Effects of music on complications during hemodialysis for chronic renal failure patients

The study was planned as a case‐control study to examine the effects of music on some of the complications experienced by chronic renal failure (CRF) patients during hemodialysis. A total of 60 patients (30 intervention and 30 control) diagnosed with end‐stage renal failure undergoing hemodialysis treatment participated in this study. The study was conducted in Manisa Merkez Efendi State Hospital Hemodialysis Unit and Manisa Özel Anemon Hemodialysis between April 2012 and July 2012. The intervention group listened 30 minutes in each session (12 total sessions) Turkish art music at the beginning of the third hour of their hemodialysis sessions. Patient Information Form and visual analog scale to assess pain, nausea, vomiting, and cramps during hemodialysis session were used. For the analysis of data, the number, percentage, chi‐square test, and significance test of independent group differences between two averages were conducted. According to the findings of the study, the average of the intervention and control group ages, respectively, was 50.86 ± 11.3 and 55.13 ± 9.68. The primary duration of hemodialysis treatment for both intervention and control groups was “1 year and above” (70.0%). The intervention group's pain and nausea scores were lower than the control group for all 12 sessions. The difference between the intervention and the control group's pain scores was significant (P < 0.05). However, in pain scores from the first session to 12th session, continuous decreasing trend was not observed. According to the results, music can be used as an independent nursing practice for reduction of complications for CRF patients receiving hemodialysis treatment.     

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.     

Why Our Patients Like Daily Hemodialysis

The option of daily hemodialysis (HD) was discussed in November 1998 with a group of 35 HD patients on home or self‐care/limited‐care HD in a single, freestanding unit. After the meeting, 3 patients on home HD chose to switch to daily HD. The clinical success of the first patient and the immediate followers was one of the main reasons for further extension of this experience. At the time of this writing (February 2000), 10 patients were on a daily HD program (8 at home and 2 in a self‐care/limited‐care center) and one was in training for home daily HD. One further patient who tried 1 month of daily HD dropped out for logistic reasons. On daily HD, patients are dialyzed 2 – 3 hours/day, 6 days/ week, with blood flow of 270 – 300 mL/min, on bicarbonate dialysate with individually determined levels of Na and K. The schedule is flexible and a switch to 3 – 4 dialyses/week is occasionally allowed for working needs or for vacation. In addition to the well‐known clinical advantages (better well‐being, blood pressure control, nutrition, etc.), some patients preferred daily HD because of easier organization of daily activities, including work schedule. Patients initially feared frequent needle punctures and excessive burden on partners, but those concerns proved to be less a problem than anticipated. All current patients are willing to continue daily HD; only a nursing shortage limits further extension of the program in the self‐care/limited‐care center.     

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.     

Effects of frequent hemodialysis on blood pressure: Results from the randomized frequent hemodialysis network trials

Hypertension is a common complication of chronic kidney disease and persists among most patients with end‐stage renal disease despite the provision of conventional thrice weekly hemodialysis (HD). We analyzed the effects of frequent HD on blood pressure in the randomized controlled Frequent Hemodialysis Network trials. The daily trial randomized 245 patients to 12 months of 6× (“frequent”) vs. 3× (“conventional”) weekly in‐center hemodialysis; the nocturnal trial randomized 87 patients to 12 months of 6× weekly nocturnal HD vs. 3× weekly predominantly home‐based hemodialysis. In the daily trial, compared with 3× weekly HD, 2 months of frequent HD lowered predialysis systolic blood pressure by ?7.7 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI): ?11.9 to ?3.5] and diastolic blood pressure by ?3.9 mmHg [95% CI: ?6.5 to ?1.3]. In the nocturnal trial, compared with 3× weekly HD, 2 months of frequent HD lowered systolic blood pressure by ?7.3 mmHg [95% CI: ?14.2 to ?0.3] and diastolic blood pressure by ?4.2 mmHg [95% CI: ?8.3 to ?0.1]. In both trials, blood pressure treatment effects were sustained until month 12. Frequent HD resulted in significantly fewer antihypertensive medications (daily: ?0.36 medications [95% CI: ?0.65 to ?0.08]; nocturnal: ?0.44 mediations [95% CI: ?0.89 to ?0.03]). In the daily trial, the relative risk per dialysis session for intradialytic hypotension was lower with 6×/week HD but given the higher number of sessions per week, there was a higher relative risk for intradialytic hypotensive requiring saline administration. In summary, frequent HD reduces blood pressure and the number of prescribed antihypertensive medications.     

Quality of life and alternate nightly nocturnal home hemodialysis

Hemodialysis has been associated with reduced quality of life (QOL). Small cohort studies of quotidian hemodialysis regimens suggest general QOL and dialysis-related symptoms may improve compared with conventional regimens. An observational cohort study was conducted on 63 patients (age 51.7 ± 12.9 years; 79.4% male; 33.3% diabetes; duration of renal replacement therapy 1.9 [0.7–6.4] years) converted from conventional home hemodialysis (3–5 sessions weekly, 3–6 h/session) to home nocturnal home hemodialysis (NHD) (3–5 sessions weekly, 6–10 h/session). Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL) and Assessment of Quality of Life instruments and 6-minute–walk tests were applied at baseline and 6 months. Baseline and 6 month surveys were returned by 70% of patients. On KDQOL, significant improvements in general health (P=0.02) and overall health ratings (P=0.0008), physical function (P=0.003), physical role (P=0.018), and energy and fatigue (P=0.027) were documented. There was a trend toward improvement in burden of kidney disease (P=0.05) and emotional role (P=0.066). There was a significant improvement in distance covered in the 6-minute–walk test from 513 m (420.5–576.4) to 536.5 m (459–609), P=0.007. On Assessment of Quality of Life, there was a trend toward improvement in overall utility score from 0.65 (0.39–0.81) to 0.73 (0.46–0.86), P=0.096. After 86.2 patient-years of observation, 23 patients have discontinued NHD (12 transplanted, 5 deceased, 4 psychosocial problems, 1 dialysis access problem, 1 medically unsuitable). Nocturnal home hemodialysis is a sustainable therapy. In addition to improving general QOL, alternate nightly NHD can significantly improve physical functioning as measured by KDQOL and 6-minute–walk tests.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The effects of hemodialysis treatment on the level of DNA strand breaks and oxidative DNA lesions measured by the comet assay

Hemodialysis patients have a higher risk for oxidative stress‐related complications, such as cardiovascular disease and cancer. The increased level of oxidative stress is due to several factors, e.g., the hemodialysis treatment itself and the uremic state. In the present study, the effects of dialysis treatment on the level of DNA breaks and oxidative DNA lesions in mononuclear cells were measured with the comet assay. Factors possibly affecting DNA damage (reported as % DNA in tail) such as the duration of dialysis, time since last dialysis session, years of dialysis treatment, nutritional status (measured as protein catabolic rate), age, and diabetes were also investigated. The levels of DNA breaks (13.6 ± 4.7 before dialysis) and oxidative DNA lesions (7.9 ± 4.8 before dialysis) were significantly higher in dialysis patients (n = 31) compared to the levels of DNA breaks (5.8 ± 1.1) and oxidative DNA lesions (3.4 ± 1.7) in 10 healthy controls (P < 0.001). A decrease of DNA breaks was observed after dialysis (P = 0.038), and the level of oxidative DNA lesions was higher when the time between two treatment sessions were 68 hours compared to 44 hours (P < 0.001). Older subjects had a higher level of DNA breaks (P = 0.003), a good nutritional status predicted a lower level of DNA breaks (P < 0.001), and the duration of the dialysis session was inversely correlated with oxidative DNA lesions (P = 0.014). Diabetes or years of dialysis treatment did not affect DNA damage. The observations in the present study suggest that accumulation of uremic toxins induce DNA damage. The hemodialysis treatment seems to change the DNA damage.     

Survey of home hemodialysis patients and nursing staff regarding vascular access use and care

Vascular access infections are of concern to hemodialysis patients and nurses. Best demonstrated practices (BDPs) have not been developed for home hemodialysis (HHD) access use, but there have been generally accepted practices (GAPs) endorsed by dialysis professionals. We developed a survey to gather information about training provided and actual practices of HHD patients using the NxStage System One HHD machine. We used GAP to assess training used by nurses to teach HHD access care and then assess actual practice (adherence) by HHD patients. We also assessed training and adherence where GAPs do not exist. We received a 43% response rate from patients and 76% response from nurses representing 19 randomly selected HHD training centers. We found that nurses were not uniformly instructing HHD patients according to GAP, patients were not performing access cannulation according to GAP, nor were they adherent to their training procedures. Identification of signs and symptoms of infection was commonly trained appropriately, but we observed a reluctance to report some signs and symptoms of infection by patients. Of particular concern, when aggregating all steps surveyed, not a single nurse or patient reported training or performing all steps in accordance with GAP. We also identified practices for which there are no GAPs that require further study and may or may not impact outcomes such as infection. Further research is needed to develop strategies to implement and expand GAP, measure outcomes, and ultimately develop BDP for HHD to improve infectious complications.     

The relationship between symptoms and blood pressure during maintenance hemodialysis

Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is a detrimental complication of maintenance hemodialysis, but how it is defined and reported varies widely in the literature. European Best Practice Guideline and Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative guidelines require symptoms and a mitigating intervention to fulfill the diagnosis, but morbidity and mortality outcomes are largely based on blood pressure alone. Furthermore, little is known about the incidence of asymptomatic hypotension, which may be an important cause of hypoperfusion injury and impaired outcome. Seventy‐seven patients were studied over 456 dialysis sessions. Blood pressure was measured at 15‐minute intervals throughout the session and compared with post‐dialysis symptom questionnaire results using mixed modeling to adjust for repeated measures in the same patient. The frequency of asymptomatic hypotension was estimated by logistic regression using a variety of commonly cited blood pressure metrics that describe IDH. In 113 sessions (25%) where symptoms were recorded on the questionnaire, these appear not to have been reported to dialysis staff. When symptoms were reported (293 sessions [64%]), an intervention invariably followed. Dizziness and cramp were strongly associated with changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP), but not diastolic blood pressure. Nausea occurred more frequently in younger patients but was not associated with falls in blood pressure. Thresholds that maximized the probability of an intervention rather than a session remaining asymptomatic were SBP <100 mmHg or a 20% reduction in SBP from baseline. The probability of SBP falling to <100 mmHg in an asymptomatic session was 0.23. Symptoms are frequently not reported by patients who are hypotensive during hemodialysis, which leads to an underestimation of IDH if symptom‐based definitions are used. A revised definition of IDH excluding patient‐reported symptoms would be in line with literature reporting morbidity and mortality outcomes and include sessions in which potentially detrimental asymptomatic hypotension occurs.     

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.     

Intensive dialysis and pregnancy

Pregnancy in women with end stage renal disease on renal replacement therapy is uncommon due to the physiologic changes associated with renal failure as well as the complexities and risk involved in managing these patients. As most of these women had long periods of illness with chronic kidney disease, the effects of their chronic illness together with the current societal trends to delay child bearing to a more advanced maternal age can hamper fertility. For those able to conceive, intensified hemodialysis (HD), through longer and/or more frequent dialysis sessions, offers improved maternal and neonatal outcomes. Intensified HD is most conveniently offered in the patient's home, where possible. This review expands the scope of the Implementing Hemodialysis in the Home website and associated supplement published previously in Hemodialysis International and includes information tailored to women of reproductive age. We describe the necessary counseling that women should receive before conception and before intensification of HD, and provide a detailed management strategy that includes nephrologic and obstetric care, should pregnancy occur.     

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.     

Enhanced solute removal with intermittent, in-center, 8-hour nocturnal hemodialysis

Advances in the dialysis technique and increasing urea Kt/V have not improved outcomes for end‐stage renal disease patients maintained on hemodialysis (HD) therapy. Attention has, thus, focused on enhancing solute removal via prolonged HD sessions. A reduction in the serum levels of phosphorus and β‐2‐microglobulin (B2M) with longer HD treatments has been linked to improved patient outcomes. We have shown that serum phosphorus levels are significantly lowered in patients maintained on thrice‐weekly, in‐center, 8‐hour nocturnal HD performed at a blood flow rate of 400 mL/min. The kinetics of this modality were examined. A total of 8 patients participated in the study (age 45±7 years). Serum creatinine levels decreased from 9.2±1.9 to 3.0±1.0 mg/dL at 8 hours while serum phosphorus decreased from 5.7±1.9 to 2.5±0.7 mg/dL at 8 hours. The initial decrease from predialysis values to 1 hour after the start of HD was significant for both creatinine (P<0.0001) and phosphorus (P<0.001). Serum B2M decreased from 26.8±5.5 mg/L predialysis to 14.9±7.0 mg/L at 8 hours (P<0.01). Dialysate‐side clearances of phosphorus and creatinine were 136±13 and 143±27 cm³/min, respectively. Phosphorus clearances were steadily maintained during the 8‐hour session. A total of 904±292 mg of phosphorus was removed during the 8‐hour treatment, with 501±174 mg (55%) removed during the first 4 hours and the remaining 45% continuously removed during the latter one‐half of the session. The overall calculated B2M clearance was 55.1±40.3 cm³/min using the immediate post‐B2M value and 28.4±34.2 mg/L using the 30‐minute postdialysis value for the calculation. Serum levels of phosphorus and B2M decrease dramatically during an 8‐hour session. Future studies are necessary to determine whether the enhanced solute removal with longer HD sessions translates into an improved outcome for HD patients.     

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.     

Hemodialysis‐related headache

Headache is one of the most frequently encountered neurological symptoms during hemodialysis. According to International Classification of Headache criteria dialysis‐related headache was defined as the headache occurring during hemodialysis with no specific characteristic. It resolves spontaneously within 72 hours after the hemodialysis session ends. There are few studies in the literature investigating the clinical features of dialysis headache. The pathophysiology of hemodialysis‐related headache is not known, but various triggering factors have been identified, including changes in blood pressure, serum sodium and magnesium levels during hemodialysis sessions, caffeine deprivation and stress. The aim of this article is to evaluate and analyze features of headache in patients undergoing hemodialysis.