RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Home dialysis therapies have limited uptake in most regions despite recognized benefits such as increasing patients' independence, and several domains of quality of life with cost savings in some systems. OBJECTIVE: To perform a scoping review of published literature to identify tools and guides used in systematically screening and assessing patient suitability for home dialysis. A secondary objective was to explore barriers and enablers associated with the home dialysis assessment process. It is important to identify gaps in current research to pose pertinent questions for future work in the field. DESIGN: Online databases Embase, Medline (Ovid), and CINAHL were used to identify articles published between January 2007 to May 2023. A total of 23 peer-reviewed primary and secondary studies that investigated screening or selection for patients > 18 years old with kidney failure for home dialysis met the study inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The studies consisted of secondary studies (n = 10), observational studies (n = 8), and survey-based studies (n = 5). The major themes identified that influence patient screening and assessment for home dialysis candidacy included: screening tools and guidelines (n = 8), relative contraindications (n = 4), patient or program education (n = 9), and socioeconomic factors (n = 2). LIMITATIONS: Consistent with the scoping review methodology, the methodological quality of included studies was not assessed. The possible omission of evidence in languages other than English is a limitation. CONCLUSION: This scoping review identified tools and factors that potentially guide the assessment process for home dialysis candidacy. Patient screening and assessment for home dialysis requires a comprehensive evaluation of clinical, psychosocial, and logistical factors. Further research is required to validate and refine existing tools to establish standardized patient screening criteria and evaluation processes. Up-to-date training and education for healthcare providers and patients are needed to improve the utilization of home dialysis and ensure optimal outcomes.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Enhancing patient confidence in their ability (self-efficacy) is vital to ensure people are equipped to maintain home dialysis protocols. Bandura's social cognitive theory provided a framework for understanding the role of self-efficacy in patients managing home dialysis. OBJECTIVES: To identify self-reported levels of self-efficacy, the measurements used to assess self-efficacy and the effectiveness of interventions to enhance self-efficacy in patients undergoing home dialysis. DESIGN: An integrative review approach was employed using Whittemore and Knafl's methodology. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted to identify literature on self-efficacy in patients managing home dialysis. Searches were conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus databases without a date limit. The included literature was critically appraised for methodological quality. Data extraction was conducted to report the study characteristics, measurement tools used and interventions conducted along with the synthesis of findings in a narrative format. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included in the review were predominantly quantitative examining training programmes promoting self-efficacy in adults conducting home dialysis. The finding that self-efficacy builds over time was structured into two themes; gaining skills to develop self-efficacy and building and maintaining knowledge of self-efficacy. CONCLUSION: The findings highlighted the importance of employing multifaceted strategies with support from health professionals including nurses, families and peer support to develop self-efficacy in patients undergoing home dialysis.

RESUMEN

Background: Home dialysis therapies such as peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD) are beneficial for quality of life and patient empowerment. The short technique survival time partly explains their low prevalence. We aimed to assess the risk of transfer to facility-based hemodialysis in patients treated with autonomous PD, assisted PD and HHD. Methods: This was a retrospective study using data from the REIN registry of patients starting home dialysis in France from 2002 to 2019. The risks of transfer to facility-based hemodialysis (HD) were compared between three modalities of home dialysis (HHD, nurse-assisted PD, autonomous PD) using survival models with a propensity score (PS)-matched and unmatched cohort of patients. Results: The study included 17 909 patients: 628 in the HHD group, 10 214 in the autonomous PD group, and 7067 in the assisted PD group. During the follow-up period, there were 5347 transfers to facility-based HD. The observed number of transfers was 2458 (13.7%) at 1 year and 5069 (28.3) at 5 years after the start of home dialysis, including 3272 (32%) on autonomous PD, 1648 (23.3%) on assisted PD, and 149 (23.7) on HHD. Owing to clinical characteristics differences, only 38% of HHD patients could be matched to patients from the others group. In the PS-matched cohort, the adjusted Cox model showed no difference in the risk of transfer for assisted PD (cs-HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.75-1.44) or HHD (cs-HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.77-1.48) compared with autonomous PD. Conclusions: Unlike results from other countries, where nurse assistance is not fully available for PD-associated care, there was no difference in technique survival between autonomous PD, nurse-assisted PD, and HHD in France. This discrepancy may be attributed to our inclusion of a broader spectrum of patients who derive significant benefits from assisted PD.

RESUMEN

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Developing strategies to improve home dialysis use requires a comprehensive understanding of barriers. We sought to identify the most important barriers to home dialysis use from the perspective of patients, care partners, and providers. STUDY DESIGN: This is a convergent parallel mixed-methods study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: We convened a 7-member advisory board of patients, care partners, and providers who collectively developed lists of major patient/care partner-perceived barriers and provider-perceived barriers to home dialysis. We used these lists to develop a survey that was distributed to patients, care partners, and providers-through the American Association of Kidney Patients and the National Kidney Foundation. The surveys asked participants to (1) rank their top 3 major barriers (quantitative) and (2) describe barriers to home dialysis (qualitative). ANALYTICAL APPROACH: We compiled a list of the top 3 patient/care partner-perceived and top 3 provider-perceived barriers (quantitative). We also conducted a directed content analysis of open-ended survey responses (qualitative). RESULTS: There were 522 complete responses (233 providers; 289 patients/care partners). The top 3 patient/care partner-perceived barriers were fear of performing home dialysis; lack of space; and the need for home-based support. The top 3 provider-perceived barriers were poor patient education; limited mechanisms for home-based support staff, mental health, and education; and lack of experienced staff. We identified 9 themes through qualitative analysis: limited education; financial disincentives; limited resources; high burden of care; built environment/structure of care delivery that favors in-center hemodialysis; fear and isolation; perceptions of inequities in access to home dialysis; provider perspectives about patients; and patient/provider resiliency. LIMITATIONS: This was an online survey that is subject to nonresponse bias. CONCLUSIONS: The top 3 barriers to home dialysis for patient/care partners and providers incompletely overlap, suggesting the need for diverse strategies that simultaneously address patient-perceived barriers at home and provider-perceived barriers in the clinic. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: There are many barriers to home dialysis use in the United States. However, we know little about which barriers are the most important to patients and clinicians. This makes it challenging to develop strategies to increase home dialysis use. In this study, we surveyed patients, care partners, and clinicians across the country to identify the most important barriers to home dialysis, namely (1) patients/care partners identified fear of home dialysis, lack of space, and lack of home-based support; and (2) clinicians identified poor patient education, limited support for staff and patients, and lack of experienced staff. These findings suggest that patients and clinicians perceive different barriers and that both sets of barriers should be addressed to expand home dialysis use.

RESUMEN

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a form of kidney replacement therapy with the major advantage that it can be performed at home. This has a positive impact on patients' autonomy and quality of life. However, the dialysis population is ageing and physical and/or cognitive impairments are common. These limitations often form a barrier to PD and contribute to the low incidence and prevalence of PD in Europe. Assisted PD can be a solution to this problem. Assisted PD refers to a patient being assisted by a person or device in performing all or part of their dialysis-related tasks, thereby making PD more accessible to elderly but also younger frail patients. In this way, offering an assisted PD program can help lower the threshold for initiating PD. In this review, we provide an overview of the epidemiology of assisted PD in Europe, we discuss the different categories and clinical outcomes of assisted PD, and we present how assisted PD can be implemented in clinical practice as a possible strategy to increase and maintain home dialysis in Europe.

RESUMEN

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD) are the two home dialysis modalities offered to patients. They promote patient autonomy, enhance independence, and are generally associated with better quality of life compared to facility hemodialysis. PD offers some advantages (enhanced flexibility, ability to travel, preservation of residual kidney function, and vascular access sites) but few patients remain on PD indefinitely due to peritonitis and other complications. By contrast, HHD incurs longer and more intensive training combined with increased upfront health costs compared to PD, but is easier to sustain in the long term. As a result, the integrated home dialysis model was proposed to combine the advantages of both home-based dialysis modalities. In this paradigm, patients are encouraged to initiate dialysis on PD and transfer to HHD after PD termination. Available evidence demonstrates the feasibility and safety of this approach and some observational studies have shown that patients who undergo the PD-to-HHD transition have clinical outcomes comparable to patients who initiate dialysis directly on HHD. Nevertheless, the prevalence of PD-to-HHD transfers remains low, reflecting the multiple barriers that prevent the full uptake of home-to-home transitions, notably a lack of awareness about the model, home-care "burnout," clinical inertia after a transfer to facility HD, suboptimal integration of PD and HHD centers, and insufficient funding for home dialysis programs. In this review, we will examine the conceptual advantages and disadvantages of integrated home dialysis, present the evidence that underlies it, identify challenges that prevent its success and finally, propose solutions to increase its adoption.

RESUMEN

Rationale & Objective: The Advancing Americans Kidney Health Executive order has directed substantial increases in home dialysis use for incident kidney replacement therapy (KRT). Clinical guidelines recommend patients' self-selection of KRT modality through a shared decision-making process, which, at the minimum, requires predialysis nephrology care and KRT-directed comprehensive prekidney failure patient education (CoPE). The current state of these essential services among Americans with advanced (stages 4 and 5) chronic kidney disease (CKD) and their informed preferences for home dialysis are unknown. Study Design: We conducted a community-based, cross-sectional, observational cohort study across a large regional Veteran Healthcare System from October 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021. Setting & Participants: Of the 928 Veterans with advanced CKD, 287 (30.9%) were invited for needs assessment evaluations. Of the 218 (76% of invited cohort) responding, 178 (81.6%) were receiving nephrology care, with approximately half of those (43.6%) receiving such care from non-Veterans Affairs providers. Outcomes: The study was targeted to assess the prevalent state of ongoing nephrology care and KRT-directed pre-kidney failure education among Veterans with advanced CKD. The secondary outcome included evaluation of dialysis decision-making state among Veterans with advanced CKD. Analytical Approach: Veterans with advanced CKD with 2 sustained estimated glomerular filtration rates <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 were identified through an electronic database query, and a randomly selected cohort was invited for their current state of and outstanding needs for predialysis nephrology care and CoPE, essential for informed KRT selection. Results: Basic awareness of kidney disease was high (92.2%) among Veterans with advanced CKD, although only 38.5% were aware of the severity of their CKD. KRT-directed education during clinical care was reported by 46.8% of Veterans, of which 21.1% reported having received targeted CoPE classes. Three-quarters (74.3%) of Veterans expressed interest in receiving CoPE services. Overall, awareness of CKD and its severity and receipt of KRT-directed education were significantly higher among Veterans with nephrology care than among those without. Of the 61 Veterans providing their KRT preferences, overall decision making was poor, with three-quarters (73.8%) of the cohort unable to choose any KRT modality, irrespective of ongoing nephrology care. Only 8 (13%) felt confident choosing home KRT modalities. Limitations: The study results are primarily applicable to the Veterans with advanced CKD. Furthermore, a limited numbers of respondents provided data on their KRT decision-making state, prohibiting broad generalizations. Conclusions: In a first-of-its-kind community-based needs assessment evaluation among Veterans with advanced CKD, we found that awareness of kidney disease is positively associated with nephrology care; however, the informed KRT selection capabilities are universally poor, irrespective of nephrology care. Our results demonstrate a critical gap between the recommended and prevalent nephrology practices such as KRT-directed education and targeted CoPE classes required for informed patient-centered home dialysis selection in advanced CKD.

The Advancing American Kidney Health Executive Order recommended substantial, potentially unrealistic increases in societal home dialysis use. Unfortunately, we have not examined patient preferences for these targets to guide health care policies. Conducting a community-level needs assessment study among Veterans with advanced kidney disease, we found significant deficits in basic clinical care, namely the specialty nephrology care and dialysis-directed patient education services essential for informed patient-centered dialysis selection. This was expectedly associated with a suboptimal state of dialysis decision making, with about three-quarters of those surveyed being unable to select any dialysis modality. Our results show a critical need for provider and system-level efforts to ensure universal availability of specialty kidney care and targeted education for all patients with advanced chronic kidney disease.

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease affects 10% of the population worldwide, and the number of patients receiving treatment for end-stage kidney disease is forecasted to increase. Therefore, there is a pressing need for innovative digital solutions that increase the efficiency of care and improve patients' quality of life. The aim of the eHealth in Home Dialysis project is to create a novel eHealth solution, called eC4Me, to facilitate predialysis and home dialysis care for patients with chronic kidney disease. OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to evaluate the usability, user experience (UX), and patient experience (PX) of the first version of the eC4Me solution. METHODS: We used a user-based evaluation approach involving usability testing, questionnaire, and interview methods. The test sessions were conducted remotely with 10 patients with chronic kidney disease, 5 of whom had used the solution in their home environment before the tests, while the rest were using it for the first time. Thematic analysis was used to analyze user test and questionnaire data, and descriptive statistics were calculated for the UMUX (Usability Metric for User Experience) scores. RESULTS: Most usability problems were related to navigation, the use of terminology, and the presentation of health-related data. Despite usability challenges, UMUX ratings of the solution were positive overall. The results showed noteworthy variation in the expected benefits and perceived effort of using the solution. From a PX perspective, it is important that the solution supports patients' own health-related goals and fits with the needs of their everyday lives with the disease. CONCLUSIONS: A user-based evaluation is a useful and necessary part of the eHealth solution development process. Our study findings can be used to improve the usability and UX of the evaluated eC4Me solution. Patients should be actively involved in the solution development process when specifying what information is relevant for them. Traditional usability tests complemented with questionnaire and interview methods can serve as a meaningful methodological approach for gaining insight not only into usability but also into UX- and PX-related aspects of digital health solutions.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

A large portion of new patients with end stage kidney disease initiates dialysis in the acute setting and continue with outpatient dialysis at in-center facilities. To increase home dialysis adoption, programs have successfully operationalized Urgent Start peritoneal dialysis to have patients avoid in-center dialysis and move straight to home. However, Urgent Start home hemodialysis (HHD) has not been a realistic option for providers or patients due to complex machines and long training times (greater than four weeks). The landscape of dialysis treatment is evolving, and innovative approaches are being explored to improve patient outcomes and optimize health care resources. This article delves into the concept of directly transitioning incident patients from hospital admission to HHD, bypassing traditional in-center dialysis training. This forward-thinking approach aims to empower patients, enhance their treatment experience, maximize efficiency, and streamline health care operations. A large hospital organization in the Northeast was able to successfully transition three patients from hospital "crash" starts on hemodialysis directly to HHD.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Reasons for transfer from peritoneal dialysis (PD) to hemodialysis (HD) remain incompletely understood. Among incident and prevalent patients receiving PD, we evaluated the association of clinical factors, including prior treatment with HD, with PD technique survival. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Adults who initiated PD at a Dialysis Clinic, Inc (DCI) outpatient facility between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2019. EXPOSURE: The primary exposure of interest was timing of PD start, categorized as PD-first, PD-early, or PD-late. Other covariates included demographics, clinical characteristics, and routine laboratory results. OUTCOME: Modality switch from PD to HD sustained for more than 90 days. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Multivariable Fine-Gray models with competing risks and time-varying covariates, stratified at 9 months to account for lack of proportionality. RESULTS: Among 5,224 patients who initiated PD at a DCI facility, 3,174 initiated dialysis with PD ("PD-first"), 942 transitioned from HD to PD within 90 days ("PD-early"), and 1,108 transitioned beyond 90 days ("PD-late"); 1,472 (28%) subsequently transferred from PD to HD. The PD-early and PD-late patients had a higher risk of transfer to HD as compared with PD-first patients (in the first 9 months: adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.51 [95% CI, 1.17-1.96] and 2.41 [95% CI, 1.94-3.00], respectively; and after 9 months: AHR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.99-1.35] and AHR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.24-1.65], respectively). More peritonitis episodes, fewer home visits, lower serum albumin levels, lower residual kidney function, and lower peritoneal clearance calculated with weekly Kt/V were additional risk factors for PD-to-HD transfer. LIMITATIONS: Missing data on dialysis adequacy and residual kidney function, confounded by short PD technique survival. CONCLUSIONS: Initiating dialysis with PD is associated with greater PD technique survival, though many of those who initiate PD-late in their dialysis course still experience substantial time on PD. Peritonitis, lower serum albumin, and lower Kt/V are risk factors for PD-to-HD transfer that may be amenable to intervention. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an important kidney replacement modality with several potential advantages compared with in-center hemodialysis (HD). However, a substantial number of patients transfer to in-center HD early on, without having experienced the quality-of-life and other benefits that come with sustained maintenance of PD. Using retrospective data from a midsize national dialysis provider, we found that initiating dialysis with PD is associated with longer maintenance of PD, compared with initiating dialysis with HD and a later switch to PD. However, many of those who initiate PD-late in their dialysis course still experience substantial time on PD. Peritonitis, lower serum albumin, and lower small protein removal are other risk factors for PD-to-HD transfer that may be amenable to intervention.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Disparities in home dialysis uptake across England suggest inequity and unexplained variation in access. We surveyed staff at all English kidney centres to identify patterns in service organisation/delivery and explore correlations with home therapy uptake, as part of a larger study ('Inter-CEPt'), which aims to identify potentially modifiable factors to address observed variations. METHODS: Between June and September 2022, staff working at English kidney centres were surveyed and individual responses combined into one centre-level response per question using predetermined data aggregation rules. Descriptive analysis described centre practices and their correlation with home dialysis uptake (proportion of new home dialysis starters) using 2019 UK Renal Registry 12-month home dialysis incidence data. RESULTS: In total, 180 responses were received (50/51 centres, 98.0%). Despite varied organisation of home dialysis services, most components of service delivery and practice had minimal or weak correlations with home dialysis uptake apart from offering assisted peritoneal dialysis and 'promoting flexible decision-making about dialysis modality'. Moderate to strong correlations were identified between home dialysis uptake and centres reporting supportive clinical leadership (correlation 0.32, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.05-0.55), an organisational culture that values trying new initiatives (0.57, 95% CI: 0.34-0.73); support for reflective practice (0.38, 95% CI: 0.11-0.60), facilitating research engagement (0.39, 95% CI: 0.13-0.61) and promoting continuous quality improvement (0.29, 95% CI: 0.01-0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of home dialysis is likely to be driven by organisational culture, leadership and staff attitudes, which provide a supportive clinical environment within which specific components of service organisation and delivery can be effective.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced chronic kidney disease have lower health-related quality of life (HRQOL) than the general population. There is uncertainty regarding patterns of HRQOL changes before dialysis initiation. This study aimed to characterise HRQOL trajectory and assess its potential association with intended dialysis modality. METHODS: This prospective single-centre cohort study followed adults with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤15 mL/min/1.73 m2 for one year. Patients were allocated into one of two groups based on their intended treatment modality, 'home dialysis' (peritoneal dialysis or home haemodialysis (HD)) and 'other' (in-centre HD or conservative care). Follow-up was for up to 1 year or earlier if initiated on kidney replacement therapy or died. Kidney Disease Quality of Life - Short Form (KDQOL-SF) was completed every 6 months. Predictors of changes in KDQOL-SF components were modelled using mixed effect multivariable linear regressions. RESULTS: One hundred and nine patients were included. At baseline, crude physical composite summary (PCS) (45 ± 10 vs. 39 ± 8) was higher in patients choosing home dialysis (n = 41), while mental composite summary (MCS) was similar in both groups. After adjustment, patients choosing home dialysis had an increase in MCS (B = 8.4 per year, p = 0.007) compared to those selecting in-centre HD/conservative care. This translates into an annual increase in MSC by 3 points for the 'home dialysis' group, compared to an annual decline by 5.4 points in the 'other' group. There was no difference in PCS trajectory through time. CONCLUSIONS: Patients choosing home dialysis had improved MCS over time compared to those not selecting home dialysis. More work is needed to determine how differences in processes of care and/or unmeasured patient characteristics modulate this association.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: The integrated home dialysis model proposes the initiation of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) with peritoneal dialysis (PD) and a timely transition to home hemodialysis (HHD) after PD ends. We compared the outcomes of patients transitioning from PD to HHD with those initiating KRT with HHD. STUDY DESIGN: Observational analysis of the Canadian Organ Replacement Register (CORR). SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS: All patients who initiated PD or HHD within the first 90 days of KRT between 2005 and 2018. EXPOSURE: Patients transitioning from PD to HHD (PD+HHD group) versus patients initiating KRT with HHD (HHD group). OUTCOME: (1) A composite of all-cause mortality and modality transfer (to in-center hemodialysis or PD for 90 days) and (2) all hospitalizations (considered as recurrent events). ANALYTICAL APPROACH: A propensity score analysis for which PD+HHD patients were matched 1:1 to (1) incident HHD patients ("incident-match" analysis) or (2) HHD patients with a KRT vintage at least equivalent to the vintage of PD+HHD patients at the transition time ("vintage-matched" analysis). Cause-specific hazards models (composite outcome) and shared frailty models (hospitalization) were used to compare groups. RESULTS: Among 63,327 individuals in the CORR, 163 PD+HHD patients (median of 1.9 years in PD) and 711 HHD patients were identified. In the incident-match analysis, compared to the HHD patients, the PD+HHD group had a similar risk of the composite outcome (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.58-1.32]) and hospitalizations (HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.76-1.41]). In the vintage-match analysis, PD+HHD patients had a lower hazard for the composite outcome (HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.40-0.94]) but a similar hospitalization risk (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.59-1.24]). LIMITATIONS: Risk of survivor bias in the PD+HHD cohort and residual confounding. CONCLUSIONS: Controlling for KRT vintage, the patients transitioning from PD to HHD had better clinical outcomes than the incident HHD patients. These data support the use of integrated home dialysis for patients initiating home-based KRT. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The integrated home dialysis model proposes the initiation of dialysis with peritoneal dialysis (PD) and subsequent transition to home hemodialysis (HHD) once PD is no longer feasible. It allows patients to benefit from initial lifestyle advantages of PD and to continue home-based treatments after its termination. However, some patients may prefer to initiate dialysis with HHD from the outset. In this study, we compared the long-term clinical outcomes of both approaches using a large Canadian dialysis register. We found that both options led to a similar risk of hospitalization. In contrast, the PD-to-HHD model led to improved survival when controlling for the duration of kidney failure.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

ABSTRACT Home hemodialysis (HD) and automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) have advantages over HD in hospitals or HD centers. Home therapies are generally less expensive and give patients greater mobility and freedom for work, school, family, and recreational activities. Technological advances have made it possible to complement APD with devices for remote monitoring (RM) of the patient. With them, objective information generated in the APD device is collected and sent to repositories "in the cloud" for analysis or at the time decided by the health team. With APD+RM, it is possible to monitor therapeutic compliance, effective dialysis time, ultrafiltration volumes, inflow and outflow patterns of dialysis fluid, and patient actions to respond to alarms that indicate deviations from the parameters set by the nephrologist. The results of APD+RM show good acceptance by the patient, nephrologists, and nurses, treatment adherence has improved, hospitalizations and technique failure have decreased, and some aspects of quality of life have improved. However, there is a lack of controlled clinical trials that reliably demonstrate lower mortality and comorbidity due to specific causes.

RESUMEN

Home hemodialysis (HD) and automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) have advantages over HD in hospitals or HD centers. Home therapies are generally less expensive and give patients greater mobility and freedom for work, school, family, and recreational activities. Technological advances have made it possible to complement APD with devices for remote monitoring (RM) of the patient. With them, objective information generated in the APD device is collected and sent to repositories "in the cloud" for analysis or at the time decided by the health team. With APD+RM, it is possible to monitor therapeutic compliance, effective dialysis time, ultrafiltration volumes, inflow and outflow patterns of dialysis fluid, and patient actions to respond to alarms that indicate deviations from the parameters set by the nephrologist. The results of APD+RM show good acceptance by the patient, nephrologists, and nurses, treatment adherence has improved, hospitalizations and technique failure have decreased, and some aspects of quality of life have improved. However, there is a lack of controlled clinical trials that reliably demonstrate lower mortality and comorbidity due to specific causes.

Asunto(s)