6.40), practicing at an academic centre (OR 2.28 CI 1.25-4.16), higher national health care expenditure and number of ESRD patients per centre. Hemodialysis providers with patients on NCHD were significantly more likely to agree with the statements that NCHD improves quality of life, improves nutritional status, reduces EPO requirements and is cost effective. The most common reasons to initiate NCHD were driven by patient preference and the desire to improve volume control and global health outcomes. CONCLUSION: Physician attitudes toward the evidence for NCHD differ significantly between NCHD providers and conventional HD providers. Interventions and health policy targeting these areas along with increased physician education and training in NCHD modalities may be effective in increasing its utilization.

Survival among nocturnal home haemodialysis patients compared to kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation is the gold standard renal replacement therapy. Nocturnal haemodialysis (NHD) is an intensive dialysis modality (6-8 h/session, 3-7 sessions/week) associated with a significant improvement of clinical and biochemical parameters compared to conventional dialysis. To date, no studies have compared survival in patients treated with NHD and kidney transplantation. METHODS: Using data from two regional NHD programmes and the USRDS from 1994 to 2006, we performed a matched cohort study comparing survival between NHD and deceased and living donor kidney transplantation (DTX and LTX) by randomly matching NHD patients to transplant recipients in a 1:3:3 ratio. The independent association of treatment modality with survival was determined using Cox multivariate regression. RESULTS: The total study population consisted of 177 NHD patients matched to 1062 DTX and LTX recipients (total 1239 patients) followed for a maximum of 12.4 years. During the follow-up period, the proportion of deaths among NHD, DTX and LTX patients was 14.7%, 14.3% and 8.5%, respectively (P = 0.006). We found no difference in the adjusted survival between NHD and DTX (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.50-1.51; NHD reference group), while LTX survival was better (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that NHD and DTX survival is comparable, and suggest that this intensive dialysis modality may be a bridge to transplantation or even a suitable alternative in the absence of LTX in the current era of growing transplant waiting lists and organ shortage.