A comparison of center-based vs. home-based daily hemodialysis for patients with end-stage renal disease

Home hemodialysis has been a therapeutic option for almost 4 decades. The complexity of dialysis equipment has been a factor-limiting adoption of this modality. We performed a feasibility study to demonstrate the safety of center-based vs. home-based daily hemodialysis with the NxStage System One portable hemodialysis device. We also performed a retrospective analysis to determine if clinical effects previously associated with short-daily dialysis were also seen using this novel device. We conducted a prospective, 2-treatment, 2-period, open-label, crossover study of in-center hemodialysis vs. home hemodialysis in 32 patients treated at 6 U.S. centers. The 8-week In-Center Phase (6 days/week) was followed by a 2-week transition period and then followed by the 8-week Home Phase (6 days/week). We retrospectively collected data on hemodialysis treatment parameters immediately preceding the study in a subset of patients. Twenty-six out of 32 patients (81%) successfully completed the study. Successful delivery of at least 90% of prescribed fluid volume (primary endpoint) was achieved in 98.5% of treatments in-center and 97.3% at home. Total effluent volume as a percentage of prescribed volume was between 94% and 100% for all study weeks. The composite rate of intradialytic and interdialytic adverse events per 100 treatments was significantly higher for the In-Center Phase (5.30) compared with the Home Phase (2.10; p=0.007). Compared with the period immediately preceding the study, there were reductions in blood pressure, antihypertensive medications, and interdialytic weight gain. Daily home hemodialysis with a small, easy-to-use hemodialysis device is a viable dialysis option for end-stage renal disease patients capable of self/partner-administered dialysis.     

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.     

6 Month Experience with 1 Nurse Training 2 Patients Together for Nightly Home Hemodialysis

Purpose:  Nocturnal home hemodialysis (NHHD, 6–7 times weekly 6–9 h) results in better clinical outcome than conventional 3 times weekly hemodialysis. A good training program for patient and partner is a prequisite for success. We developed a training course for patients and partners.
Methods:  Since December 2001, we trained 20 patients and their partners to perform NHHD in 2 succeeding groups. The first group, consisting of 15 patients and their partners, started a NHHD pilot study. During this pilot study, we improved the training course. The second group of 5 were trained with this improved program. All 5 participants were home hemodialysis patients for over 1 month before starting the NHHD course. First, they learned how to handle the single needle system. Then, they performed single needle hemodialysis for 2 weeks at home. This was followed by an in-center NHHD training, consisting of 4 conventional day-time and 3 long (8 h) nocturnal dialysis treatments. Main targets during this training period are to learn to deal with safety precautions, online monitoring, and special machine features, and to check biochemistry and heparinization during long dialysis. 1 month after the training we evaluated the course with all participants.
Results:  For 9 of 15 couples in the first group, the training appeared to be exhausting. Stress factors were an overloaded program and too little experience with several new skills including needle technique before starting NHHD. The second group started the NHHD training 2 weeks after the single needle training. This second group was pleased with the training protocol.
Conclusion:  The training course for NHHD should not be overloaded. Patients need time to learn new skills before starting NHHD.     

Pathways to improve nephrologist comfort in managing patients on in-center or home self-care dialysis

In end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), patient engagement and empowerment are associated with improved survival and complications. However, patients lack education and confidence to participate in self-care. The development of in center self-care hemodialysis can enable motivated patients to allocate autonomy, increase satisfaction and engagement, reduce human resource intensiveness, and cultivate a curiosity about home dialysis. In this review, we emphasize the role of education to overcome barriers to home dialysis, strategies of improving home dialysis utilization in the COVID 19 era, the significance of in-center self-care dialysis (e.g., cost containment and empowering patients), and implementation of an in-center self-care dialysis as a bridge to home hemodialysis (HHD).     

Blood Urea Nitrogen Stability: A Feasibility Study for Home Hemodialysis Adequacy Testing Through Mail

Urea kinetic modeling measures the delivered dose of hemodialysis and is used to monitor dialysis adequacy. Obtaining samples for adequacy calculations is a challenge for home hemodialysis (HHD) patients. Ideally, the urea reduction ratio (URR) should be measured at a typical dialysis session; therefore, for HHD patients test specimens should be drawn at home and transferred to a clinical laboratory. Would blood urea nitrogen (BUN) remain stable if samples were mailed to the laboratory? To answer this question, BUN was measured in pre- and postdialysis samples from 20 patients over 8 days of laboratory storage. While BUN values varied among the patient population, neither pre- nor postdialysis values showed any significant variation during the 8-day storage time. These results suggest that BUN values are sufficiently stable for specimens to be drawn at home and mailed to a testing laboratory.     

Is home hemodialysis a practical option for older people?

An increasing demand for in-center dialysis services has been largely driven by a rapid growth of the older population progressing to end-stage kidney disease. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, efforts to encourage home-based dialysis options have increased due to risks of infective transmission for patients receiving hemodialysis in center-based units. There are various practical and clinical advantages for patients receiving hemodialysis at home. However, the lack of caregiver support, cognitive and physical impairment, challenges of vascular access, and preparation and training for home hemodialysis (HHD) initiation may present as barriers to successful implementation of HHD in the older dialysis population. Assessment of an older patient's frailty status may help clinicians guide patients when making decisions about HHD. The development of an assisted HHD care delivery model and advancement of telehealth and technology in provision of HHD care may increase accessibility of HHD services for older patients. This review examines these factors and explores current unmet needs and barriers to increasing access, inclusion, and opportunities of HHD for the older dialysis population.     

The ideal home hemodialysis machine

Daily home hemodialysis (HD) patients have a much superior survival rate than patients on regular, 3 times a week in-center HD or on peritoneal dialysis. Present-day HD machines are unsuitable for use at home by patients. We present our concept of the ideal home HD machine that allows daily short and long HD, does all the work preparing for and cleaning up after dialysis, has an intravenous infusion system controlled by the patient, needs no systemic anticoagulation, and teaches and interacts with the patient during dialysis. To fulfill these functionalities, the dialyzer and blood tubing must be integrated with the machine and replaced less often than monthly, the machine must be capable of at least 200 L/week of hemodiafiltration, prepare all fluids necessary between and during dialyses, and all the components and fluids must be much beyond ultrapure.     

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.     

Dialysis education and options for late presenters—An ongoing dilemma

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

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.     

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.     

The International Quotidian Hemodialysis Registry: rationale and challenges

Outcomes from conventional thrice-weekly hemodialysis (CHD) are disappointing for a life-saving therapy. The results of the HEMO Study show that the recommended minimum dose (Kt/V) for adequacy is also the optimum attainable with CHD. Interest is therefore turning to alternative therapies exploring the effects of increased frequency and time of hemodialysis (HD) treatment. The National Institutes of Health have sponsored 2 randomized prospective trials comparing short hours daily in-center HD and long hours slow nightly home HD with CHD. An International Registry has also been created to capture observational data on patients receiving short hours daily in-center HD, long hours slow nightly home HD, and other alternative therapies. Participation by individual centers, other registries and the major dialysis chains is growing and currently data from nearly 3000 patients have been collected. Pitfalls in data collection have been identified and are being corrected. A matched cohort (patients in other registries) study is planned to obtain information regarding hard outcomes expected from these therapies. The Registry may become the most important source of information required by governments, providers, and the nephrological community in assessing the utility of such therapies.     

Nightly home hemodialysis: outcome and factors associated with survival

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

Home hemodialysis in Australia: current perspective

Home hemodialysis (HD) in Australia represents 11% of the dialysis population. This percentage has declined over the last 20 years but the absolute number of home HD patients has increased since 2001. The major reason for this resurgence has been the institution of nocturnal HD at home. Predominantly, this has been as a strictly alternate day exercise, although 5-6 times per week dialysis is also practised. Short-daily HD is uncommon in Australia. Nocturnal HD now comprises 30% or more of all home HD. Most home HD in Australia is practiced without remote monitoring, using simple machines with separate reverse osmosis units. Patients tend to self-needle and not all have a "partner." The enthusiasm for nocturnal HD in particular has been fuelled by ANZDATA Registry data demonstrating a survival advantage for patients dialyzing alternate days compared with 3 times per week; and for patients dialyzing for >18 hours per week compared with 12 or 15 hours per week.     

Phosphorus-enriched hemodialysis during pregnancy: Two case reports

Successful pregnancy leading to delivery of a viable infant is an uncommon occurrence either in women with established renal disease or in those with renal failure requiring chronic dialytic treatment. The frequency of conception in patients with renal failure has increased, however, and the outcome of such pregnancies has improved over the past 32 years. Current guidelines for dialysis in pregnant women include prolonged dialysis times, generally 20 or more hours per week. This extensive dialysis regimen often results in a decrease in the serum inorganic phosphorus levels, with possible detrimental effects to the health of the mother and the unborn child. In this article, we report the successful multidisciplinary management of two pregnant women with end-stage renal disease, both of whom developed hypophosphatemia after initiation of intensive hemodialysis. Sodium phosphate salts were added to the dialysate of each patient and this addition successfully corrected the decrease in serum inorganic phosphate concentration. One patient was able to carry the pregnancy for 28 weeks with delivery of a healthy 1260-g infant. The pregnancy of the second patient ended at 25 weeks of gestation with delivery of a nonviable infant.     

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.     

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.