Home hemodialysis in Australia and New Zealand: practical problems and solutions

Home hemodialysis, as practiced in Australia and New Zealand, offers patients the return of self-control and self-esteem. It also allows reconnection with family, friends and (re)employment. Though there are emotional and time-related "costs" with home hemodialysis, these center on training time, commitment and patient or family stresses and, if carefully managed and properly resourced, can be overcome for most home-suitable patients. As we believe many center-based hemodialysis patients are home-suitable and that home care is severely under-utilized, assessment techniques to maximize uptake are examined. While patient dropout from home care relates more to staff attitudes than to true home-failure, dropout is minimized by ensuring the patient and not a carer takes full dialysis responsibility with the carer acting as a supporter and not the facilitator. Installation of home equipment is simple and cheap, the financial costs of home hemodialysis being substantially less than those of facility care where salary and infrastructure costs far exceed training, equipment, installation and maintenance costs at home. Home monitoring is not routinely required especially with longer, more frequent regimens-but effective 24-hour on-call nurse and technician cover is essential. Intravenous drug self-administration at home is safe and effective, reducing the need for hospital visits to a 2-3 monthly minimum. The debilitating effects of facility care cannot be over-emphasized while the liberating psychology of a well-supported hemodialysis program is truly satisfying for patient and staff alike.     

Knowledge of Home Dialysis Among Inner‐City Satellite Hemodialysis Patients

There is limited use of home renal replacement therapies in the U.S.A. One percent of dialysis patients are on home hemodialysis (HHD) and only 9% undergo peritoneal dialysis (PD). In an effort to better understand this, 161 satellite hemodialysis patients in 6 units in Brooklyn were surveyed. Forty‐eight percent of patients were women, 86% were black, 5% white, 8% Hispanic, and 1% other. Mean age was 49.4 years (range 22 – 69 years). Etiology of renal disease was hypertension (41%), diabetes mellitus (31%), polycystic kidney disease (3%), systemic lupus erythematosus (4%), and other or unknown (21%). Patients were queried about knowledge of and attitudes toward home therapies. Seventy‐nine percent of patients knew of home dialysis. The source of this information was the nephrologist (59%), the social worker (14%), a nurse (8%), other patients (4%), and other sources (15%). Only 10% of patients had ever considered HHD. Fifty‐four percent were afraid to do self‐care at home and 35% were not interested. Surprisingly, only 3% felt they had no reliable helper and 8% felt that their housing was not suitable. Similarly, 78% of patients had been spoken to about PD, but only 11% had considered it. Forty‐one percent were afraid of doing self‐care on PD, and 45% were not interested. We conclude that, although the majority of patients in six inner‐city dialysis units had heard of home dialysis, only a small number ever considered it. As many patients were afraid of doing home therapy, better education about the risks and benefits needs to be disseminated.     

Daily (quotidian) nocturnal home hemodialysis: Nine years later

Daily nocturnal home hemodialysis was developed to satisfy the need for a highly effective, smooth, and cost‐effective home dialysis therapy. It combines the benefits of the following dialysis methods: long, frequent, and home hemodialysis. It provides a high dialysis dose for small, as well as large, molecules including β₂‐microglobulin; improves quality if life; and leads to control of hyperphosphatemia without the need for phosphate binders, as well as dissolution for extraosseous calcifications. Furthermore, it controls blood pressure often without medications, is associated with regression of left ventricular hypertrophy, improves cardiac function, improves anemia as well as nutrition, allows an unrestricted diet, and corrects sleep apnea. Finally, it decreases the overall cost of patient care and improves cost utility when compared to conventional hemodialysis. The main obstacle to its wider utilization is the structure of the current reimbursement system. Along with short daily hemodialysis, long intermittent dialysis, and the convective dialysis techniques, daily nocturnal hemodialysis promises to improve dialysis outcomes.     

Short and long nightly hemodialysis in the United States

When hemodialysis first started in the United States in the 1960s, a large percentage of patients performed their treatments at home. However, because of reimbursement issues, home hemodialysis (HHD) gradually succumbed to an in-center approach and eventually a mindset. Since the introduction of nightly HHD by Uldall and Pierratos in 1993, there has been a resurgence of interest in HHD. This paper describes the different types of home hemodialysis being performed as of December 31, 2007 in this country. Because neither the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) nor the End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Networks break down home dialysis into the different modalities, a provider questionnaire was sent out to 2 major providers, a number of mid-level providers and other providers known to do HHD. In addition, a questionnaire was sent out to 3 machine providers to obtain the number of patients using their machine for HHD as of December 31, 2007. The results showed that 91.7% of patients are dialyzing in-center, 7.3% are doing peritoneal dialysis, and 0.7% are doing HHD. Currently about 1% of ESRD patients in the United States are doing home hemodialysis. NxStage, however, has started 1000 patients in the past year on short-daily home hemodialysis. Patients are beginning to understand that there are better options than 3 times a week in-center dialysis. And as a result of the "HEMO Study," nephrologists now believe that longer and more frequent dialysis is a better therapy for ESRD patients. Therefore, promotion of HHD should become a priority for the renal community in the future.     

A Multi‐Objective Design Approach for the c Chart Considering Taguchi Loss Function

The present paper proposes a multi‐objective design approach for the c chart, considering in the optimization process of the chart parameters both the statistical and the economic objectives. In particular, the minimization of the hourly total quality related costs is the considered objective to carry out the economic goal, whereas the statistical objective is reached by the minimization the out‐of‐control average run length of the chart. A mixed integer non‐linear constrained mathematical model is formulated to solve the treated multi‐objective optimization problem, whereas the Pareto optimal frontier is described by the ε‐constraint method. In order to show the employment of the proposed approach, an illustrative example is developed and the related considerations are given. Finally, some sensitivity analysis is also performed to investigate the effects of operative and costs parameters on the chart performance. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Survival Advantage of Tailored Dialysis

Survival has been defined as an index of adequacy of dialysis. These hard data are the basis for comparing results obtained by different schedules or policies. The aim of the study was to assess mortality rate recorded within a system of tailored dialysis (1–6 dialysis per week in out‐of‐hospital settings: home hemodialysis, self‐ and limited care dialysis). Data recorded in a single center (1998–2003) were compared with data gathered in the Registry of Dialysis and Transplantation in the whole Region (1998–2000). Methods: Out‐of‐hospital dialysis unit is active since 1971, in which a new program integrating self‐ and limited care and home dialysis started since 1998. Patients: Incident dialysis patients starting renal replacement therapy within the program and all further patients starting dialysis in the Region in the same period were compared in an historical prospective cohort study. Results: 55 patients in the Unit and further 1443 patients in the whole Region started RRT since 1998. Main features of 55 patients were 32 males 23 females; median age 51 years, range 20–76; 72.7% displaying at least 1 comorbid factor. Throughout the period gross mortality rate was 4/125 patient‐years in the Center. Kaplan–Meier curves showed a 1‐year survival of 100% vs. 91%, respectively, in the Center and in the whole Region, and a 2‐year survival of 95.5% vs. 76.6%, respectively, in the Center and in the whole Region (p = 0.001). The main demographic features were remarkably different in both settings (for the whole Region median age 66 years, range 2.2–101, at least 1 comorbidity in 56.9% of patients). In an attempt to correct for the different baseline characteristics, a multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed. The whole model resulted in statistically significant value (p = 0.000) and an increasing mortality risk resulted for age at starting dialysis, diabetes, and collagenopathy. In conclusion, tailored, high‐efficiency dialysis policy may allow superior survival results. A longer follow up is needed to confirm our approach; in larger cohorts, the finding of a low mortality rate in a relatively young population with high comorbidity may underline the need to review our current concepts on dialysis adequacy.     

Patient experiences and preferences on short daily and nocturnal home hemodialysis

Quotidian/intensive hemodialysis (short daily and nocturnal) has variable effects on health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) as measured by standard HRQOL tools. We sought to understand the perceived benefits and limitations of quotidian dialysis by interviewing patients who had switched from conventional to home quotidian dialysis. We used a qualitative, phenomenological approach to explore the perceived benefits of quotidian dialysis from 10 patients using either short daily or nocturnal hemodialysis at a tertiary health care center in London, Canada. The patients varied in gender, age, employment status, home support, physical capacity, primary cause of kidney disease, previous forms of renal replacement therapy, and level of education. Four major themes emerged: (1) improvement in physical and mental well‐being including better blood pressure and concentration, (2) increased control over patient's own life including time availability, choosing when to dialyze, and dialyzing at home, (3) decreased perception of being sick including returning to regular employment and avoiding sicker patients who must have in‐center dialysis, and (4) identification of the competencies and supports required for quotidian dialysis including ability to provide self‐care, supportive family, and medical support. Our findings suggest when patients' willingness and physical ability to use quotidian dialysis are coupled with education and support systems to assist patients' and families' self‐directed care, patients qualitatively perceive benefits of both increased physical and mental health, both measures of health‐related quality of life.     

Challenges of providing maintenance hemodialysis in a resource poor country: Experience from a single teaching hospital in Lagos,Southwest Nigeria

Providing maintenance hemodialysis is associated with high costs and poor outcomes. In Nigeria, more than 90% of the population lives below the poverty line, and patients with end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) pay out‐of‐pocket for maintenance hemodialysis. To highlight the challenges of providing maintenance hemodialysis for patients with ESRD in Nigeria, we reviewed records of all patients who joined the maintenance hemodialysis program of our dialysis unit over a 21‐month period. Information regarding frequency of hemodialysis, types of vascular access for dialysis, mode of anemia treatment and frequency of blood transfusion received were retrieved. One hundred and twenty patients joined the maintenance hemodialysis program of our unit during the period under review. Seventy‐two (60%) were males and the mean age of the study population was 47 + 14 years. The mean hemoglobin concentration at commencement of dialysis was 7.3 g/dL + 1.6 g/dL. The initial vascular access was femoral vein cannulation in all the patients. A total of 73.5% of the patients required blood transfusion at some point with 33% receiving five or more pints of blood. Only 3.3% of the patients had thrice weekly dialysis, 21.7% dialyzed twice weekly, 23.3% once weekly, 16.7% once in two weeks, 2.5% once in three weeks and 11.7% once monthly. At the time of review, 8.3% of the patients had died while 38.3% were lost to follow‐up. Majority of patients with ESRD on maintenance hemodialysis in our unit were poorly prepared for dialysis, were under‐dialyzed, and were frequently transfused with blood with resultant poor outcomes.     

Ultrapure dialysis fluid: Improving conventional and daily dialysis

Dialysis fluid of standard quality contains a certain amount of bacteria and endotoxin. This has been considered acceptable because the dialysis membrane was believed to be a protective barrier to blood. However, improved methods for detection of cellular activation have demonstrated that bacterial products in the dialysate may stimulate monocytes to produce cytokines with most dialysis membranes. Ultrapure dialysis fluid is practically free from bacteria and endotoxin (< 0.1 CFU/mL and < 0.03 EU/mL) and can be prepared from standard‐quality dialysis fluid using a single step of controlled ultrafiltration. The European guidelines for hemodialysis (HD) set the use of ultrapure dialysis fluid as the goal for all dialysis modalities. Several clinical studies report improved inflammatory status in HD patients when ultrapure dialysis fluid is used, compared with standard‐quality dialysate. The benefits include less frequent occurrence of carpal tunnel syndrome, lower C‐reactive protein values, reduced need for erythropoietin, better nutritional status, and even better preservation of residual renal function. For patients on daily dialysis, dialysate quality is especially important because such patients are often treated at home where quality control of incoming water may be less rigorous, and increased treatment frequency leads to exposure to larger volumes of dialysis fluid than with conventional dialysis. The use of ultrapure dialysis fluid together with low‐complement‐activating membranes maximizes the biocompatibility of a dialysis treatment, a goal of treatment, although there is a lack of evidence to date supporting a beneficial effect on mortality. From a physiologic point of view the reduced inflammatory stimulus that can be achieved with ultrapure dialysis fluid is highly desirable. In addition, achieving ultrapure dialysis fluid is realistic, because today it can be practically and economically prepared using modern equipment and applying appropriate microbiologic surveillance techniques.     

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.     

What Went Wrong with Home Hemodialysis in the United States and What Can Be Done Now?

In 1973, almost 40% of the more than 10 000 dialysis patients were treated by home hemodialysis. Today, with more than a quarter of a million dialysis patients in the United States, fewer than 2000 are on home hemodialysis. A number of factors have contributed to this change. First, many nephrologists and administrators who were developing new dialysis units had little or no practical experience with dialysis for chronic renal failure. Second, more elderly and diabetic patients were admitted to treatment. Home hemodialysis was more difficult for such patients, and often their helpers were themselves were elderly. Third, hemodialysis machines were difficult to learn and operate. Fourth, following publication of the results of the National Cooperative Dialysis Study, there developed the erroneous concept that a Kt/V equal to 1.0 was “adequate dialysis.” As bigger dialyzers became available, there was a widespread shortening of dialysis time. This decrease in time was embraced by for‐profit dialysis facilities and inadequately educated patients, and assembly‐line dialysis became generally accepted. Finally, continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis, with its simplicity and short training time, began to fill the need of many patients for home dialysis and independence, at least temporarily. Fortunately, the trend is now reversing. Two developments clearly have benefits for home hemodialysis. The first is an increasing interest in the use of more frequent dialysis. The second is the development of new equipment designed specifically for use by the patient, and requiring a minimum of effort on the patient's part.     

Impact of Predialysis Care on Clinical Outcomes

Introduction: A structured predialysis multidisciplinary team program is beneficial in improving quality of life in patients with end‐stage renal disease (ESRD). Educating pre‐ESRD patients about their disease is vital in their care. Patients who can identify signs and symptoms of impending problems can seek help and avoid complications that may lead to hospital admissions. Our dialysis center offers two predialysis classes in a structured format. The first class is for those patients with mild to moderate renal disease, whereas the second class is for those with advanced renal disease who are expected to need dialysis in 3 to 6 months. The patients are followed by a multidisciplinary team once they are enrolled in our chronic kidney disease program. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all the charts of patients who started dialysis at our center between 1997 and 2000. We identified 68 patients who participated in the predialysis education program and 35 patients who did not because of late referral or refusal to participate. We compared these two groups over a 100‐day period (10 days before initial dialysis and 90 days after), for hospitalizations, emergency room (ER) visits, and dialysis access placement. Patients' comorbid conditions, complications, and length of hospitalizations were extracted from the medical records. Results: The 68 patients who completed the predialysis program had an average age of 60.3 years, a total of 96 hospital days, and 39 ER visits. Average length of hospital stay for these patients was 1.4 days. Three patients (4.4%) required placement of temporary catheters for the initial dialysis. Fifty‐one percent of these patients had diabetes mellitus. The 35 patients of average age of 54.9 years who did not go through the program had 347 total hospital days and 39 ER visits. Average length of hospitalization was 9.9 days. Thirteen patients (37%) required temporary catheters for initial dialysis. This group included 16 patients (45.7%) with diabetes. Conclusion: Patients who participated in a multidisciplinary predialysis education program had fewer complications, ER visits, and hospitalizations. They also had fewer temporary catheter placements, shorter hospital stays, and reduced costs associated with initial dialysis.     

Nightly home hemodialysis: Five and one-half years of experience in Lynchburg, Virginia

Background: Lynchburg Nephrology Dialysis Incorporated initiated a nightly home hemodialysis (NHHD) program in September 1997. As of April 30, 2003, 40 patients had completed training; 28 patients were at home and 2 patients were in training. The average age of the patients at the initiation of the home‐based therapy was 50 years, with a range of 23 to 81 years. There have been 24,239 treatments at home with a total of 84.86 patient‐years on NHHD, the longest patient for 66.7 months and the shortest for 1 month. Methods: Patients dialyzed using the Fresenius 2008H machine, 6 to 10 hr, 5 to 6 nights per week. Treatment parameters included a blood flow rate of 200 to 250 mL/min; a dialysis flow rate of 200 to 300 mL/min; and a standard dialysis solution with 2.0 mEq/L potassium, 3.0 to 3.5 mEq/L calcium concentrations, 35 mEq/L HCO₃, and 140 mEq/L sodium. The longitudinal data of each patient in the program for 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years were compared to the same patient's pre‐NHHD data. There were 25 patients in the program for 1 year, 19 patients for 2 years, 14 patients for 3 years, 6 patients for 4 years, and 4 patients for 5 years. Results: Statistically significant improvement occurred in all five groups' need for antihypertensive medications and phosphate binders, SF36 scores, calcium/phosphorus product, blood pressure, number of hospital admissions, and number of days of stay in the hospital. The mortality rate was 2.4% deaths per patient‐year with a 95% confidence interval of 0.9% to 9.4%. Conclusions: In a longitudinal study, NHHD showed significant improvements in patient secondary outcomes. The improvement in these secondary outcomes was associated with an improvement in mortality rate.     

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.     

Understanding barriers to home‐based and self‐care in‐center hemodialysis

Despite superior outcomes and lower associated costs, relatively few patients with end‐stage renal disease undergo self‐care or home hemodialysis. Few studies have examined patient‐ and physician‐specific barriers to self‐care and home hemodialysis in the modern era. The degree to which innovative technology might facilitate the adoption of these modalities is unknown. We surveyed 250 patients receiving in‐center hemodialysis and 51 board‐certified nephrologists to identify key barriers to adoption of self‐care and home hemodialysis. Overall, 172 (69%) patients reported that they were “likely” or “very likely” to consider self‐care hemodialysis if they were properly trained on a new hemodialysis system designed for self‐care or home use. Nephrologists believed that patients were capable of performing many dialysis‐relevant tasks, including: weighing themselves (98%), wiping down the chair and machine (84%), clearing alarms during treatment (53%), taking vital signs (46%), and cannulating vascular access (41%), but thought that patients would be willing to do the same in only 69%, 34%, 31%, 29%, and 16%, respectively. Reasons that nephrologists believe patients are hesitant to pursue self‐care or home hemodialysis do not correspond in parallel or by priority to reasons reported by patients. Self‐care and home hemodialysis offer several advantages to patients and dialysis providers. Overcoming real and perceived barriers with new technology, education and coordinated care will be required for these modalities to gain traction in the coming years.     

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.