Willingness to participate in a randomized trial comparing catheters to fistulas for vascular access in incident hemodialysis patients: an international survey of nephrologists

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines favor fistulas over catheters as vascular access. Yet, the observational literature comparing fistulas to catheters has important limitations and biases that may be difficult to overcome in the absence of randomization. However, it is not clear if physicians would be willing to participate in a clinical trial comparing fistulas to catheters. OBJECTIVES: We also sought to elicit participants' opinions on willingness to participate in a future trial regarding catheters and fistulas. DESIGN: We created a three-part survey consisting of 19 questions. We collected demographic information, respondents' knowledge of the vascular access literature, appropriateness of current guideline recommendations, and their willingness to participate in a future trial. SETTING: Participants were recruited from Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. PARTICIPANTS: Participants include physicians and trainees who are involved in the care of end-stage renal disease patients requiring vascular access. MEASUREMENTS: Descriptive statistics were used to describe baseline characteristics of respondents according to geographic location. We used logistic regression to model willingness to participate in a future trial. METHODS: We surveyed nephrologists from Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand to assess their willingness to participate in a randomized trial comparing fistulas to catheters in incident hemodialysis patients. RESULTS: Our results show that in Canada, 86 % of respondents were willing to participate in a trial (32 % in all patients; 54 % only in patients at high risk of primary failure). In Europe and Australia/New Zealand, the willingness to participate in a trial that included all patients was lower (28 % in Europe; 25 % in Australia/New Zealand), as was a trial that included patients at high risk of primary failure (38 % in Europe; 39 % in Australia/New Zealand). Nephrologists who have been in practice for a few years, saw a larger volume of patients, or self-identified as experts in vascular access literature were more likely to participate in a trial. LIMITATIONS: Survey distribution was limited to vascular access experts in participating European countries and ultimately led to a discrepancy in numbers of European to non-European respondents overall. Canadian views are likely over-represented in the overall outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey results suggest that nephrologists believe there is equipoise surrounding the optimal vascular access strategy and that a randomized controlled study should be undertaken, but restricted to those individuals with a high risk of primary fistula failure

Identifying critically important vascular access outcomes for trials in haemodialysis : an international survey with patients, caregivers and health professionals

BACKGROUND: Vascular access outcomes reported across haemodialysis (HD) trials are numerous, heterogeneous and not always relevant to patients and clinicians. This study aimed to identify critically important vascular access outcomes. METHOD: Outcomes derived from a systematic review, multi-disciplinary expert panel and patient input were included in a multilanguage online survey. Participants rated the absolute importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9 being critically important). The relative importance was determined by a best-worst scale using multinomial logistic regression. Open text responses were analysed thematically. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 873 participants [224 (26%) patients/caregivers and 649 (74%) health professionals] from 58 countries. Vascular access function was considered the most important outcome (mean score 7.8 for patients and caregivers/8.5 for health professionals, with 85%/95% rating it critically important, and top ranked on best-worst scale), followed by infection (mean 7.4/8.2, 79%/92% rating it critically important, second rank on best-worst scale). Health professionals rated all outcomes of equal or higher importance than patients/caregivers, except for aneurysms. We identified six themes: necessity for HD, applicability across vascular access types, frequency and severity of debilitation, minimizing the risk of hospitalization and death, optimizing technical competence and adherence to best practice and direct impact on appearance and lifestyle. CONCLUSIONS: Vascular access function was the most critically important outcome among patients/caregivers and health professionals. Consistent reporting of this outcome across trials in HD will strengthen their value in supporting vascular access practice and shared decision making in patients requiring HD

Narrative Review of Incremental Hemodialysis.

The prescription of hemodialysis (HD) in patients with incident end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is fundamentally empirical. The abrupt transition from nondialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD) to thrice-weekly in-center HD of much the same dialysis intensity as in those with prevalent ESKD underappreciates the progressive nature of kidney disease whereby the decline in renal function has been gradual and ongoing-including at the time of HD initiation. Adjuvant pharmacologic treatment (i.e., diuretics, acid buffers, potassium binders), coupled with residual kidney function (RKF), can complement an initial HD regimen of lower intensity. Barriers to less intensive HD in incident ESKD include risk of inadequate clearance of uremic toxins due to variable and unexpected loss of RKF, lack of patient adherence to assessments of RKF or adjustment of HD intensity, increased burden for all stakeholders in the dialysis units, and negative financial repercussions. A stepped dialysis regimen with scheduled transition from time-delineated twice-weekly HD to thrice-weekly HD could represent an effective and safe strategy to standardize incremental HD in patients with CKD transitioning to early-stage ESKD. Patients' adherence and survival as well as other clinical outcomes should be rigorously evaluated in clinical trials before large-scale implementation of different incremental schedules of HD. This review discusses potential benefits of and barriers to alternative dialysis regimens in patients with incident ESKD, with emphasis on twice-weekly HD with pharmacologic therapy, and summarizes in-progress clinical trials of incremental HD schedules

End-stage Renal Disease and Economic Incentives: The International Study of Health Care Organization and Financing

End-stage renal disease (ESRD), or kidney failure, is a debilitating, costly, and increasingly common medical condition. Little is known about how different financing approaches affect ESRD outcomes and delivery of care. This paper presents results from a comparative review of 12 countries with alternative models of incentives and benefits, collected under the International Study of Health Care Organization and Financing, a substudy within the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study. Variation in spending per ESRD patient is relatively small and is correlated with overall per capita health care spending. Between-country variations in spending are reduced using an input price parity index constructed for this study. Remaining differences in costs and outcomes do not seem strongly linked to differences in incentives embedded in national programs.

Renal Association Clinical Practice Guideline on Haemodialysis

© The Author(s) 2019. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.This guideline is written primarily for doctors and nurses working in dialysis units and related areas of medicine in the UK, and is an update of a previous version written in 2009. It aims to provide guidance on how to look after patients and how to run dialysis units, and provides standards which units should in general aim to achieve. We would not advise patients to interpret the guideline as a rulebook, but perhaps to answer the question: "what does good quality haemodialysis look like?"The guideline is split into sections: each begins with a few statements which are graded by strength (1 is a firm recommendation, 2 is more like a sensible suggestion), and the type of research available to back up the statement, ranging from A (good quality trials so we are pretty sure this is right) to D (more like the opinion of experts than known for sure). After the statements there is a short summary explaining why we think this, often including a discussion of some of the most helpful research. There is then a list of the most important medical articles so that you can read further if you want to - most of this is freely available online, at least in summary form.A few notes on the individual sections: 1. This section is about how much dialysis a patient should have. The effectiveness of dialysis varies between patients because of differences in body size and age etc., so different people need different amounts, and this section gives guidance on what defines "enough" dialysis and how to make sure each person is getting that. Quite a bit of this section is very technical, for example, the term "eKt/V" is often used: this is a calculation based on blood tests before and after dialysis, which measures the effectiveness of a single dialysis session in a particular patient. 2. This section deals with "non-standard" dialysis, which basically means anything other than 3 times per week. For example, a few people need 4 or more sessions per week to keep healthy, and some people are fine with only 2 sessions per week - this is usually people who are older, or those who have only just started dialysis. Special considerations for children and pregnant patients are also covered here. 3. This section deals with membranes (the type of "filter" used in the dialysis machine) and "HDF" (haemodiafiltration) which is a more complex kind of dialysis which some doctors think is better. Studies are still being done, but at the moment we think it's as good as but not better than regular dialysis. 4. This section deals with fluid removal during dialysis sessions: how to remove enough fluid without causing cramps and low blood pressure. Amongst other recommendations we advise close collaboration with patients over this. 5. This section deals with dialysate, which is the fluid used to "pull" toxins out of the blood (it is sometimes called the "bath"). The level of things like potassium in the dialysate is important, otherwise too much or too little may be removed. There is a section on dialysate buffer (bicarbonate) and also a section on phosphate, which occasionally needs to be added into the dialysate. 6. This section is about anticoagulation (blood thinning) which is needed to stop the circuit from clotting, but sometimes causes side effects. 7. This section is about certain safety aspects of dialysis, not seeking to replace well-established local protocols, but focussing on just a few where we thought some national-level guidance would be useful. 8. This section draws together a few aspects of dialysis which don't easily fit elsewhere, and which impact on how dialysis feels to patients, rather than the medical outcome, though of course these are linked. This is where home haemodialysis and exercise are covered. There is an appendix at the end which covers a few aspects in more detail, especially the mathematical ideas. Several aspects of dialysis are not included in this guideline since they are covered elsewhere, often because they are aspects which affect non-dialysis patients too. This includes: anaemia, calcium and bone health, high blood pressure, nutrition, infection control, vascular access, transplant planning, and when dialysis should be started.Peer reviewe

Patient-Related Barriers to Timely Dialysis Access Preparation: A Qualitative Study of the Perspectives of Patients, Family Members, and Health Care Providers

Rational & Objective A key aspect of smooth transition to dialysis is the timely creation of a permanent access. Despite early referral to kidney care, initiation onto dialysis is still suboptimal for many patients, which has clinical and cost implications. This study aimed to explore perspectives of various stakeholders on barriers to timely access creation. Study Design Qualitative study. Setting & Participants Semi-structured interviews with 96 participants (response rate, 67%), including patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease (n = 30), new hemodialysis patients with (n = 18) and without (n = 20) permanent access (arteriovenous fistula), family members (n = 19), and kidney health care providers (n = 9). Analytical Approach Thematic analysis. Results Patients reported differential levels of behavioral activation toward access creation: avoidance/denial, wait and see, or active intention. 6 core themes were identified: (1) lack of symptoms, (2) dialysis fear and practical concerns (exaggerated fear, pain, cost, lifestyle disruptions, work-related concerns, burdening their families), (3) evaluating value against costs/risks of access creation (benefits, threat of operation, viability, prompt for early initiation), (4) preference for alternatives, (5) social influences (hearsay, family involvement, experiences of others), and (6) health care provider interactions (mistrust, interpersonal tension, lack of clarity on information). Themes were common to all groups, whereas nuanced perspectives of family members and health care providers were noted in some subthemes. Limitations Response bias. Conclusions Individual, interpersonal, and psychosocial factors compromise dialysis preparation and contribute to suboptimal dialysis initiation. Our findings support the need for interventions to improve patient and family engagement and address emotional concerns and misperceptions about preparing for dialysis