Insights into nephrologist training, clinical practice, and dialysis choice

There is variable emphasis on dialysis-specific training among US nephrology fellowship programs. Our study objective was to determine the association between nephrology training experience and subsequent clinical practice. We conducted a national survey of clinical nephrologists using a fax-back survey distributed between March 8, 2010 and April 30, 2010 (N = 629). The survey assessed the time distribution of clinical practice, self-assessment of preparedness to provide care for dialysis patients at the time of certification examination, distribution of dialysis modality among patients, and nephrologists' choice of dialysis modality for themselves if their kidneys failed. While respondents spent 28% of their time caring for dialysis patients, 38% recalled not feeling very well prepared to care for dialysis patients when taking the nephrology certification examination. Sixteen percent obtained additional dialysis training after fellowship completion. Only 8% of US dialysis patients use home dialysis; physicians very well prepared to care for dialysis patients at the time of certification or who obtained additional dialysis training were significantly more likely to provide care to home peritoneal dialysis patients. Even though 92% of US dialysis patients receive thrice weekly in-center hemodialysis, only 6% of nephrologists selected this for themselves; selection of therapy for self was associated with dialysis modalities used by their patients. Nephrology training programs need to ensure that all trainees are very well prepared to care for dialysis patients, as this is central to nephrology practice. Utilization of dialysis therapies other than standard hemodialysis is dependent, in part, on training experience.     

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.     

Depressive symptom severity,contributing factors,and self‐management among chronic dialysis patients

Despite the high prevalence of depressive symptoms in patients receiving chronic dialysis, there has been inadequate attention to patient‐related barriers to management of depressive symptoms, such as factors identified by these patients as contributing to their symptoms, and how they responded to the symptoms. Participants (N = 210) in an ongoing longitudinal observational study of multidimensional quality of life in patients receiving chronic dialysis completed a battery of measures monthly for 12 months. For each patient at each measurement point, an event report was generated if he or she scored outside of the normal range on the depressive symptom scale (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale‐Short Form [CESD‐SF] ≥10) or expressed suicidal ideation. Of the 210 participants, 100 (47.6%) had a CESD‐SF score ≥10 at least once resulting in 290 event reports. Of these 100 participants, 15 (15%) had also reported suicidal ideation in addition to having depressive symptoms. The most frequently stated contributing factors included “managing comorbid conditions and complications” (56 event reports, 19.3%), “being on dialysis” (50, 17.2%), “family or other personal issues” (37, 12.8%), and “financial difficulties” (31, 10.7%). On 11 event reports (3.8%) participants had been unaware of their depressive symptoms. On 119 event reports (41%) participants reported that they discussed these symptoms with their dialysis care providers or primary care providers, while on 171 event reports (59%) symptoms were not discussed with their health‐care providers. The prevalence of depressive symptoms is high and many patients lack knowledge about effective self‐management strategies.     

In‐center hemodialysis attendance: Patient perceptions of risks,barriers, and recommendations

Missed hemodialysis treatments lead to increased morbidity and mortality in the end‐stage renal disease population. Little is known about why patients have difficulty attending their scheduled in‐center dialysis treatments. Semistructured interviews with 15 adherent and 15 nonadherent hemodialysis patients were conducted to determine patients' attitudes about dialysis, health beliefs and risk perception regarding missed treatments, barriers and facilitators to hemodialysis attendance, and recommendations to improve the system to facilitate dialysis attendance. Average time on dialysis was 2.5 years for the nonadherent group and 7.3 years in the adherent group. In both groups, patients felt that dialysis is life‐saving and a necessity. A substantial number of patients in both groups understood that missing hemodialysis treatments is dangerous and several patients could clearly communicate the risk of skipping. The most common barriers to hemodialysis were inadequate or unreliable transportation (mentioned in both groups) and a lack of motivation to get to dialysis or that dialysis is not a priority (typically mentioned by the nonadherent group). Facilitators to hemodialysis attendance included explanations from the health care team regarding the risk of skipping and relationships with other dialysis patients. Patient recommendations to improve dialysis attendance included continued education about the risk of poor attendance and more accessible transportation. Patients did not feel that home dialysis would improve adherence. Hemodialysis patients must adhere to a complex and burdensome regimen. Through the elucidation of barriers and facilitators to hemodialysis attendance and through specific patient recommendations, at least three interventions may be further investigated to improve hemodialysis attendance: Improvement of the transportation system, education and supportive encouragement from the health care team, and peer support mentorship.     

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.     

Barriers,biases, and beliefs about arteriovenous fistula placement in children: A survey of the International Pediatric Fistula First Initiative (IPFFI) within the Midwest Pediatric Nephrology Consortium (MWPNC)

There has been recent emphasis on increased arteriovenous fistula (AVF) use and decreased central venous catheter use in hemodialysis (HD) patients. The International Pediatric Fistula First Initiative was founded via collaborative effort with the Midwest Pediatric Nephrology Consortium to alert nephrologists, surgeons, and dialysis staff to consider fistulae as the best access in pediatric HD patients. A multidisciplinary educational DVD outlining expectations and strategies to increase AVF placement and usage in children was created. Participants were administered a survey previewing and postviewing to identify barriers to placement and usage of AVF in children. A total of 52 surveys were subdivided as either “dialysis staff” or “proceduralist” at five centers. Thirty‐three percent of respondents were unaware if their practice was following published guidelines. Sixty‐five percent of respondents stated they referred to a dedicated vascular access surgeon at their respective institutions. Methods used to monitor AVF function included physical exam, venous pressure monitoring, and ultrasound dilution. Vascular access was placed within 3 months in only 35% of patients. Interdisciplinary communication problems between surgeons, interventional radiologists, and nephrologists were identified as a major barrier. Lack of AVF usage was often due to maturation failure. Routine access rounds did not occur in any centers. Regarding monitoring, 74% of the respondents use physical exam, 26% use venous pressure monitoring, and 9% use ultrasound dilution. Ninety‐three percent of dialysis staff stated they would change practice patterns following the intervention; however, 12% of surgeons stated they would alter practice patterns. To our knowledge, this is the first report to identify barriers to placement of AVF in children from the perspectives of multidisciplinary team members including pediatric nephrologists, surgeons, interventional radiologists, and multidisciplinary dialysis staff.     

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.     

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.     

Personal Support Worker (PSW)‐supported home hemodialysis: A paradigm shift

Introduction: Despite improving clinical outcomes associated with the use of home hemodialysis (HD), its utilization is low in most countries. The inability or unwillingness of patients and their families to participate in their own treatment is one of the most important barriers to the adoption of home HD. Methods: We hypothesized that paid helper‐delivered home HD supported by public funds would be successful and welcomed by patients and be delivered at an affordable cost. We conducted a pilot project to dialyze six patients at home using Personal Support Workers (PSW) and resolve regulatory, organizational and financial constraints. Findings: cWe provided publically‐funded PSW‐supported home HD to six patients. We describe the administrative structure of the pilot project allowing scalability and turnkey operation in the province of Ontario. Regulatory and insurance concerns were resolved and patients and staff were enthusiastic. The projected total dialysis cost, when economies of scale are met, are expected to be lower than the cost of in‐center HD. Discussion: A second phase of the project is currently under way including 8 hospitals and 67 patients. If equally successful, it may have significant implications for the delivery of care for End Stage Renal Disease in Ontario and similar jurisdictions. It promises to increase the utilization of home dialysis possibly at a lower cost than in‐center HD. This would be particularly important in providing dialysis in underserviced and geographically hard to access areas.     

Comparison of Preventive Care Provided to Dialysis Patients by Nephrologists and to Patients Followed in General Medical Clinics: Compliance with American College of Physicians Guidelines

Most end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) patients do not have primary‐care providers, and preventive medicine often is provided by their nephrologists. Little has been written about their success in providing this care. We studied all patients on dialysis at our hospital and compared their preventive care to a control group followed in the general medical clinic. The general medical group showed higher compliance with Pap smears (89% vs 48%), mammography (87% vs 62%), fecal occult blood testing (75% vs 50%), and pneumococcal vaccination (55% vs 28%). The ESRD group had better compliance with influenza vaccination (70% vs 55%) and lipid profile (100% vs 75%). When the subgroup of patients on hemodialysis (HD) was compared with patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD), it was shown that HD patients were more likely than PD patients to receive preventive care. We also compared diabetes‐specific care. The ESRD group had a higher rate of HbA _1C (100% vs 78%) and lipid monitoring (100% vs 76%), diabetes education (100% vs 84%), and podiatry visits (70% vs 38%). There was no difference in ophthalmologic examination or influenza vaccination. We found that nephrologists provide preventive care to ESRD patients with success approximately equal to primary‐care physicians in our institution, although in different parameters. Ready access to dialysis patients and their blood and unit‐specific policies contribute to compliance that is above national averages. Further improvements can be made by additional preventative measures policies, by physician and patient education, and by monitoring primary‐care compliance in the chart.     

Re‐evaluation of re‐hospitalization and rehabilitation in renal research

Introduction: The use of administrative data to capture 30‐day readmission rates in end‐stage renal disease is challenging since Medicare combines claims from acute care, inpatient rehabilitation (IRF), and long‐term care hospital stays into a single “Inpatient” file. For data prior to 2012, the United States Renal Data System does not contain the variables necessary to easily identify different facility types, making it likely that prior studies have inaccurately estimated 30‐day readmission rates. Methods: For this report, we developed two methods (a “simple method” and a “rehabilitation‐adjusted method”) to identify acute care, IRF, and long‐term care hospital stays from United States Renal Data System claims data, and compared them to methods used in previously published reports. Findings: We found that prior methods overestimated 30‐day readmission rates by up to 12.3% and overestimated average 30‐day readmission costs by up to 11%. In contrast, the simple and rehabilitation‐adjusted methods overestimated 30‐day readmission rates by 0.1% and average 30‐day readmission costs by 1.8%. The rehabilitation‐adjusted method also accurately identified 96.8% of IRF stays. Discussion: Prior research has likely provided inaccurate estimates of 30‐day readmissions in patients undergoing dialysis. In the absence of data on specific facility types particularly when using data prior to 2012, future researchers could employ our method to more accurately characterize 30‐day readmission rates and associated outcomes in patients with end‐stage renal disease.     

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.     

Association between patient psychosocial characteristics and receipt of in‐center nocturnal hemodialysis among prevalent dialysis patients

Introduction: Compared to traditional in‐center hemodialysis (HD), in‐center nocturnal dialysis (INHD) is characterized by longer sessions and nighttime administration, which may lead to better outcomes for some patients. Given the importance of patient choice in the decision to initiate INHD, we explored associations between patients’ psychosocial characteristics and their receipt of INHD. Methods: Among hemodialysis patients at a medium‐sized dialysis organization, we identified INHD patients as those for whom ≥80% of dialysis sessions were INHD sessions—starting at 6:30 pm or later and lasting ≥5 hours—over the 3 months (≥20 sessions total) after their first INHD session. We extracted dialysis session data from electronic medical records and psychosocial data from social worker assessments. We tested associations of patients’ psychosocial characteristics—as well as demographic and clinical characteristics—with INHD receipt among all hemodialysis patients (INHD and HD) in bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regression models. Findings: Among 759 patients with complete data, we identified 47 (6.2%) as INHD patients. On average, these patients were more likely than HD patients to be employed (full‐time 10.6% vs. 5.2%; part‐time 17.0% vs. 4.2%; P < 0.001), and they were significantly less likely to require ambulatory assistance (14.9% vs. 39.6%, P < 0.001). In multivariable regressions, we found that part‐time employment (versus being unemployed) was associated with a 7.1 percentage‐point higher likelihood of being an INHD patient (P = 0.01), and the negative association with ambulatory assistance needs approached statistical significance (P = 0.056). No other psychosocial factors included in this main regression analysis were statistically significantly associated with INHD patient status. Discussion: Researchers comparing the outcomes of patients undergoing INHD versus other treatment modalities will need to account for differences in employment status—and other factors like requiring ambulatory assistance and age which may predict the ability to work—between INHD users and comparison patients to avoid bias in estimates.     

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.     

The perspectives of Aboriginal patients and their health care providers on improving the quality of hemodialysis services: A qualitative study

Chronic kidney disease has a higher prevalence in Indigenous populations globally. The incidence of end‐stage kidney disease in Australian Aboriginal people is eight times higher than non‐Aboriginal Australians. Providing services to rural and remote Aboriginal people with chronic disease is challenging because of access and cultural differences. This study aims to describe and analyze the perspectives of Aboriginal patients' and health care providers' experience of renal services, to inform service improvement for rural Aboriginal hemodialysis patients. We conducted a thematic analysis of interviews with Aboriginal patients (n = 18) receiving hemodialysis in rural Australia and health care providers involved in their care (n = 29). An overarching theme of avoiding the “costly” crisis encompassed four subthemes: (1) Engaging patients earlier (prevent late diagnosis, slow disease progression); (2) flexible family‐focused care (early engagement of family, flexibility to facilitate family and cultural obligations); (3) managing fear of mainstream services (originating in family dialysis experiences and previous racism when engaging with government organizations); (4) service provision shaped by culture (increased home dialysis, Aboriginal support and Aboriginal‐led cultural education). Patients and health care providers believe service redesign is required to meet the needs of Aboriginal hemodialysis patients. Participants identified early screening and improving the relationship of Aboriginal people with health systems would reduce crisis entry to hemodialysis. These strategies alongside improving the cultural competence of staff would reduce patients' fear of mainstream services, decrease the current emotional and family costs of care, and increase efficiency of health expenditure on a challenging and increasingly unsustainable treatment system.     

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.     

Quality of life, self‐care and sense of coherence in patients on hemodialysis: A comparative study

The number of patients treated for end-stage renal disease increases in Sweden like the rest of the world. During the last six years more than 1000 persons a year started renal replacement therapy. Today hemodialysis patients have the opportunity to choose different treatment modalities—home hemodialysis, self‐care dialysis, or conventional dialysis. Purpose:  The aim of the study was to investigate differences in patient on home hemodialysis, self‐care dialysis, and conventional dialysis regarding quality of life, self‐care, and sense of coherence. Methods:  Questionnaires were used: Short Form (SF‐36), Appraisal of Self‐Care Agency (ASA‐scale), and Sense of Coherence scale (SOC). 19 patients were included in the study (five patients on home hemodialysis, six self‐care patients, and eight patients on conventional dialysis). Results:  The results showed a tendency of higher scores in quality of life, self‐care, and sense of coherence for the home hemodialysis patients. Conclusion:  Since the number of participants in this study was low, it is necessary to include more patients in a future study in order to verify the results.     

The advanced practice nurse–nephrologist care model: Effect on patient outcomes and hemodialysis unit team satisfaction

The tertiary care nurse practitioner/clinical nurse specialist (NP/CNS) is an advanced practice nurse with a relatively new role within the health‐care system. It is stated that care provided by the NP/CNS is cost‐effective and of high quality but little research exists to document these outcomes in an acute‐care setting. The clinical coverage pattern by nephrologists and NP/CNS of a hemodialysis unit in a large academic center allowed such a study. Two NP/CNS plus a nephrologist followed two of three hemodialysis treatment shifts per day; only a nephrologist followed the third shift. The influence of this care pattern of patients was examined using a cross‐sectional review of outcomes such as adequacy of delivered dialysis, anemia management, phosphate control, hospitalizations, etc. In addition, the level of satisfaction of the dialysis team and perceptions of care delivered with the care models was assessed. The care model staff‐to‐patient‐number ratio was similar in both groups (1:27 for NP/CNS plus nephrologist; 1:29 for nephrologist alone). Patient demographics were similar in both groups but the NP/CNS–nephrologist group had patients with more comorbidities. No statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences existed between the groups in patient laboratory data, adherence to standards, medications, inter‐ and intradialytic blood pressure, achievement of target postdialysis weights, and hospitalizations or emergency room visits. Significantly more adjustments were made to target weights and medications and more investigations were ordered by the NP/CNS–nephrologist team. Team satisfaction and perceptions of care delivery were higher with the NP/CNS–nephrologist model. It is concluded that the NP/CNS–nephrologist care model may increase the efficiency of the care provided by nephrologists to chronic hemodialysis patients. The model may also be a solution to the problem of providing nephrologic care to an ever‐growing hemodialysis population.     

Recurrent heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia due to heparin rinsing before priming the machine in a hemodialysis patient: A case report

Heparin has remained the most commonly used anticoagulant for patients undergoing hemodialysis. It is usually safe to use but can have severe adverse effects in some cases. Heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a life‐threatening complication of exposure to heparin. It results from an autoantibody directed against endogenous platelet factor 4 (PF4) in complex with heparin, which activates platelets and can cause catastrophic arterial and venous thromboses. Here, we present the case of an 80‐year‐old woman with a recent diagnosis of chronic renal failure who developed acute HIT (platelet count nadir, 15 × 10⁹/L) on day 7 of hemodialysis performed with routine heparin anticoagulation, who despite subsequent heparin‐free hemodialysis (with argatroban and warfarin) developed recurrent HIT (complicated by acute cerebral infarction) on day 11 that we attributed to “rinsing” of the circuit with heparin‐containing saline (3,000 units of unfractionated heparin, with subsequent saline washing) performed pre‐dialysis as per routine. After stopping heparin rinsing, the platelet count recovered completely, without further thrombotic or other sequelae. Our experience indicates that for patients with acute HIT, besides the well‐known practice of using non‐heparin anticoagulation during dialysis and avoiding heparin “locking” of dialysis catheters, it is also important to avoid inadvertent rinsing of the circuit with heparin during preparation for hemodialysis.