The best dialysis therapy? Results from an international survey among nephrology professionals

Background. There is little evidence for superior outcome of one dialysis therapy versus another. Still, nephrologists have to prescribe dialysis every day. It is therefore of interest to ascertain the opinion among nephrology professionals regarding which therapy they consider to be the best and to compare this to reality

Shared care: a pathway for the rejuvenation of home haemodialysis?

There much evidence for the benefits to patients of being able to manage their own haemodialysis rather following the thrice weekly model of most in-centre dialysis programmes. Numbers of patients dialysing at home remains disappointingly small and there are considerable variations between renal centres. Shared care models have been promoted as a route of encouraging greater take-up of home haemodialysis (HHD). There is currently little available evidence to support this assertion. Barriers have been identified to increasing self-management by haemodialysis patients, many of which apply to both shared care and HHD programmes. Overcoming the barriers, many of which are institutional is key to increasing numbers of patients dialysing at home. The development of shared care initiatives alone will not foster greater HHD engagement rather the cultural and other barriers to both must be overcome if such growth is to be seen

Do oral aluminium phosphate binders cause accumulation of aluminium to toxic levels?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Aluminium (Al) toxicity was frequent in the 1980s in patients ingesting Al containing phosphate binders (Alucaps) whilst having HD using water potentially contaminated with Al. The aim of this study was to determine the risk of Al toxicity in HD patients receiving Alucaps but never exposed to contaminated dialysate water.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>HD patients only treated with Reverse Osmosis(RO) treated dialysis water with either current or past exposure to Alucaps were given standardised DFO tests. Post-DFO serum Al level > 3.0 μmol/L was defined to indicate toxic loads based on previous bone biopsy studies.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>39 patients (34 anuric) were studied. Mean dose of Alucap was 3.5 capsules/d over 23.0 months. Pre-DFO Al levels were > 1.0 μmol/L in only 2 patients and none were > 3.0 μmol/L. No patients had a post DFO Al levels > 3.0 μmol/L. There were no correlations between the serum Al concentrations (pre-, post- or the incremental rise after DFO administration) and the total amount of Al ingested.</p> <p>No patients had unexplained EPO resistance or biochemical evidence of adynamic bone.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Although this is a small study, oral aluminium exposure was considerable. Yet no patients undergoing HD with RO treated water had evidence of Al toxicity despite doses equivalent to 3.5 capsules of Alucap for 2 years. The relationship between the DFO-Al results and the total amount of Al ingested was weak (R²= 0.07) and not statistically significant. In an era of financial prudence, and in view of the recognised risk of excess calcium loading in dialysis patients, perhaps we should re-evaluate the risk of using Al-based phosphate binders in HD patients who remain uric.</p

Choice of dialysis modality among patients initiating dialysis : results of the Peridialysis study

© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA.Background: In patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), home dialysis offers socio-economic and health benefits compared with in-centre dialysis but is generally underutilized. We hypothesized that the pre-dialysis course and institutional factors affect the choice of dialysis modality after dialysis initiation (DI). Methods: The Peridialysis study is a multinational, multicentre prospective observational study assessing the causes and timing of DI and consequences of suboptimal DI. Clinical and biochemical data, details of the pre-dialytic course, reasons for DI and causes of the choice of dialysis modality were registered. Results: Among 1587 included patients, 516 (32.5%) were judged unsuitable for home dialysis due to contraindications [384 ( 24.2%)] or no assessment [106 (6.7%); mainly due to late referral and/or suboptimal DI] or death [26 (1.6%)]. Older age, comorbidity, late referral, suboptimal DI, acute illness and rapid loss of renal function associated with unsuitability. Of the remaining 1071 patients, 700 (65.4%) chose peritoneal dialysis (61.7%) or home haemodialysis (HD; 3.6%), while 371 (34.6%) chose in-centre HD. Somatic differences between patients choosing home dialysis and in-centre dialysis were minor; factors linked to the choice of in-centre dialysis were late referral, suboptimal DI, acute illness and absence of a 'home dialysis first' institutional policy. Conclusions: Given a personal choice with shared decision making, 65.4% of ESKD patients choose home dialysis. Our data indicate that the incidence of home dialysis potentially could be further increased to reduce the incidence of late referral and unplanned DI and, in acutely ill patients, by implementing an educational programme after improvement of their clinical condition.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Treatment of hepatic encephalopathy by on-line hemodiafiltration: a case series study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is thought that a good survival rate of patients with acute liver failure can be achieved by establishing an artificial liver support system that reliably compensates liver function until the liver regenerates or a patient undergoes transplantation. We introduced a new artificial liver support system, on-line hemodiafiltration, in patients with acute liver failure.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This case series study was conducted from May 2001 to October 2008 at the medical intensive care unit of a tertiary care academic medical center. Seventeen consecutive patients who admitted to our hospital presenting with acute liver failure were treated with artificial liver support including daily on-line hemodiafiltration and plasma exchange.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>After 4.9 ± 0.7 (mean ± SD) on-line hemodiafiltration sessions, 16 of 17 (94.1%) patients completely recovered from hepatic encephalopathy and maintained consciousness for 16.4 ± 3.4 (7-55) days until discontinuation of artificial liver support (a total of 14.4 ± 2.6 [6-47] on-line hemodiafiltration sessions). Significant correlation was observed between the degree of encephalopathy and number of sessions of on-line HDF required for recovery of consciousness. Of the 16 patients who recovered consciousness, 7 fully recovered and returned to society with no cognitive sequelae, 3 died of complications of acute liver failure except brain edema, and the remaining 6 were candidates for liver transplantation; 2 of them received living-related liver transplantation but 4 died without transplantation after discontinuation of therapy.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>On-line hemodiafiltration was effective in patients with acute liver failure, and consciousness was maintained for the duration of artificial liver support, even in those in whom it was considered that hepatic function was completely abolished.</p

Why do physicians prescribe dialysis? A prospective questionnaire study

Funding Information: This study was supported by an unrestricted grant 14CECPDEU1001 from Baxter Healthcare International. Baxter Novum is the result of a grant from Baxter Healthcare Corporation to Division of Renal Medicine and Baxter Novum, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, to support research activities at Karolinska Institutet to promote the understanding and treatment of renal disease. Bengt Lindholm is employed by Baxter Healthcare Corporation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. Publisher Copyright: © 2017 Heaf et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Copyright: Copyright 2018 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.Introduction.The incidence of unplanned dialysis initiation (DI) with consequent increased comorbidity, mortality and reduced modality choice remains high, but the optimal timing of dialysis initiation (DI) remains controversial, and there is a lack of studies of specific reasons for DI. We investigated why and when physicians prescribe dialysis and hypothesized that physician motivation for DI is an independent factor which may have clinical consequences. Methods In the Peridialysis study, an ongoing multicenter prospective study assessing the causes and timing of DI and consequences of unplanned dialysis, physicians in 11 hospitals were asked to describe their primary, secondary and further reasons for prescribing DI. The stated reasons for DI were analyzed in relation to clinical and biochemical data at DI, and characteristics of physicians. Results In 446 patients (median age 67 years; 38% females; diabetes 25.6%), DI was prescribed by 84 doctors who stated 23 different primary reasons for DI. The primary indication was clinical in 63% and biochemical in 37%; 23% started for life-threatening conditions. Reduced renal function accounted for only 19% of primary reasons for DI but was a primary or contributing reason in 69%. The eGFR at DI was 7.2 ±3.4 ml/min/1.73 m2, but varied according to comorbidity and cause of DI. Patients with cachexia, anorexia and pulmonary stasis (34% with heart failure) had the highest eGFR (8.2–9.8 ml/min/1.73 m2), and those with edema, “low GFR”, and acidosis, the lowest (4.6–6.1 ml/min/1.73 m2). Patients with multiple comorbidity including diabetes started at a high eGFR (8.7 ml/min/1.73 m2). Physician experience played a role in dialysis prescription. Non-specialists were more likely to prescribe dialysis for life-threatening conditions, while older and more experienced physicians were more likely to start dialysis for clinical reasons, and at a lower eGFR. Female doctors started dialysis at a higher eGFR than males (8.0 vs. 7.1 ml/min/1.73 m2). Conclusions DI was prescribed mainly based on clinical reasons in accordance with current recommendations while low renal function accounted for only 19% of primary reasons for DI. There are considerable differences in physicians´ stated motivations for DI, related to their age, clinical experience and interpretation of biochemical variables. These differences may be an independent factor in the clinical treatment of patients, with consequences for the risk of unplanned DI.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Effect of increased convective clearance by on-line hemodiafiltration on all cause and cardiovascular mortality in chronic hemodialysis patients – the Dutch CONvective TRAnsport STudy (CONTRAST): rationale and design of a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN38365125]

BACKGROUND: The high incidence of cardiovascular disease in patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) is related to the accumulation of uremic toxins in the middle and large-middle molecular weight range. As online hemodiafiltration (HDF) removes these molecules more effectively than standard hemodialysis (HD), it has been suggested that online HDF improves survival and cardiovascular outcome. Thus far, no conclusive data of HDF on target organ damage and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are available. Therefore, the CONvective TRAnsport STudy (CONTRAST) has been initiated. METHODS: CONTRAST is a Dutch multi-center randomised controlled trial. In this trial, approximately 800 chronic hemodialysis patients will be randomised between online HDF and low-flux HD, and followed for three years. The primary endpoint is all cause mortality. The main secondary outcome variables are fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events. CONCLUSION: The study is designed to provide conclusive evidence whether online HDF leads to a lower mortality and less cardiovascular events as compared to standard HD

What is new in uremic toxicity?

Uremic syndrome results from a malfunctioning of various organ systems due to the retention of compounds which, under normal conditions, would be excreted into the urine and/or metabolized by the kidneys. If these compounds are biologically active, they are called uremic toxins. One of the more important toxic effects of such compounds is cardio-vascular damage. A convenient classification based on the physico-chemical characteristics affecting the removal of such compounds by dialysis is: (1) small water-soluble compounds; (2) protein-bound compounds; (3) the larger “middle molecules”. Recent developments include the identification of several newly detected compounds linked to toxicity or the identification of as yet unidentified toxic effects of known compounds: the dinucleotide polyphosphates, structural variants of angiotensin II, interleukin-18, p-cresylsulfate and the guanidines. Toxic effects seem to be typically exerted by molecules which are “difficult to remove by dialysis”. Therefore, dialysis strategies have been adapted by applying membranes with larger pore size (high-flux membranes) and/or convection (on-line hemodiafiltration). The results of recent studies suggest that these strategies have better outcomes, thereby clinically corroborating the importance attributed in bench studies to these “difficult to remove” molecules