Home-Based Dialysis: A Primer for the Internist.

Home-based dialysis modalities offer both clinical and practical advantages to patients. The use of the home-based modalities, peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis, has been increasing over the past decade after a long period of decline. Given the increasing frequency of use of these types of dialysis, it is important for clinicians to be familiar with how these types of dialysis are performed and key clinical aspects of care related to their use in patients with end-stage kidney disease.

Integrating Patient Activation Into Dialysis Care.

Patient activation, the measure of patients' readiness and willingness to manage their own health care, is low among people receiving in-center hemodialysis, which is exacerbated because such centers are commonly set up for patients to passively receive care. In our pursuit of person-centered care and value-based medicine, enabling patients to take a more active role in their care can lead to healthy behaviors, with subsequent reductions in individual burden and costs to the health care system. To improve patient activation, we need to embrace a patient-first approach and combine it with ways to equip patients to thrive with self-management. This requires changes in the training of the health care team as well as changes in care delivery models, promoting interventions such as health coaching and peer mentoring, while leveraging technology to enable self-access to records, self-monitoring, and communication with providers. We also need health care policies that encourage a focus on patient-identified goals, including more attention to patient-reported outcomes. In this article, we review the current status of patient activation in dialysis patients, outline some of the available interventions, and propose steps to change the dynamics of the current system to move toward a more active role for patients in their care.

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 use of virtual physician mentoring to enhance home dialysis knowledge and uptake.

Home dialysis therapies are flexible kidney replacement strategies with documented clinical benefits. While the incidence of end-stage kidney disease continues to increase globally, the use of home dialysis remains low in most developed countries. Multiple barriers to providing home dialysis have been noted in the published literature. Among known challenges, gaps in clinician knowledge are potentially addressable with a focused education strategy. Recent national surveys in the United States and Australia have highlighted the need for enhanced home dialysis knowledge especially among nephrologists who have recently completed training. Traditional in-person continuing professional educational programmes have had modest success in promoting home dialysis and are limited by scale and the present global COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesize that the use of a 'Hub and Spoke' model of virtual home dialysis mentorship for nephrologists based on project ECHO would support home dialysis growth. We review the home dialysis literature, known educational gaps and plausible educational interventions to address current limitations in physician education.

Public policy and programs - Missing links in growing home dialysis in the United States.

Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) require dialysis or a kidney transplant for survival and over 760 000 patients now benefit from these therapies in the United States. Dialysis in the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s was often done in the home. After the advent of Medicare coverage for ESKD in 1972 and the subsequent easier access to center based hemodialysis, the use of home modalities dramatically declined. This stands in contrast to home dialysis uptake in other industrialized healthcare systems where both peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis are more frequently used. Characteristics unique to the US healthcare system as well as the cultures of providers (physicians and dialysis providers) and recipients of ESKD care are hypothesized as the main reasons for observed differences in home dialysis use. To address these issues, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have recently proposed new payment programs under an Executive Order from the President of the United States, with the explicit goal of increasing the number of patients using home dialysis. This perspective outlines policy opportunities and programs with a proven track record of home dialysis growth in other countries or hypothesized promise based on identified barriers and needs.

Myelin bodies in LMX1B-associated nephropathy: potential for misdiagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Myelin figures, or zebra bodies, seen on electron microscopy were historically considered pathognomonic of Fabry disease, a rare lysosomal storage disorder caused by alpha-galactosidase A deficiency and associated with X-linked recessive mode of inheritance. More recently, iatrogenic phospholipidosis has emerged as an important alternate cause of myelin figures in the kidney. METHODS: We report two families with autosomal dominant nephropathy presenting with proteinuria and microscopic hematuria, and the kidney biopsies were notable for the presence of myelin figures and zebra bodies. RESULTS: Laboratory and genetic work-up for Fabry disease was negative. Genetic testing in both families revealed the same heterozygous missense mutation in LMX1B (C.737G>A, p.Arg246Gln). LMX1B mutations are known to cause nail-patella syndrome, featuring dysplastic nails and patella with or without nephropathy, as well as isolated LMX1B-associated nephropathy in the absence of extrarenal manifestations. CONCLUSIONS: LMX1B mutation-associated nephropathy should be considered in hereditary cases of proteinuria and/or hematuria, even in the absence of unique glomerular basement membrane changes indicative of nail-patella syndrome. In addition, LMX1B mutation should be included in the differential diagnosis of myelin figures and zebra bodies on kidney biopsy, so as to avoid a misdiagnosis.

The Peritoneal Dialysis Transfer Set Replacement Procedure.

Peritoneal dialysis transfer sets (extension lines) are replaced every six to nine months to minimize peritoneal dialysis catheter complications. The aim of this study was to compare a revised non-bag transfer set exchange procedure with the standard bag exchange procedure on nursing time, costs, and safety. Thirty-three people were randomized to two groups - a standard bag exchange procedure group (n = 16) and a non-bag transfer set exchange procedure group (n = 17). The standard bag exchange procedure took a median of 32 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 25 to 38 minutes) compared to the non-bag transfer set exchange procedure of 6 minutes (IQR 4 to 8 minutes) (p Ò 0.0001). There was one episode of peritonitis in each group within the 72-hour follow-up period. The average cost of the non-bag transfer set exchange procedure was $24.54 lower, a 37% cost reduction. This study has shown the revised non-bag transfer set replacement procedure appears to be safe, consume less participant and staff time, and decreases costs.

Patient-Centered Home Hemodialysis: Approaches and Prescription.

Writing a home hemodialysis (HD) prescription is a complex, multifactorial process that requires the incorporation of patient values, preferences, and lifestyle. Knowledge of the different options available for home HD modality (conventional, nocturnal, short daily, and alternate nightly) is also important when customizing a prescription. Finally, an understanding of the different home HD machines currently approved for use at home and their different attributes and limitations helps guide providers when formulating their prescriptions. In this review article, we set out to address these different aspects to help guide providers in providing a patient-centered home HD approach.

Exploring Preconceptions as Barriers to Peritoneal Dialysis Eligibility: A Global Scenario-Based Survey of Kidney Care Physicians.

Introduction: Despite the growing number of patients requiring kidney replacement therapy (KRT), peritoneal dialysis (PD) is underutilized globally. A contributory factor may be clinician myths about its use. The aim of this study was to explore perceptions about PD initiation by clinicians according to various physical, social, and clinical characteristics of patients. Methods: An online global survey (in English and Thai) was administered to ascertain nephrologists' and nephrology trainees' decisions on recommending PD as a treatment modality. Results: A total of 645 participants (522 nephrologists and 123 trainees; 56% male) from 54 countries (66% from high-income countries [HICs], 22% from upper middle-income countries [UMICs], 12% from lower middle-income countries, and 1% from low-income countries [LICs]) completed the survey. Of the respondents, 81% identified as attending physicians or consultants, and 19% identified as trainees or other. PD was recommended for most scenarios, including repeated exposures to heavy lifting, swimming (especially in a private pool and ocean), among patients with cirrhosis or cognitive impairment with available support, and those living with a pet if a physical separation can be achieved during PD. Certain abdominal surgeries were more acceptable to proceed with PD (hysterectomy, 90%) compared to others (hemicolectomy, 45%). Similar variation was noted for different types of stomas (nephrostomies, 74%; suprapubic catheters, 53%; and ileostomies, 27%). Conclusion: The probability of recommending PD in various scenarios was greater among clinicians from HICs, larger units, and consultants with more clinical experience. There is a disparity in recommending PD across various clinical scenarios driven by experience, unit-level characteristics, and region of practice. Globally, evidence-informed education is warranted to rectify misconceptions to enable greater PD uptake.

Predicting transfer to haemodialysis using the peritoneal dialysis surprise question.

BACKGROUND: People on peritoneal dialysis (PD) at risk of transfer to haemodialysis (HD) need support to remain on PD or ensure a safe transition to HD. Simple point-of-care risk stratification tools are needed to direct limited dialysis centre resources. In this study, we evaluated the utility of collecting clinicians' identification of patients at high risk of transfer to HD using a single point of care question. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, we included 1275 patients undergoing PD in 35 home dialysis programmes. We modified the palliative care 'surprise question' (SQ) by asking the registered nurse and treating nephrologist: 'Would you be surprised if this patient transferred to HD in the next six months?' A 'yes' or 'no' answer indicated low and high risk, respectively. We subsequently followed patient outcomes for 6 months. Cox regression model estimated the hazard ratio (HR) of transfer to HD. RESULTS: Patients' mean age was 59 ± 16 years, 41% were female and the median PD vintage was 20 months (interquartile range: 9-40). Responses were received from nurses for 1123 patients, indicating 169 (15%) as high risk and 954 (85%) as low risk. Over the next 6 months, transfer to HD occurred in 18 (11%) versus 29 (3%) of the high and low-risk groups, respectively (HR: 3.92, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.17-7.05). Nephrologist responses were obtained for 692 patients, with 118 (17%) and 574 (83%) identified as high and low risk, respectively. Transfer to HD was observed in 14 (12%) of the high-risk group and 14 (2%) of the low-risk group (HR: 5.56, 95% CI: 2.65-11.67). Patients in the high-risk group experienced higher rates of death and hospitalisation than low-risk patients, with peritonitis events being similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The PDSQ is a simple point of care tool that can help identify patients at high risk of transfer to HD and other poor clinical outcomes.

Description and outcomes of a staff-assisted peritoneal dialysis program in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Staff-assisted peritoneal dialysis (PD) can help overcome barriers to self-care but is not yet available in the United States (US). We developed and implemented a staff-assisted PD program that fits within current regulatory and cost restraints in the US healthcare environment. METHODS: Patient care technicians (PCTs) were trained on PD procedures and troubleshooting common problems. The program expanded from two centers in August 2020 to sixteen by October 2022. We described the logistic elements of program delivery, and patient and treatment outcomes for patients discharged by end of April 2023, with a cohort follow up until October 2023. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients were referred to the program. The most common indications for referral were physical function limitations, cognitive impairment, and psychosocial challenges. Staff assistance was provided for 73 patients. Mean age was 72 (standard deviation 14) years. A total of 604 visits were delivered, with a median 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 3-10, range: 1-49) visits per patient. Median duration of assistance was 8 (IQR: 2-21, range: 1-84) days. Assistance was most frequently needed for PD treatment setup and for observing and directing the technique. No peritonitis events or exit-site infections were reported. Sixty-eight patients (93%) were discharged on PD without staff assistance. The 6- and 12-month survival of PD without assistance was 71% and 57%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Staff-assisted PD for limited time periods is operationally feasible with PCTs in the US and can support transitioning and maintaining patients on PD.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04319185.

Setting Up Home Dialysis Programs: Now and in the Future.

Home dialysis utilization has been growing in the United States over the past decade but still lags behind similar socioeconomic nations. More than half of dialysis facilities in the United States either are not licensed to offer home dialysis or, despite a license, have no patients dialyzing at home, and many programs have a relatively small census. Multiple stakeholders, including patients, health care providers, and payers, have identified increased home dialysis use as an important goal. To realize these goals, nephrologists and kidney care professionals need a sound understanding of the key considerations in home dialysis center operation. In this review, we outline the core domains required to set up and operate a home dialysis program in the United States now and in the future.

Timing of initiation of dialysis: time for a new direction?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The past 15 years have seen tremendous growth in the initiation of dialysis at higher levels of kidney function in the setting of mixed evidence and at great societal economic cost. We review recent data on the early dialysis initiation trend, the clinical and economic impact of early dialysis initiation and the future implications for the management of advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). RECENT FINDINGS: The percentage of patients who initiate dialysis with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) above 10  ml/min/1.73m(2) is now greater than 50%, including 20% who initiate with an eGFR above 15 ml/min/1.73m(2). The drivers behind these findings are probably diverse but recent literature does not seem to support a higher symptom burden among the ageing CKD population as the major cause. The Initiating Dialysis Early And Late (IDEAL) trial provides guidance on the safety of waiting for symptoms or lower levels of estimated glomerular filtration rate prior to beginning dialysis. In addition, economic analyses based on the IDEAL and US Renal Data System findings suggest that significant cost savings could be achieved by reversing the early initiation trend. SUMMARY: These findings should help clinicians and policy makers looking to rein in costs while maintaining the quality of CKD care.

The Implementation of a Virtual Home Dialysis Mentoring Program for Nephrologists.

Virtual home dialysis physician mentorship is feasible.In total, 53% of participants perceived the program would change the perspective of participants on prescribing home dialysis.More research is needed to ascertain the effect of virtual mentorship on home dialysis incidence and attrition rates in a wider audience.

Peritoneal Dialysis Following Left Ventricular Assist Device Placement and Kidney Recovery: A Case Report.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) complicates up to 50% of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placements and up to 30% of these patients require dialysis. Despite advances in LVAD technology since the first-generation devices, the risk for AKI remains high. We present a case of a woman in her 50s with previously stable stage C heart failure who developed critical cardiogenic shock and resultant AKI. She required continuous kidney replacement therapy both before and after placement of an LVAD. Following multiple inpatient and outpatient hemodialysis sessions complicated by hypotension, she was transitioned to peritoneal dialysis (PD). She tolerated PD well, and her kidney function continued to improve during the following weeks. After 6 weeks of outpatient PD, she recovered kidney function, allowing for cessation of dialysis. PD is a good option for patients with advanced heart failure who receive an LVAD due to gentler ultrafiltration, decreased risk for bacteremia, and better preservation of kidney function as compared with hemodialysis.

Use of a gentamicin-citrate lock leads to lower catheter-related bloodstream infection rates and reduced cost of care in hemodialysis patients.

INTRODUCTION: Central venous catheters (CVC) are a major contributor to infections in hemodialysis (HD) patients, leading to high morbidity and mortality. Gentamicin-citrate (GC) lock is used as standard of care at centers belonging to a mid-size dialysis organization. Four outpatient HD centers acquired by the organization continued to use heparin for catheter locks for a period of time before converting to the provider's standard of using GC lock. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, we included patients receiving HD by CVC at these four centers. We report rates of CVC-related bloodstream infections (CVC-BSI) during the heparin lock and the GC lock periods; crude rate ratios and adjusted rate ratios using Cox survival analyses adjusting for potential confounders; microbiology patterns; safety signals (gentamicin resistance, hospitalizations and deaths); and financial impact on payer. FINDINGS: A total of 220 and 281 patients used tunneled CVCs, accounting for 25,245 and 44,550 catheter days in the heparin and the GC lock periods, respectively. CVC-BSI event rates were 66% lower in the GC lock period (CVC-BSI event rate: 0.20 per 1000 catheter-days) than the heparin lock period (rate: 0.59 per 1000 catheter days); rate ratio 0.34 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15-0.78, P = 0.01). In the fully adjusted multivariable Cox model, use of GC lock was associated with 70% reduction in CVC-BSI events (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.12-0.72, P = 0.01). No increased risk of gentamicin resistance, hospitalizations, or death associated with use of GC lock were observed. Use of GC lock was associated with an estimated saving of $1533 (95% CI: $259-$4882) per patient per year. DISCUSSION: Use of GC lock led to significant reductions in CVC-BSIs with no signal for harm, and is associated with significant cost savings in dialysis care.

COVID19 vaccine type and humoral immune response in patients receiving dialysis.

Background: Patients on dialysis vaccinated with the attenuated adenovirus SARS-CoV-2 vaccine might mount an impaired response to vaccination. Methods: We evaluated the humoral vaccination response among 2,099 fully vaccinated patients receiving dialysis. We used commercially available assays (Siemens) to assess prevalence of no response or diminished response to COVID-19 vaccination by vaccine type. We defined "no seroconversion" as lack of change from negative to positive in total RBD Ig antibody, no detectable response on semiquantitative RBD IgG antibody (index value <1) as "no RBD IgG response", and a semiquantitative RBD IgG index value <10 as "diminished RBD IgG response". Results: Of the 2,099 fully vaccinated patients on dialysis, the proportion receiving the mRNA1273, BNT162b2, and Ad26.COV2.S were 62% (n=1316), 20% (n=416) and 18% (n=367), respectively. A third (33.3%) of patients receiving the attenuated adenovirus Ad26.COV2.S vaccine failed to seroconvert and an additional 36% had no detectable or diminished IgG response even 28-60 days post vaccination. Conclusion: One in three fully vaccinated patients receiving dialysis had evidence of an impaired immune response to the attenuated adenovirus Ad26.COV2.S vaccine.

Review of Early Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Among Patients With CKD.

The effects of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, particularly among those with chronic kidney disease (CKD), who commonly have defects in humoral and cellular immunity, and the efficacy of vaccinations against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) are uncertain. To inform public health and clinical practice, we synthesized published studies and preprints evaluating surrogate measures of immunity after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with CKD, including those receiving dialysis or with a kidney transplant. We found 35 studies (28 published, 7 preprints), with sample sizes ranging from 23 to 1140 participants and follow-up ranging from 1 week to 1 month after vaccination. Seventeen of these studies enrolled a control group. In the 22 studies of patients receiving dialysis, the development of antibodies was observed in 18% to 53% after 1 dose and in 70% to 96% after 2 doses of mRNA vaccine. In the 14 studies of transplant recipients, 3% to 59% mounted detectable humoral or cellular responses after 2 doses of mRNA vaccine. After vaccination, there were a few reported cases of relapse or de novo glomerulonephritis, and acute transplant rejection, suggesting a need for ongoing surveillance. Studies are needed to better evaluate the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in these populations. Rigorous surveillance is necessary for detection of long-term adverse effects in patients with autoimmune disease and transplant recipients. For transplant recipients and those with suboptimal immune responses, alternate vaccination platforms and strategies should be considered. As additional data arise, the NephJC COVID-19 page will continue to be updated (http://www.nephjc.com/news/covid-vaccine).