Dialysis recovery time: associated factors and its association with quality of life of hemodialysis patients.

INTRODUCTION: Post-dialysis fatigue is a common and distressing complaint in patients on hemodialysis (HD). The dialysis recovery time (DRT) is a recent and reliable method of Post-dialysis fatigue assessment. We aimed to identify factors affecting the DRT and its relation with HD patients' quality of life. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study carried out on end-stage renal disease patients on regular HD. All participants underwent detailed history taking and complete physical examination, and data on dialysis and laboratory investigations were also collected. Patients were asked "How long does it take you to recover from a dialysis session?" to calculate the DRT. We used the Malnutrition-Inflammation Score (MIS) and KDQOL-36 questionnaire to assess patients' nutritional status and quality of life, respectively. RESULTS: Two hundred and ten patients were screened and 191, with a median age of 47 years, completed the study. Patients had a median DRT of 300 minutes (range: 0.0-2880.0), with 55% of patients reporting a DRT of > 240 minutes and 22.5% of them reporting a DRT of < 30 minutes. Patients had a median MIS score of 7 (range: 0-17). There was a statistically significant negative relation between the DRT and symptom/ problem list (p < 0.001), effects of kidney disease (p < 0.001), burden of kidney disease (p < 0.001), SF-12 physical composite (p = 0.001), and SF-12 mental composite (p < 0.001) of KDQOL. The results of multivariate analyses showed that dialysate Na (p = 0.003), and the number of missed sessions (p < 0.001) were independently correlated with the DRT. CONCLUSIONS: Decreased dialysate Na, and increased number of missed sessions were predictors of prolonged DRT. Patients with prolonged DRT were associated with poorer quality of life. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to assess strategies to minimize the DRT and, perhaps, enhance clinical outcomes. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04727281. First registration date: 27/01/2021.

Effect of hemodiafiltration on measured physical activity: primary results of the HDFIT randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dialysis patients are typically inactive and their physical activity (PA) decreases over time. Uremic toxicity has been suggested as a potential causal factor of low PA in dialysis patients. Post-dilution high-volume online hemodiafiltration (HDF) provides greater higher molecular weight removal and studies suggest better clinical/patient-reported outcomes compared with hemodialysis (HD). METHODS: HDFIT was a randomized controlled trial at 13 clinics in Brazil that aimed to investigate the effects of HDF on measured PA (step counts) as a primary outcome. Stable HD patients (vintage 3-24 months) were randomized to receive HDF or high-flux HD. Treatment effect of HDF on the primary outcome from baseline to 3 and 6 months was estimated using a linear mixed-effects model. RESULTS: We randomized 195 patients (HDF 97; HD 98) between August 2016 and October 2017. Despite the achievement of a high convective volume in the majority of sessions and a positive impact on solute removal, the treatment effect HDF on the primary outcome was +538 [95% confidence interval (CI) -330 to 1407] steps/24 h after dialysis compared with HD, and was not statistically significant. Despite a lack of statistical significance, the observed size of the treatment effect was modest and driven by steps taken between 1.5 and 24.0 h after dialysis, in particular between 20 and 24 h (+197 steps; 95% CI -95 to 488). CONCLUSIONS: HDF did not have a statistically significant treatment effect on PA 24 h following dialysis, albeit effect sizes may be clinically meaningful and deserve further investigation.

Patient perception of vitality and measured physical activity in patients receiving haemodialysis.

AIM: Fatigue in haemodialysis (HD) patients can be captured in quality of life questionnaires and by the dialysis recovery time (DRT) question. The associations between fatigue and measured physical activity has not been explored until the present. We tested our hypothesis that the patient perception of chronic and post dialysis fatigue would be associated with lower physical activity. METHODS: This study was a cross sectional evaluation of baseline data from HD patients recruited in the HDFIT trial. Vitality scores from the Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL-36) and the dialysis recovery time (DRT) question were used as indicators of chronic and post dialysis fatigue, respectively. Granular physical activity was measured by accelerometers as part of the study protocol. RESULTS: Among 176 patients, Vitality score was 63 ± 21 and the DRT was ≤30 minutes in 57% of patients. The mean number of steps was 5288 ± 3540 in 24 hours after HD and 953 ± 617 in the 2-hour post-HD period. The multivariable analysis confirmed Vitality scores were associated with physical activity in the 24-hour post-HD period. In contrast, DRT was not associated with physical activity captured by the accelerometer in the period immediately (2 hours) after the HD session. CONCLUSION: Chronic fatigue was negatively associated with step counts, while patient perception of post-dialysis fatigue was not associated with physical activity. These patterns indicate limitations in interpretation of DRT. Since physical activity is an important component of a healthy life, our results may partially explain the associations between fatigue and poor outcomes in HD patients.

Impacts of dialysis adequacy and intradialytic hypotension on changes in dialysis recovery time.

BACKGROUND: Dialysis recovery time (DRT) surveys capture the perceived time after HD to return to performing regular activities. Prior studies suggest the majority of HD patients report a DRT > 2 h. However, the profiles of and modifiable dialysis practices associated with changes in DRT relative to the start of dialysis are unknown. We hypothesized hemodialysis (HD) dose and rates of intradialytic hypotension (IDH) would associate with changes in DRT in the first years after initiating dialysis. METHODS: We analyzed data from adult HD patients who responded to a DRT survey ≤180 days from first date of dialysis (FDD) during 2014 to 2017. DRT survey was administered with annual KDQOL survey. DRT survey asks: "How long does it take you to be able to return to your normal activities after your dialysis treatment?" Answers are: < 0.5, 0.5-to-1, 1-to-2, 2-to-4, or > 4 h. An adjusted logistic regression model computed odds ratio for a change to a longer DRT (increase above DRT > 2 h) in reference to a change to a shorter DRT (decrease below DRT < 2 h, or from DRT > 4 h). Changes in DRT were calculated from incident (≤180 days FDD) to first prevalent (> 365-to- ≤ 545 days FDD) and second prevalent (> 730-to- ≤ 910 days FDD) years. RESULTS: Among 98,616 incident HD patients (age 62.6 ± 14.4 years, 57.8% male) who responded to DRT survey, a higher spKt/V in the incident period was associated with 13.5% (OR = 0.865; 95%CI 0.801-to-0.935) lower risk of a change to a longer DRT in the first-prevalent year. A higher number of HD treatments with IDH episodes per month in the incident period was associated with a 0.8% (OR = 1.008; 95%CI 1.001-to-1.015) and 1.6% (OR = 1.016; 95%CI 1.006-to-1.027) higher probability of a change to a longer DRT in the first- and second-prevalent years, respectively. Consistently, an increased in incidence of IDH episodes/months was associated to a change to a longer DRT over time. CONCLUSIONS: Incident patients who had higher spKt/V and less sessions with IDH episodes had a lower likelihood of changing to a longer DRT in first year of HD. Dose optimization strategies with cardiac stability in fluid removal should be tested.

Post-dialysis recovery time in ESRD patients receiving more frequent hemodialysis in skilled nursing facilities.

INTRODUCTION: Post-dialysis recovery time (DRT) has an important relationship to quality of life and survival, as identified in studies of ESRD patients on conventional dialysis. ESRD patients are often discharged from hospitals to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) where on-site treatment using home hemodialysis technology is increasingly offered, but nothing is known about DRT in this patient population. METHODS: From November 4, 2019 to June 11, 2021, within a dialysis organization providing service across 12 states and 154 SNFs, patients receiving in-SNF, more frequent dialysis (MFD) (modeled to deliver 14 treatment hours minimum per week and stdKt/V ≥2.0) were asked to describe their post-dialysis recovery time following their previous treatment, within predefined categoric choices: 0-½, ½-1, 1-2, 2-4, 4-8, 8-12 h, by next morning, or not even by next morning. Patients reporting DRT following at least one full-week treatment opportunity were included in a mixed model logistic regression of rapid recovery (DRT ≤2 h). FINDINGS: Two thousand three hundred and nine patients met the statistical modeling inclusion criteria, providing DRT on 108,876 dialysis sessions, while receiving mean (SD) 4.3 (0.96) weekly dialysis treatments. 2118 (92%) reported DRT ≤2 h. Results appeared biologically plausible, as lower odds of rapid DRT were observed for patients who were older, missed their previous treatment, or experienced intradialytic hypotension. Greater odds of rapid DRT were observed in patients receiving five dialyses in the previous week or having 160-179 mmHg pre-hemodialysis systolic blood pressure. Rapid recovery was associated with reduced mortality or hospitalization. DISCUSSION: SNF dialysis patients receiving 5x per week MFD report rapid recovery time ≤2 h in 92% of dialyses despite advanced age, frailty, and comorbidities. Future studies will assess the practical ramifications of rapid DRT perception/experience on nursing home rehabilitation programs, which could impact patient health beyond the nursing home stay.

Frailty, Age, and Postdialysis Recovery Time in a Population New to Hemodialysis.

Background: Frailty, a phenotype characterized by decreased physiologic reserve and the inability to recover following confrontation with a stressor like hemodialysis, may help identify which patients on incident hemodialysis will experience longer postdialysis recovery times. Recovery time is associated with downstream outcomes, including quality of life and mortality. We characterized postdialysis recovery times among patients new to hemodialysis and quantified the association between frailty and hemodialysis recovery time. Methods: Among 285 patients on hemodialysis enrolled in the Predictors of Arrhythmic and Cardiovascular Risk in End Stage Renal Disease (PACE) study, frailty was measured using the Fried phenotype. Self-reported recovery time was obtained by telephone interview. We estimated the association of frailty (intermediately frail and frail versus nonfrail) and postdialysis recovery time using adjusted negative binomial regression. Results: Median time between dialysis initiation and study enrollment was 3.4 months (IQR, 2.7-4.9), and that between initiation and recovery time assessment was 11 months (IQR, 9.3-15). Mean age was 55 years, 24% were >65 years, and 73% were Black; 72% of individuals recovered in ≤1 hour, 20% recovered in 1-6 hours, 5% required 6-12 hours to recover, and <5% required >12 hours to recover. Those with intermediate frailty, frailty, and age ≤65 years had 2.56-fold (95% CI, 1.45 to 4.52), 1.72-fold (95% CI, 1.03 to 2.89), and 2.35-fold (95% CI, 1.44 to 3.85) risks, respectively, of longer recovery time independent of demographic characteristics, comorbidity, and dialysis-related factors. Conclusions: In adults new to hemodialysis, frailty was independently associated with prolonged postdialysis recovery. Future studies should assess the effect of frailty-targeted interventions on recovery time to improve clinical outcomes.

A study of Factors Affecting Dialysis Recovery Time in Haemodialysis Patients in India.

BACKGROUND: Patients on maintenance haemodialysis (MHD) often complain of fatigue and tiredness following haemodialysis sessions leading to poor compliance with the dialysis schedule. There is limited Indian data on dialysis recovery time (DRT). The present study was designed to assess the factors affecting DRT in our haemodialysis population. METHODS: We recorded self-reported patient recovery times of 120 patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria, over three consecutive dialysis sessions by asking the question, 'How long does it take to recover from a dialysis session'? Data recorded included patient factors like age, sex, co-morbidities, Charlson comorbidity index score (CCI), dialysis vintage, duration of kidney disease, interdialytic weight gain (IDWG), treatment factors like ultrafiltration rate (UFR), SpKt/V, blood pump speed, dialysate sodium, session length, pre and post HD blood pressure and laboratory parameters. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed with the KDQOL-SF v. 1.3 questionnaire. Results from the SF-36 score were summarised into the physical composite score (PCS), mental composite score (MCS) and kidney disease composite score (KDCS). RESULTS: The mean age of the study population was 50.6 ± 12.6 years. Among the 120 patients, 77 (64.2%) were males. Thirty-nine patients (32.5%) were diabetic and 95 (79.1%) patients were hypertensive. The mean dialysis vintage of the study population was 26.1 ± 18.6 months, 41 (34.2%) patients reported DRT <2 h; 48 (40%) reported DRT between 2-6 h and 31 (25.8%) reported DRT >6 h. On multivariate regression analysis, higher IDWG, CCI score and UFR were associated with prolonged DRT. Reported DRT also inversely correlated with PCS (r = - 0.66), MCS (r = - 0.65) and KDCS (r = - 0.59) scores which was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The present study showed that higher CCI scores, IDWG and UFR were associated with prolonged DRT in Indian haemodialysis patients and patients with longer recovery time had poor HRQoL. Interventions to reduce DRT need to be assessed in further trials in Indian MHD patients.

Clinical Assessment of Dialysis Recovery Time and Symptom Burden: Impact of Switching Hemodialysis Therapy Mode.

INTRODUCTION: Most people on hemodialysis (HD) report a high symptom burden. Fatigue and lack of energy are prominent, interfering with daily life and associated with poor outcome. Prolonged recovery time after each of the thrice weekly dialysis treatments is common. The impact of HD therapies, like expanded hemodialysis (HDx), on patient reported recovery time and symptom burden is unclear. METHODS: A dialysis unit decided to perform regular assessments of patient-reported symptom burden, using the POS-S Renal Symptom questionnaire and the "Recovery time from last dialysis session" question as part of routine patient focused care. At a similar time, a clinical evidence-based decision was taken to switch the in-center dialysis cohort from regular high-flux dialysis membrane to medium cut-off (MCO) membrane, introducing HDx therapy. RESULTS: Quarterly assessment of patient-reported symptom burden was well accepted. A sustained clinically relevant reduction in post-dialysis recovery time was observed following the therapy switch. In patients providing data up to 12 months (N = 58), median recovery time decreased from 210 min (IQR 7.5-600) to 60 min (0-210; p = 0.002) and 105 min (0-180; p = 0.001) at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Thirty-six percent of individuals reported a recovery time longer than 360 minutes at the initial assessment, which decreased to 9% at 12 months. The POS-S Renal total symptom score showed a decrease at 6 months but no difference from baseline at 12 months. The "fatigue/lack of energy" symptom showed a sustained improvement; the percentage of participants scoring its impact as "severe" or "overwhelming" decreased from 28% at baseline to 16% at 12 months. Changes in other symptoms were more variable. CONCLUSION: Regular assessment of patient reported symptoms is feasible in routine dialysis practice and can help in evaluating the impact of clinical interventions. Observations suggest that HDx therapy may reduce post-dialysis recovery time and improve perceived fatigue level.

Do biochemical parameters and intradialytic symptoms affect post-dialysis recovery time? A prospective, descriptive study.

The recovery time is defined as the time required to recover from the feelings of lassitude and fatigue. The daily activities of patients are affected by dialysis sessions, requiring significant time for patients to return to their routines. This situation implies a lower quality of life for HD patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of biochemical parameters and intradialytic symptoms on post-dialysis recovery time in maintenance HD patients. This study was conducted at a private dialysis center during June and August 2019. Data were collected using the "Descriptive Characteristics Form" and the "Dialysis Symptom Index." "STROBE check-list" was used for the report of the study. The study was completed with 86 participants. The median post-dialysis recovery time was 240 min (interquartile range, 120-360 min), and female patients exhibit significantly higher recovery time than male patients. The median BMI was statistically significantly higher in patients whose post-dialysis recovery time was ≥240 min. Additional findings show that the post-dialysis recovery time was shortened by 0.230 times for male patients, while intradialytic hypotension (IDH) prolonged the median post-dialysis recovery time by 3.141 times. Factors underlying the IDH should be determined in order to eradicate the issue. The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with the number NCT04274556.

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.