On‐line hemodiafiltration at home

Survival with online hemodiafiltration (OL‐HDF) is higher than with hemodialysis; frequent hemodialysis has also improved survival and quality of life. Home hemodialysis facilitates frequent therapy. We report our experience with 2 patients with stage 5 CKD who started home hemodialysis with OL‐HDF in November 2016. After a training period at the hospital, they started home hemodialysis with OL‐HDF after learning how to manage dialysis monitors and how to administer water treatment. We used the “5008‐home” (FMC^©) monitor, and the Acqua C^© (Fresenius Medical Care) for water treatment. Water conductivity was always checked before and during dialysis sessions and was always 2.5 to 3 mS/cm. Water cultures always fulfilled the criteria for ultrapurity. As far as we know, this is the first report on patients receiving OL‐HDF at home. The technique proved to be safe and valid for renal replacement therapy and transfers the benefits of hospital convective therapy to the home setting. Future data will enable us to determine whether survival has also improved.     

Complications of home hemodialysis

Home hemodialysis is regaining popularity as a treatment choice for end-stage kidney disease. This trend is fueled by numerous reports of better survival and improved quality of life with primarily home-based more frequent and/or longer hours of hemodialysis. Home hemodialysis in the contemporary era is generally very safe. Advances in machine technology have reduced technical complications and longer and more frequent treatments have reduced the risk of hypotension and cardiovascular instability. A successful home hemodialysis program must focus on patient safety to prevent serious hemorrhage from needle dislodgement and enable an aseptic cannulation technique. In addition, vigilance in relation to machine maintenance procedures and attention to water quality are key skills that patients must acquire for optimal outcomes. The possibility of increased septic events with longer and more frequent hemodialysis regimens performed in the home, the long-term psychosocial effects of home hemodialysis, and the best methods for maintaining compliance of patients in the long term are of particular contemporary interest.     

The use of vascular access audit and infections in home hemodialysis

Vascular access‐related infection is an important adverse event in home hemodialysis (HHD). We hypothesize that errors in self‐cannulation or manipulation of dialysis vascular access are associated with increased incidence of access‐related infection. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all prevalent HHD patients at the University Health Network. All vascular access‐related infections were recorded from 2006 to 2013. Errors in dialysis access were ascertained by nurse‐administered vascular access checklist. Ninety‐two patients had completed at least one vascular access audit. Median HHD vintage was 2.3 (0.9–5.0) years in patients with appropriate vascular access technique and 5.8 (1.5–9.4) years in patients with erroneous vascular access technique. The overall rate of infection between patients with and without appropriate vascular access technique was similar (0.27 and 0.28 infections per year, P = 0.166). Among patients who were identified with errors in dialysis access manipulation, patients with five or more errors were associated with higher rate of access‐related infection (mean of 0.47 vs. 0.16 infection per patient‐year, P < 0.001). The use of vascular access audit is a feasible strategy, which can identify errors in vascular access technique. Patients with a longer median HHD vintage are associated with higher risk of inappropriate vascular access technique. Patients with multiple errors in vascular access technique are associated with a higher risk of dialysis access‐related infection. Prospective evaluation of the impact of vascular access audit on adverse vascular access events is warranted.     

Determinants of training and technique failure in home hemodialysis

Home hemodialysis (HHD) has clinical and economic advantages compared with in‐center conventional hemodialysis. Many health systems wish to broaden the population to which this modality can be successfully offered. However, determinants of successful HHD training and technique survival are unknown. We hypothesize that both medical and social factors play a role when patients fail to successfully adopt HHD. We examined characteristics of consecutive patients who initiated training for HHD between 2003 and 2011. Patients were classified as “failure” if they failed to complete HHD training or experienced technique failure (TF) within the first year of treatment. Remaining patients were classified as “success.” One hundred seventy‐seven patients initiated HHD training. In the “failure” group (n = 32), 24 did not finish training and 8 had TF. In the “success” group (n = 145), 65 (45%) patients remained on NHD, 49 (34%) discontinued HHD because of renal transplantation and 21 (14%) because of death, while only 10 (7%) eventually transferred to another dialysis modality. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, the strongest predictors of “failure” were end‐stage renal disease because of diabetes (odds ratio [OR] 3.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4–10.3, P = 0.008) and use of rental housing (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.3–6.0, P = 0.01). Both medical and social factors are associated with failure to adopt HHD. Enhanced supports or a customized education strategy for these vulnerable patients should be considered.     

A primer for the prescription of short-daily and nocturnal hemodialysis

More frequent and intensive hemodialysis (HD) schedules continue to garner interest internationally. Two dominant regimens have emerged, namely short-daily and nocturnal HD. A growing body of observational data suggests that these regimens allow more rigorous control of biochemical and physical parameters when compared with conventional HD. This review describes the methodology used in providing more frequent or sustained HD both in center and at home, and attempts to provide a physiological rationale for the practices described in the current literature.     

Alternatives to standard hemodialysis

Survival of patients on hemodialysis remains poor, but the benefits of increasing urea clearance have probably been maximized within our current treatment schedules. Long dialysis sessions (8 hr) produce impressive outcomes, with mortality 53% to 55% lower than conventional schedules. Even increasing from 4 to 5 hr may improve survival. Increased frequency of dialysis (6 times weekly) produces impressive reductions in left ventricular mass and could conceivably be implemented in‐center. Preliminary data suggest a 61% reduction in mortality with increased frequency. Nightly dialysis combines longer sessions with increased frequency and has produced remarkable clinical gains in blood pressure, left ventricular mass, serum phosphate, and sleep apnea. However, the data are mainly from case series and impact on mortality remains unknown. Expansion of home hemodialysis would be necessary for this modality to grow. Convective therapies remove middle molecules more effectively, and observational data suggest hemodiafiltration has the potential to improve mortality by 35% to 36%. Hemodiafiltration has the advantage of being relatively easy to implement. The uremic milieu is complex and further investigation of the underlying pathophysiology is needed to inform future dialysis interventions. The survival data above are from observational studies, and hence benefits are likely to be exaggerated. Randomized trials of dialysis interventions are desperately needed. They remain difficult to perform, because of the complexity of both the patient population and the interventions, and because of limited available funding.     

Caregiver burden among nocturnal home hemodialysis patients

Recent studies have suggested improvements in quality of life (QOL) in patients on quotidian dialysis compared with conventional hemodialysis. Few studies have focused on the burden and QOL in caregivers of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on nocturnal home hemodialysis (NHD). We aim to assess the caregivers' burden, QOL, and depressive symptoms and to compare these parameters with their patients' counterparts. Cross-sectional surveys were sent to 61 prevalent NHD patients and their caregivers. Surveys assessed demographics, general self-perceived health using the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) and the presence of depression using the Beck Depression Inventory. Subjective burden on caregivers was assessed by the Caregiver Burden scale and was compared with perceived burden by the patients. Thirty-six patients and 31 caregivers completed the survey. The majority of caregivers were female (66%), spouse (81%) with no comorbid illness (72%). Their mean age was 51 ± 11 years. Patients were mostly male (64%) with a median ESRD vintage of 60 months (interquartile range [IQR], 18-136 months) and a mean age of 52 ± 10 years. Compared to caregivers, patients had lower perceived physical health score but had similar mental health score. Depression criteria were present in 47% of patients and 25% of caregivers. Total global burden perceived by either caregivers or patients is relatively low. Although there is a relatively low global burden perceived by caregivers and patients undergoing NHD, a significant proportion of both groups fulfilled criteria for depression. Further innovative approaches are needed to support caregivers and patients performing NHD to reduce the intrusion of caring for a chronic illness and the risk of developing depression.     

The anticoagulant activity of enoxaparin sodium during on-line hemodiafiltration and conventional hemodialysis

To study and compare the anticoagulant activity of enoxaparin sodium during on-line hemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) and conventional hemodialysis (C-HD). Enoxaparin was administered as an anticoagulant to 21 hemodialysis patients at the beginning of a single 4-hour OL-HDF session as an intravenous bolus dose of 80 mg/kg. On-line hemodiafiltration was performed using a high-flux polyester polymer alloy dialyzer and a total of 18 L replacement fluid (session A). One week later, the study was repeated in the same patients during a single 4-hour session of C-HD using a low-flux polysulfone dialyzer (session B). Blood samples for the measurement of Hb, blood urea and nitrogen (BUN), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), and anti-Xa levels were taken before each study session and 5-minute postdialysis. In 13 more patients, the same study was performed during OL-HDF using a high-flux polysulfone dialyzer (session C). No differences were found between sessions A, B, and C when predialysis values for Hb, BUN, APTT, and anti-Xa were compared. The mean postdialysis APTT and anti-Xa values were 32.5±3.8 seconds and 0.19±0.11 IU/mL, respectively, in session A, 39.0±5.0 seconds and 0.71±0.17 IU/mL in session B, and 33.8±3.1 seconds and 0.35±17 IU/mL in session C (A vs. B, P<0.0001, for both parameters, A vs. C, P<0.003 for anti-XA, and B vs. C, P<0.005, for both parameters). The anticoagulant activity of enoxaparin sodium is decreased significantly during a 4-hour OL-HDF session compared with to a similar session of C-HD. The degree of the reduction seems to depend on the dialyzer's membrane.     

The renaissance of home hemodialysis: where we are, why we got here, what is happening in the United States and elsewhere

Home hemodialysis has been around since 1964, but its use has declined over the years in most countries, this despite its advantages, particularly improved patient survival and quality of life and significant cost savings. Experience has shown that home hemodialysis can be performed successfully by many more patients than at present. Recently, with the demonstration of even better results with more frequent hemodialysis that is obviously best performed at home and with the development of new, more patient-friendly machines, the use of home hemodialysis is beginning to increase again.     

Nightly home hemodialysis: outcome and factors associated with survival

Nightly home hemodialysis (NHHD) has been reported to have a much better survival than the excessive mortality of thrice-weekly in-center dialysis, but the factors influencing survival of NHHD have not been investigated in detail. We studied the association of survival in a 12-year study of 87 NHHD patients from a single center evaluating demographic, sociologic, and anthropomorphic factors, diagnosis, comorbidity, vintage, and dialysis performance and efficiency. Secondly, we compared the survival of the 87 NHHD patients with that reported by the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) using standardized mortality rate (SMR). The average patient age was 52 ± 15 years, and 59% were males, 51% African Americans, and 25% had diabetes. The patients dialyzed 40 ± 6 hours weekly with a stdKt/V of 5.25 ± 0.84. Thirteen patients died. The cumulative survival was 79% at 5 years and 64% at 10 years. Using Cox proportional hazards univariate analysis, 7 of 26 factors studied were associated with mortality: less than high school education, hour of each dialysis, comorbidities, secondary renal disease, congestive heart failure, Leypoldt's eKt/V, and Daugirdas Kt/V. In backward stepwise Cox analysis, education and hour of dialysis were the only factors independently associated with survival. The standardized mortality rate was only 0.30 of that reported by the United States Renal Data System for patients on thrice-weekly hemodialysis adjusted for age, gender, race, and diagnosis. The influence of education was the most significantly associated with survival, and the duration of each dialysis treatment was important. The survival rate of NHHD patients appeared to be superior to intermittent hemodialysis.     

Patient preferences for in-center intense hemodialysis

There is a lack of data on patient preferences for intense hemodialysis (IHD). In this study, we conducted a cross-sectional survey to identify patient preferences and patient-centered barriers for IHD. A questionnaire on preferences and anticipated barriers, anticipated benefits, and quality of life for three in-center IHD schedules (daytime 2 hr six times/week [DHD], nocturnal 8 hr three times/week [ND3], and nocturnal 8 hr six times/week [ND6]) was administered to 100 chronic hemodialysis patients. A majority of patients (68%) were willing to undergo DHD for symptomatic benefits or increase in survival. An increase in energy level (94%) and improvement in sleep (57%) were the most common potential benefits that would justify DHD, but only 19% would undergo DHD for an increase in survival of < or =3 years. Only 20% and 7% would consider ND3 and ND6, respectively. The most common reported barriers were inadequate time for self (50%) and family (53%), followed by transportation difficulties (53%). Most patients would undergo DHD for symptomatic or survival benefits, but not ND3 or ND6. Disruption of personal time, however, is an important consideration. Success of DHD program would depend on arrangements for transportation to dialysis unit.     

Catheter‐related bacteremia and mortality in frequent nocturnal home hemodialysis

Frequent nightly home hemodialysis (NHHD) has emerged as an attractive alternative to thrice weekly in‐center hemodialysis, albeit with preponderant long‐term hemodialysis catheter used. Sixty‐three NHHD patients from University of Virginia Lynchburg Dialysis Facility were matched 1:2 with 121 conventional hemodialysis patients admitted to Fresenius Medical Care North America facilities from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2010. Matching considered age (± 5 years), gender, race, dialysis vintage, and diabetes. The primary end‐point was the combined incidence of bacteremia/sepsis, for up to 20 months or upon changing to a fistula/graft (with catheter removal), transferring to peritoneal dialysis (PD), or at the time of kidney transplant or death. No significant differences were observed in rate of fistula/graft conversion, transfer to PD, transplant, or death between NHHD and in‐center hemodialysis (IHD) groups. For the first catheter used, the rate of catheter‐related sepsis was not significantly different between the NHHD (1.77 per 100 patient months) and IHD (2.03 per 100 patient months; P = 0.21). Combining all catheters, the rate of bacteremia/sepsis per 100 patient months in the NHHD group was 1.51 and in the IHD group was 2.01 (P = 0.35). Median catheter lifespan for the first catheter was 5.6 (1.7～19.0) for NHHD and 4.6 (2.7～7.8) for the IHD group (P = 0.64), and for all catheters used was 5.2 (Q1～Q3 = 1.5～15.2) months in NHHD group, and 4.1 (2.0～6.8) months in IHD group (P = 0.20). The rate of bacteremia and death is not different for up to 20 months in catheter users who dialyze via frequent NHHD vs. thrice weekly IHD.     

Role of peritoneal dialysis in the era of the resurgence of home hemodialysis

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of home hemodialysis (HHD) therapies. Given the small percentage of prevalent patients in the United States currently on home dialysis, an appropriate question is: What is the role of peritoneal dialysis (PD) in this era? Data suggest that in centers that are promoting the growth of HHD, their PD programs also tend to be very active. Furthermore, our experience and other data suggest that one should not worry about cannibalizing PD in order to grow HHD. Most HHD patients come from in‐center hemodialysis or those patients transitioning from PD to another therapy. In fact, data suggest that in order to promote the growth of HHD, a certain minimal infrastructure is needed in terms of staff. An active PD program not only supports a robust infrastructure that allows for HHD growth but also fosters profitability of a home program.     

Adrenal insufficiency presenting as unexplained hypotension in nocturnal home hemodialysis

Adrenal insufficiency is a complication of chronic corticosteroid therapy. Unexplained hypotension may be a manifestation of an adrenal insufficient state in patients with a history of corticosteroid therapy on hemodialysis. We present a series of five cases of patients on nocturnal home hemodialysis with hypotension as the main manifestation of adrenal insufficiency. Unexplained hypotension in patients with a history of corticosteroid therapy should prompt the managing clinician to consider adrenal insufficiency as a possible cause.     

Calcium‐phosphate and parathyroid intradialytic profiles: A potential aid for tailoring the dialysate calcium content of patients on different hemodialysis schedules

Severe hyperparathyroidism is a challenge on hemodialysis. The definition of dialysate calcium (Ca) is a pending issue with renewed importance in cases of individualized dialysis schedules and of portable home dialysis machines with low‐flow dialysate. Direct measurement of calcium mass transfer is complex and is imprecisely reflected by differences in start‐to‐end of dialysis Ca levels. The study was performed in a dialysis unit dedicated to home hemodialysis and to critical patients with wide use of daily and tailored schedules. The Ca‐phosphate (P)‐parathyroid hormone (PTH) profile includes creatinine, urea, total and ionized Ca, albumin, sodium, potassium, P, PTH levels at start, mid, and end of dialysis. “Severe” secondary hyperparathyroidism was defined as PTH > 300 pg/mL for ≥3 months. Four schedules were tested: conventional dialysis (polysulfone dialyzer 1.8–2.1 m²), with dialysate Ca 1.5 or 1.75 mmol/L, NxStage (Ca 1.5 mmol/L), and NxStage plus intradialytic Ca infusion. Dosages of vitamin D, calcium, phosphate binders, and Ca mimetic agents were adjusted monthly. Eighty Ca‐P‐PTH profiles were collected in 12 patients. Serum phosphate was efficiently reduced by all techniques. No differences in start‐to‐end PTH and Ca levels on dialysis were observed in patients with PTH levels < 300 pg/mL. Conversely, Ca levels in “severe” secondary hyperparathyroid patients significantly increased and PTH decreased during dialysis on all schedules except on Nxstage (P < 0.05). Our data support the need for tailored dialysate Ca content, even on “low‐flow” daily home dialysis, in “severe” secondary hyperparathyroid patients in order to increase the therapeutic potentials of the new dialysis techniques.