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

Centre variation in home dialysis uptake: A survey of kidney centre practice in relation to home dialysis organisation and delivery in England

Background: Disparities in home dialysis uptake across England suggest inequity and unexplained variation in access. We surveyed staff at all English kidney centres to identify patterns in service organisation/delivery and explore correlations with home therapy uptake, as part of a larger study (‘Inter-CEPt’), which aims to identify potentially modifiable factors to address observed variations. Methods: Between June and September 2022, staff working at English kidney centres were surveyed and individual responses combined into one centre-level response per question using predetermined data aggregation rules. Descriptive analysis described centre practices and their correlation with home dialysis uptake (proportion of new home dialysis starters) using 2019 UK Renal Registry 12-month home dialysis incidence data. Results: In total, 180 responses were received (50/51 centres, 98.0%). Despite varied organisation of home dialysis services, most components of service delivery and practice had minimal or weak correlations with home dialysis uptake apart from offering assisted peritoneal dialysis and ‘promoting flexible decision-making about dialysis modality’. Moderate to strong correlations were identified between home dialysis uptake and centres reporting supportive clinical leadership (correlation 0.32, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.05–0.55), an organisational culture that values trying new initiatives (0.57, 95% CI: 0.34–0.73); support for reflective practice (0.38, 95% CI: 0.11–0.60), facilitating research engagement (0.39, 95% CI: 0.13–0.61) and promoting continuous quality improvement (0.29, 95% CI: 0.01–0.53). Conclusions: Uptake of home dialysis is likely to be driven by organisational culture, leadership and staff attitudes, which provide a supportive clinical environment within which specific components of service organisation and delivery can be effective

Use of Analog and Human Insulin in a European Hemodialysis Cohort With Type 2 Diabetes: Associations With Mortality, Hospitalization, MACE, and Hypoglycemia

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Poor glycemic control may contribute to the high mortality rate in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving hemodialysis. Insulin type may influence glycemic control, and its choice may be an opportunity to improve outcomes. This study assessed whether treatment with analog insulin compared with human insulin is associated with different outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes and kidney failure receiving hemodialysis. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: People in the Analyzing Data, Recognizing Excellence and Optimizing Outcomes (AROii) study with kidney failure commencing hemodialysis and type 2 diabetes being treated with insulin within 288 dialysis facilities between 2007 and 2009 across 7 European countries. Study participants were followed for 3 years. People with type 1 diabetes were excluded using an established administrative data algorithm. EXPOSURE: Treatment with an insulin analog or human insulin. OUTCOME: All-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause hospitalization, and confirmed hypoglycemia (blood glucose<3.0mmol/L sampled during hemodialysis). ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Inverse probability weighted Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios for analog insulin compared with human insulin. RESULTS: There were 713 insulin analog and 733 human insulin users. Significant variation in insulin type by country was observed. Comparing analog with human insulin at 3 years, the percentage of patients experiencing end points and adjusted hazard ratios (AHR) were 22.0% versus 31.4% (AHR, 0.808 [95% CI, 0.66-0.99], P=0.04) for all-cause mortality, 26.8% versus 35.9% (AHR, 0.817 [95% CI, 0.68-0.98], P=0.03) for MACE, and 58.2% versus 75.0% (AHR, 0.757 [95% CI, 0.67-0.86], P<0.001) for hospitalization. Hypoglycemia was comparable between insulin types at 14.1% versus 15.0% (AHR, 1.169 [95% CI, 0.80-1.72], P=0.4). Consistent strength and direction of the associations were observed across sensitivity analyses. LIMITATIONS: Residual confounding, lack of more detailed glycemia data. CONCLUSIONS: In this large multinational cohort of people with type 2 diabetes and kidney failure receiving maintenance hemodialysis, treatment with analog insulins was associated with better clinical outcomes when compared with human insulin. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: People with diabetes who are receiving dialysis for kidney failure are at high risk of cardiovascular disease and death. This study uses information from 1,446 people with kidney failure from 7 European countries who are receiving dialysis, have type 2 diabetes, and are prescribed either insulin identical to that made in the body (human insulin) or insulins with engineered extra features (insulin analog). After 3 years, fewer participants receiving analog insulins had died, had been admitted to the hospital, or had a cardiovascular event (heart attack, stroke, heart failure, or peripheral vascular disease). These findings suggest that analog insulins should be further explored as a treatment leading to better outcomes for people with diabetes on dialysis

Intervening to eliminate the centre-effect variation in home dialysis use: protocol for Inter-CEPt - a sequential mixed-methods study designing an intervention bundle

Introduction: Use of home dialysis by centres in the UK varies considerably and is decreasing despite attempts to encourage greater use. Knowing what drives this unwarranted variation requires in-depth understanding of centre cultural and organisational factors and how these relate to quantifiable centre performance, accounting for competing treatment options. This knowledge will be used to identify components of a practical and feasible intervention bundle ensuring this is realistic and cost-effective. Methods and analysis: Underpinned by the non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread and sustainability framework, our research will use an exploratory sequential mixed-methods approach. Insights from multisited focused team ethnographic and qualitative research at four case study sites will inform development of a national survey of 52 centres. Survey results, linked to patient-level data from the UK Renal Registry, will populate a causal graph describing patient and centre-level factors, leading to uptake of home dialysis and multistate models incorporating patient-level treatment modality history and mortality. This will inform a contemporary economic evaluation of modality cost-effectiveness that will quantify how modification of factors facilitating home dialysis, identified from the ethnography and survey, might yield the greatest improvements in costs, quality of life and numbers on home therapies. Selected from these factors, using the capability, opportunity and motivation for behaviour change framework (COM-B) for intervention design, the optimal intervention bundle will be developed through workshops with patients and healthcare professionals to ensure acceptability and feasibility. Patient and public engagement and involvement is embedded throughout the project. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval has been granted by the Health Research Authority reference 20-WA-0249. The intervention bundle will comprise components for all stake holder groups: commissioners, provider units, recipients of dialysis, their caregivers and families. To reache all these groups, a variety of knowledge exchange methods will be used: short guides, infographics, case studies, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, patient conferences, ‘Getting it Right First Time’ initiative, Clinical Reference Group (dialysis)

Variation in centre-specific survival in patients starting renal replacement therapy in England is explained by enhanced comorbidity information from hospitalization data

Background Unadjusted survival on renal replacement therapy (RRT) varies widely from centre to centre in England. Until now, missing data on case mix have made it impossible to determine whether this variation reflects genuine differences in the quality of care. Data linkage has the capacity to reduce missing data. Methods Modelling of survival using Cox proportional hazards of data returned to the UK Renal Registry on patients starting RRT for established renal failure in England. Data on ethnicity, socioeconomic status and comorbidity were obtained by linkage to the Hospital Episode Statistics database, using data from hospitalizations prior to starting RRT. Results Patients with missing data were reduced from 61 to 4%. The prevalence of comorbid conditions was remarkably similar across centres. When centre-specific survival was compared after adjustment solely for age, survival was below the 95% limit for 6 of 46 centres. The addition of variables into the multivariable model altered the number of centres that appeared to be ‘outliers’ with worse than expected survival as follows: ethnic origin four outliers, socioeconomic status eight outliers and year of the start of RRT four outliers. The addition of a combination of 16 comorbid conditions present at the start of RRT reduced the number of centres with worse than expected survival to one. Conclusions Linked data between a national registry and hospital admission dramatically reduced missing data, and allowed us to show that nearly all the variation between English renal centres in 3-year survival on RRT was explained by demographic factors and by comorbidity

Rationale and design for SHAREHD: a quality improvement collaborative to scale up Shared Haemodialysis Care for patients on centre based haemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: The study objective is to assess the effectiveness and economic impact of a structured programme to support patient involvement in centre-based haemodialysis and to understand what works for whom in what circumstances and why. It implements a program of Shared Haemodialysis Care (SHC) that aims to improve experience and outcomes for those who are treated with centre-based haemodialysis, and give more patients the confidence to dialyse independently both at centres and at home. METHODS/DESIGN: The 24 month mixed methods cohort evaluation of 600 prevalent centre based HD patients is nested within a 30 month quality improvement program that aims to scale up SHC at 12 dialysis centres across England. SHC describes an intervention where patients who receive centre-based haemodialysis are given the opportunity to learn, engage with and undertake tasks associated with their treatment. Following a 6-month set up period, a phased implementation programme is initiated across 12 dialysis units using a randomised stepped wedge design with 6 centres participating in each of 2 steps, each lasting 6 months. The intervention utilises quality improvement methodologies involving rapid tests of change to determine the most appropriate mechanisms for implementation in the context of a learning collaborative. Running parallel with the stepped wedge intervention is a mixed methods cohort evaluation that employs patient questionnaires and interviews, and will link with routinely collected data at the end of the study period. The primary outcome measure is the number of patients performing at least 5 dialysis-related tasks collected using 3 monthly questionnaires. Secondary outcomes measures include: the number of people choosing to perform home haemodialysis or dialyse independently in-centre by the end of the study period; end-user recommendation; home dialysis establishment delay; staff impact and confidence; hospitalisation; infection and health economics. DISCUSSION: The results from this study will provide evidence of impact of SHC, barriers to patient and centre level adoption and inform development of future interventions to support its implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Number: 93999549 , (retrospectively registered 1st May 2017); NIHR Research Portfolio: 31566