Rationale for Daily Dialysis

The kidneys maintain the body's homeostasis by removing water and waste products continuously and efficiently. The ideal dialytic treatment should emulate the functions of the kidney. Of the dialysis treatments currently available for chronic renal failure, the only continuous ones are continuous ambulatory and continuous cyclic peritoneal dialysis; however, the efficiency of peritoneal dialysis is limited by the nature of the peritoneal membrane. Extracorporeal dialysis is markedly more efficient than peritoneal dialysis, but is performed intermittently (usually 3 times/week) with large fluctuations of body fluid volumes and concentrations of various solutes and electrolytes. These fluctuations cause intercompartmental disequilibrium during dialysis, induce intradialytic and interdialytic symptoms, and create difficulties in controlling blood pressure. Daily dialysis is both frequent and efficient and therefore seems to be superior to any other form of renal replacement therapy.     

Comparison of techniques for culture of dialysis water and fluid

Introduction: Microbiological culture of dialysis water and fluid is a routine safety measure. In the United States (U.S.), laboratories perform these cultures on trypticase soy agar at 35–37°C for 48 h (TSA‐48h), not on the tryptone glucose extract agar or Reasoner's 2A agar at 17–23°C for 7 days (TGEA‐7d and R2A‐7d, respectively) recommended by international standards. We compared culture methods to identify samples exceeding the accepted action level of 50 CFU/mL. Methods: Dialysis water and fluid samples collected from 41 U.S. dialysis programs between 2011 and 2014 were cultured at two U.S. laboratories. Each sample was cultured using (1) either TGEA‐7d or R2A‐7d and (2) TSA‐48h. We compared proportions exceeding the action level by different methods and test characteristics of TSA‐48h to those of TGEA‐7d and R2A‐7d. Findings: The proportion of water samples yielding colony counts ≥50 CFU/mL by TGEA‐7d was significantly different from the proportion by TSA‐48h (P = 0.001; difference in proportion 4.3% [95%CI 1.3–7.3%]). The proportions of dialysis fluid samples ≥50 CFU/mL by TGEA‐7d and TSA‐48h were not significantly different; there were no significant differences for comparisons of R2A‐7d to TSA‐48h. Discussion: In dialysis fluid, TSA‐48h was comparable to TGEA‐7d and R2A‐7d in identifying samples as having bacterial counts ≥50 CFU/mL. In dialysis water, TSA‐48h was comparable to R2A‐7d in identifying samples ≥50 CFU/mL, but TGEA‐7d did yield significantly more results above 50 CFU/mL. Nonetheless, the negative predictive value of a TSA‐48h result of <50 CFU/mL in dialysis water exceeded 95%.     

Importance of early dialysis for acute renal failure after an open-heart surgery

Coronary artery disease is a major cause of death in patients with a renal dysfunction. Among the patients who undergo coronary artery bypass grafting, renal dysfunction is known to be a major predictor of in-hospital and out-of-hospital mortality. From 2004 to 2007, we performed elective open-heart surgeries on 2380 patients in whom there was no primary renal failure. Of those patients, only 185 in whom acute renal failure (ARF) was developed were included in the study. The patients were divided into 2 groups: a late dialysis group (n=90) and an early dialysis group (n=95). The mean age of the patients was 62.3±6.4 in the late dialysis group and 64.5±5.2 in the early dialysis group. There were 32 female and 58 male patients in the late dialysis group and 36 female and 59 male patients in the early dialysis group. Acute renal failure developed only in 185 patients out of 2380 open-heart surgery patients. The overall mortality in the 2380 open-heart surgery patients was 1.97%. Mortality among the ARF patients was 5.9%. However, there was no significant difference in hospital mortality between the 2 groups. Major complications, such as postoperative pneumonia, prolonged ventilation time, arrhythmia, the number of times postoperative hemodialysis was performed, development of chronic renal failure, time spent in the intensive care unit and the period of hospitalization, sepsis, and low cardiac output, were significantly higher in the late dialysis group. There was no difference in mortality between the 2 groups. Early dialysis for open-heart surgery patients who develop ARF postoperatively does not decrease mortality. However, it decreases morbidity, the amount of time spent in intensive care, and the period of hospitalization and thus reduces patient costs.     

The Case for Every‐Other‐Day Dialysis

Until daily dialysis becomes widely available, we believe that hemodialysis patients would benefit enormously from every‐other‐day dialysis (EODD), which may be implemented both by home patients and in centers. Benefits of EODD over the routine, three‐times‐weekly schedule would include decreased mortality after the weekend interval without dialysis; increased weekly dose of dialysis, resulting in better rehabilitation; and improved blood pressure control.     

Dialysis education and options for late presenters—An ongoing dilemma

Pre-dialysis education forms a crucial part of dialysis preparation. Acute start dialysis patients often commence and remain on in-center hemodialysis (ICHD) without the benefit of an informed decision making process for kidney replacement therapy options. The aim of this review is to evaluate the evidence surrounding methods of education provision to the acute dialysis start population and their associated outcomes. Publications have described a holistic education pathway with multimedia provision of information and interactive experiences. One or more trained specialist nurses provided information over 3–5 sessions. Formal education was mostly initiated as an inpatient. 86%–100% of acute start dialysis patients are initiated and remain on ICHD. Following formal education, 21%–58% of patients chose peritoneal dialysis (PD), 10%–24% home hemodialysis, 33%–58% ICHD. This brings the number of patients maintained on an independent form of dialysis similar to the planned dialysis start population. Patients commenced on PD without needing temporary hemodialysis, hence avoided complications associated with such. Patients aged under 75 (p < 0.0001) and males (p = 0.006) were more likely to be influenced by education to select PD. The adjusted 5 year survival rates among discharged patients were similar between home and ICHD groups (73% vs. 71% respectively), with a comparable age of death. A targeted education program in the acute dialysis start population has proven to be feasible. Adaptations are likely required for each center; however, various methods have been shown to be effective, with an increased number of patients choosing an independent dialysis modality when given the choice.     

International quotidian dialysis registry: Annual report 2010

The International Quotidian Dialysis Registry (IQDR) is a global initiative designed to study practices and outcomes associated with the use of hemodialysis (HD) regimens of increased frequency and/or duration. The IQDR grew out of the initiative that lead to the randomized prospective studies of nocturnal HD and short hours daily dialysis vs. conventional thrice weekly HD that are conducted by the Frequent Hemodialysis Network sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. These 2 separate studies are drawing to a close and the first results are expected to be reported later this year. These studies use surrogate outcomes for their primary endpoints as they are not powered to look at outcomes of mortality and hospitalization. The IQDR attempts to aggregate long‐term follow‐up data from centers utilizing alternative HD regimens worldwide and will have adequate statistical power to examine those important outcomes. To date, the IQDR has enrolled patients from Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and France and has linked with commercial databases and national registries. This sixth annual report of the IQDR describes: (1) An update on the governance structure; (2) The recommendations made at the first general meetings of the IQDR Scientific Committee and Advisory Board; (3) The status of those recommendations; (4) A summary of current data sources and participating registries; (5) The status of recruitment to date; (6) The creation of a specific Canadian IQDR data set and; (7) The current research agenda.     

Subcutaneous defibrillators for dialysis patients

Defibrillation can be successfully provided by the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) without the leads. In contrast, traditional ICDs require leads that can cause central venous stenosis, lead‐induced endocarditis, and carry the risk of tricuspid regurgitation by valve adhesion, perforation, coaptation interference, or entanglement. Central venous stenosis, infection, and tricuspid regurgitation are all critically important considerations in hemodialysis patients. Recent reports are supporting the use of subcutaneous ICDs in renal patients maintained on long‐term hemodialysis. This article provides the risks associated with leads of traditional defibrillators and raises awareness of the subcutaneous ICD and their benefits for hemodialysis patients.     

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.     

International quotidian dialysis registry: Annual report 2009

The International Quotidian Dialysis Registry (IQDR) is a global initiative designed to study practices and outcomes associated with the use of hemodialysis regimens of increased frequency and/or duration. Several small studies suggest that compared with conventional hemodialysis (HD), short-daily, nocturnal, and long conventional HD regimens may improve surrogate endpoints and quality of life. However, methodologically robust comparisons on hard outcomes are sorely lacking. The IQDR represents the first-ever attempt to aggregate long-term follow-up data from centers utilizing alternative HD regimens worldwide, and will have adequate statistical power to examine the effects of these regimens on multiple clinical endpoints, including mortality. To date, the IQDR has enrolled patients from Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, with plans in place to begin linking with additional commercial databases and national registries. This fifth annual report of the IQDR describes (1) a proposed governance structure that will facilitate international collaboration, stakeholder input and funding; (2) data sources and participating registries; (3) recruitment to date and patient baseline characteristics; and (4) an agenda for future research.     

What limits the expansion of self‐care dialysis at home?

Self-care dialysis at home, whether peritoneal dialysis or hemodialysis, is more cost-effective than in-center dialysis and treatment outcome is at least comparable. Still, both self-care modalities are considered underutilized and we wished to identify the perceived reasons for this underutilization among nephrology professionals. A questionnaire was distributed at 5 international nephrology meetings in 2006. Questions addressed the most important stakeholders and the most important issues for patients and nephrology professionals to enable the expansion of self-care dialysis and commonly mentioned barriers were given as alternative responses. The proportion of patients considered suitable for self-care was also investigated. Seven thousand responses were collected. The listed stakeholders, i.e., health care and reimbursement authorities, nurses and physicians, and finally patients and their families, are considered approximately equally important for the process. Nephrology professionals feel that patient motivation for choosing and performing self-care dialysis is the strongest driver. The need for dedicated resources for self-care is judged to be vital for the expansion of this modality of treatment. Thirty-two percent of incident patients are considered able to perform self-care dialysis at home. This international survey among 7000 nephrology professionals has identified patient motivation as one of the strongest drivers of self-care dialysis at home. The need for dedicated resources for the staff to devote time to developing such motivation is given as one of the major reasons for the slow adoption. Under ideal conditions, it is felt that one-third of all patients starting dialysis can be trained to perform self-care dialysis.     

Extracorporeal Support for Patients with Hepatic Failure

Extracorporeal support has been advocated for patients with acute and chronic liver failure. Patients with acute liver failure and those with decompensated cirrhosis can be broadly divided into two groups. The first group comprises those with acute liver failure and ongoing hepatic necrosis, and the second, those with long-standing chronic decompensation admitted with one or more complications of liver failure, such as encephalopathy without any evidence of a precipitating factor or accompanying acute deterioration of liver function. This second group includes patients with acute liver failure, where the insult causing hepatic necrosis has been resolved, and those patients with chronic decompensation who suffer another insult to the liver, such as acute infection or variceal hemorrhage that causes further liver injury in the setting of multiorgan failure. These two groups are likely to have different outcomes and may need to be managed differently. In the first group, liver transplantation is the only possible long-term therapeutic option, whereas in the second group, other possibilities such as extracorporeal liver support systems and/or medical therapy may allow these patients to return to their previous state before the acute insult. Over time extracorporeal support has expanded from simple peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis, to the development of circuits designed primarily to remove both water and lipid-soluble toxins and, in addition, bioartificial devices to provide replacement synthetic hepatic function.
Because many of the patients with an acute liver insult have ongoing chronic liver disease and develop hepatorenal syndrome, this group of patients has been targeted by several groups to study the role of liver support systems.     

Home Hemodialysis: A Patient's Perspective

This is a personal story of a member of a family with hereditary nephritis. My oldest brother died in 1946 before there was any dialysis or transplantation in the United States. My other brother died at the age of 22 in 1960 after unsuccessful kidney transplantation. I developed renal failure in 1980 and was lucky to survive due to the combination of several factors. The first, and most important, was the choice of home hemodialysis, which offers the longest patient survival of all dialysis modalities. The second was the help of my wife, who is my dialysis partner. The third was my conviction that it is not possible to get too much dialysis. I took control of my treatment and insisted on having the largest available dialyzers and performed long dialysis sessions. I was able to continue to work for the first 15 years on dialysis. As I look to the future, I am excited about the prospect of daily home hemodialysis, because I believe that this therapy will offer more efficient treatment and a nearly normal diet.     

Early,Frequent, and Efficient Hemodialysis: A New Trend or Déjà Vu From the 1970s?

After more than a quarter century of dialysis, two factors are still present in dialysis treatment of chronic renal failure patients: inadequacy of technology (the artificial kidney acts as an artificial glomerulus) and inadequate use of technology in terms of dialysis initiation and frequency. This paper presents the results of two less unphysiological dialysis programs, introduced in Bologna at the beginning of the 1960s, which proved their clinical value and are now becoming trendy, at the end of this century. Features of these programs are twofold: (1) daily dialysis, which aims at making treatment more biologically suited to the patient; its validity relies on lower intra- and interdialytic osmotic fluctuations; (2) early dialysis, which aims at making the patient more biologically suited to the treatment. After more than 25 years it is evident that this treatment has fulfilled its original expectations versus late dialysis. There is a 40% improvement in survival, a 35% decrease in morbidity, and a 24% improvement in the cost/benefit ratio. This report is based on a retrospective analysis of our overall experience and clinical results of chronic hemodialysis carried out in 224 patients on early dialysis and 1210 patients on late dialysis in Bologna from 1967 to 1997. Based on this experience, the following should be regarded as particularly important indications for early dialysis: adequate dialysis facilities; symptomatic patients despite renal creatinine clearances between 15 and 20 mL/min; patients unable to comply with dietary measures; children, to allow for adequate development; patients with diabetes mellitus; candidates for renal transplantation.     

Confounding factors for early death in incident end‐stage renal disease patients: Role of emergency dialysis start

Hemodialysis (HD) has been associated with higher 1‐year mortality than peritoneal dialysis (PD) after dialysis start. Confounding effects of late referral, emergency dialysis start, or start with central venous catheter on this association have never been studied concomitantly. Survival was studied among the 495 incident dialysed patients in our department from 1995 to 2006 and followed at least 1 year until December 31, 2007. Nested Cox models adjusted on patient characteristics explored factors associated with 1‐year and ≥1‐year mortality. Hemodialysis patients were 332 (67.1%), 104 (21.0%) were late referred (<6 months), 167 (33.7%) started dialysis in emergency, and 144 (29.1%) started with central venous catheter. When adjusted only on age, sex, and comorbidities, HD was associated with poor 1‐year outcome: adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for death in HD vs. PD was 1.77, P=0.02. In fully adjusted model, among first dialysis feature variables, only emergency dialysis start was significantly associated with 1‐year mortality: aHR 1.53, P=0.02. Dialysis modality was not associated with 1‐year mortality rates in this fully adjusted model: aHR in HD vs. PD became 1.03, P=0.91. In ≥1‐year period, HD was associated with lower mortality than PD (aHR 0.61, P=0.004), whereas other first dialysis features were not associated with death. Other factors associated with death were age, type 2 diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, heart failure, and hepatic failure. Negative association between HD and 1‐year survival on dialysis was explained by confounders. Emergency dialysis start was strongly associated with early mortality on dialysis. Its prevention may improve patient survival.     

Survival with short‐daily hemodialysis: Association of time,site, and dose of dialysis

In thrice‐weekly hemodialysis, survival correlates with the length of time (t) of each dialysis and the dose (Kt/V), and deaths occur most frequently on Mondays and Tuesdays. We studied the influence of t and Kt/V on survival in 262 patients on short‐daily hemodialysis (SDHD) and also noted death rate by weekday. Contingency tables, Kaplan‐Meier analysis, regression analysis, and stepwise Cox proportional hazard analysis were used to study the associations of clinical variables with survival. Patients had been on SDHD for a mean of 2.1 (range 0.1–11) years. Mean dialysis time was 12.9 ± 2.3 h/wk and mean weekly stdKt/V was 2.7 ± 0.5. Fifty‐two of the patients died (20%) and 8‐year survival was 54 ± 5%. In an analysis of 4 groups by weekly dialysis time, 5‐year survival continuously increased from 45 ± 8% in those dialyzing <12 hours to 100% in those dialyzing >15 hours without any apparent threshold. There was no association between Kt/V and survival. In Cox proportional hazard analysis, 4 factors were independently associated with survival: age in years Hazard Ratio (HR)=1.05, weekly dialysis hours HR=0.84, home dialysis HR=0.50, and secondary renal disease HR=2.30. Unlike conventional HD, no pattern of excessive death occurred early in the week during SDHD. With SDHD, longer time and dialysis at home were independently associated with improved survival, while Kt/V was not. Homedialysis and dialysis 15+ h/wk appear to maximize survival in SDHD.