Health-related quality of life and symptom burden in patients on haemodialysis

BACKGROUND: Patients on haemodialysis generally experience poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and a broad range of physical and mental symptoms, but it is unknown whether this differs between younger and older patients. We aimed to describe the trajectories of HRQoL and symptom burden of patients &lt; 70 and ≥ 70 years old, and to assess the impact of symptom burden on HRQoL.METHODS: In incident Dutch haemodialysis patients, HRQoL and symptoms were measured with the 12-item Short Form Health Survey and Dialysis Symptom Index. We used linear mixed models for examining the trajectories of HRQoL and symptom burden during the first year of dialysis, and linear regression for the impact of symptom burden on HRQoL.RESULTS: In 774 patients, the trajectories of physical HRQoL, mental HRQoL, and symptom burden were stable during the first year of dialysis. Compared with patients aged &lt; 70 years, patients ≥ 70 years reported similar physical HRQoL (mean difference -0.61, 95% CI -1.86; 0.63), better mental HRQoL (1.77, 95% CI 0.54; 3.01), and lower symptom burden (-2.38, 95% CI -5.08; 0.32). With increasing symptom burden, physical HRQoL declined more in older than in younger patients (β -0.287 versus -0.189, respectively, p-value for interaction = 0.007). For mental HRQoL, this decrease was similar in both age groups (β -0.295 versus -0.288, P = 0.847).CONCLUSIONS: Older haemodialysis patients generally experience a better mental HRQoL and a (non-statistically significant) lower symptom burden, compared to younger patients. Their physical HRQoL declines more rapidly with increasing symptom burden.</p

Precurved non-tunnelled catheters for haemodialysis are comparable in terms of infections and malfunction as compared to tunnelled catheters : A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND:: The main limitations of central venous catheters for haemodialysis access are infections and catheter malfunction. Our objective was to assess whether precurved non-tunnelled central venous catheters are comparable to tunnelled central venous catheters in terms of infection and catheter malfunction and to assess whether precurved non-tunnelled catheters are superior to straight catheters. MATERIALS AND METHODS:: In this retrospective, observational cohort study, adult patients in whom a central venous catheter for haemodialysis was inserted between 2012 and 2016 were included. The primary endpoint was a combined endpoint consisting of the first occurrence of either an infection or catheter malfunction. The secondary endpoint was a combined endpoint of the removal of the central venous catheter due to either an infection or a catheter malfunction. Using multivariable analysis, cause-specific hazard ratios for endpoints were calculated for tunnelled catheter versus precurved non-tunnelled catheter, tunnelled catheter versus non-tunnelled catheter, and precurved versus straight non-tunnelled catheter. RESULTS:: A total of 1603 patients were included. No difference in reaching the primary endpoint was seen between tunnelled catheters, compared to precurved non-tunnelled catheters (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-1.19, p = 0.48). Tunnelled catheters were removed less often, compared to precurved non-tunnelled catheters (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.93; p = 0.02). A trend for less infections and catheter malfunctions was seen in precurved jugular non-tunnelled catheters compared to straight non-tunnelled catheters (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-1.50; p = 0.28) and were removed less often (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.93; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION:: Tunnelled central venous catheters and precurved non-tunnelled central venous catheters showed no difference in reaching the combined endpoint of catheter-related infections and catheter malfunction. Tunnelled catheters get removed less often because of infection/malfunction than precurved non-tunnelled catheters

Central venous catheter-related complications in older haemodialysis patients: A multicentre observational cohort study

BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters (CVC) remain a commonly used vascular access option in haemodialysis, despite guidelines advising to preferably use arteriovenous fistulae. Compared to younger patients, the risk-benefit ratio of CVC in older patients might be more beneficial, but previous studies mainly focussed on catheter-related bacteraemia and/or assessed tunnelled CVC (TCVC) only. This study's aim was to compare all catheter-related infections and malfunctions in older patients with younger patients using all CVC subtypes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used data from DUCATHO, a multicentre observational cohort study in The Netherlands. All adult patients in whom a CVC was placed for haemodialysis between 2012 and 2016 were included. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of catheter-related infections, comparing patients aged ⩾70 years with patients aged <70 years (reference). As secondary endpoints, catheter malfunctions and catheter removal due to either infection or malfunction were assessed. Using Cox proportional hazards and recurrent events modelling, hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated with adjustment of prespecified confounders. Additionally, endpoints were assessed for non-tunnelled CVC (NTCVC) and TCVC separately. RESULTS: A total of 1595 patients with 2731 CVC (66.5% NTCVC, 33.1% TCVC) were included. Of these patients, 1001 (62.8%) were aged <70 years and 594 (37.2%) ⩾70 years. No statistically significant difference was found for the occurrence of catheter-related infections (adjusted HR 0.80-95% CI 0.62-1.02), catheter malfunction (adjusted HR 0.94-95% CI 0.75-1.17) and catheter removal due to infection or malfunction (adjusted HR 0.94-95% CI 0.80-1.11). Results were comparable when assessing NTCVC and TCVC separately. CONCLUSION: Patients aged ⩾70 to <70 years have a comparable risk for the occurrence of catheter-related infections and catheter malfunction. These findings may help when discussing treatment options with older patients starting haemodialysis and may inform the current debate on the best vascular access for these patients

Precurved non-tunnelled catheters for haemodialysis are comparable in terms of infections and malfunction as compared to tunnelled catheters : A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND:: The main limitations of central venous catheters for haemodialysis access are infections and catheter malfunction. Our objective was to assess whether precurved non-tunnelled central venous catheters are comparable to tunnelled central venous catheters in terms of infection and catheter malfunction and to assess whether precurved non-tunnelled catheters are superior to straight catheters. MATERIALS AND METHODS:: In this retrospective, observational cohort study, adult patients in whom a central venous catheter for haemodialysis was inserted between 2012 and 2016 were included. The primary endpoint was a combined endpoint consisting of the first occurrence of either an infection or catheter malfunction. The secondary endpoint was a combined endpoint of the removal of the central venous catheter due to either an infection or a catheter malfunction. Using multivariable analysis, cause-specific hazard ratios for endpoints were calculated for tunnelled catheter versus precurved non-tunnelled catheter, tunnelled catheter versus non-tunnelled catheter, and precurved versus straight non-tunnelled catheter. RESULTS:: A total of 1603 patients were included. No difference in reaching the primary endpoint was seen between tunnelled catheters, compared to precurved non-tunnelled catheters (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-1.19, p = 0.48). Tunnelled catheters were removed less often, compared to precurved non-tunnelled catheters (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.93; p = 0.02). A trend for less infections and catheter malfunctions was seen in precurved jugular non-tunnelled catheters compared to straight non-tunnelled catheters (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-1.50; p = 0.28) and were removed less often (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.93; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION:: Tunnelled central venous catheters and precurved non-tunnelled central venous catheters showed no difference in reaching the combined endpoint of catheter-related infections and catheter malfunction. Tunnelled catheters get removed less often because of infection/malfunction than precurved non-tunnelled catheters

The best solution down the line: an observational study on taurolidine- versus citrate-based lock solutions for central venous catheters in hemodialysis patients

Introduction: To prevent infection and thrombosis of central venous catheters (CVCs) in hemodialysis patients, different CVC lock solutions are available. Taurolidine-based solutions and citrate in different concentrations are frequently used, but no definite conclusions with regard to superiority have been drawn. Methods: In this retrospective, observational, multicenter study, we aimed to assess the risk for removal of CVC due to infection or catheter malfunction in hemodialysis patients with CVC access for different lock solutions: taurolidine, high-concentrated citrate (46.7%) and low-concentrated citrate (4 or 30%). A multivariable Cox-regression model was used to calculate hazard ratio’s (HR). Results: We identified 1514 patients (median age 65 years, 59% male). In 96 (6%) taurolidine-based lock solutions were used. In 1418 (94%) citrate-based lock solutions were used (high-concentrated 73%, low-concentrated 20%). Taurolidine-based lock solutions were associated with a significantly lower hazard for removal of CVC due to infection or malfunction combined (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19–0.64), and for removal of CVC due to infection or malfunction separately (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15–0.88 and HR0.33, 95% CI 0.14–0.79). High-concentrated citrate lock solutions were not associated with a decreased hazard for our outcomes, compared to low-concentrated citrate lock solutions. Conclusion: Removal of CVC due to infection or catheter malfunction occurred less often with taurolidine-based lock solutions. We present the largest cohort comparing taurolidine- and citrate-based lock solutions yet. However, due to the retrospective observational nature of this study, conclusions with regard to superiority should be drawn with caution

DIALysis or not: Outcomes in older kidney patients with GerIatriC Assessment (DIALOGICA): rationale and design

Background: The incidence and prevalence of older patients with kidney failure who are dependent on dialysis is increasing. However, observational studies showed limited or no benefit of dialysis on mortality in subgroups of these patients when compared to conservative care. As the focus is shifting towards health-related quality of life (HRQoL), current evidence of effects of conservative care or dialysis on HRQoL in older patients is both limited and biased. Dialysis comes with both high treatment burden for patients and high costs for society; better identification of patients who might not benefit from dialysis could result in significant cost savings. The aim of this prospective study is to compare HRQoL, clinical outcomes, and costs between conservative care and dialysis in older patients. Methods: The DIALysis or not: Outcomes in older kidney patients with GerIatriC Assessment (DIALOGICA) study is a prospective, observational cohort study that started in February 2020. It aims to include 1500 patients from 25 Dutch and Belgian centres. Patients aged ≥70 years with an eGFR of 10–15 mL/min/1.73m2 are enrolled in the first stage of the study. When dialysis is initiated or eGFR drops to 10 mL/min/1.73m2 or lower, the second stage of the study commences. In both stages nephrogeriatric assessments will be performed annually, consisting of questionnaires and tests to assess most common geriatric domains, i.e. functional, psychological, somatic, and social status. The primary outcome is HRQoL, measured with the Twelve-item Short-Form Health Survey. Secondary outcomes are clinical outcomes (mortality, hospitalisation, functional status, cognitive functioning, frailty), cost-effectiveness, and decisional regret. All outcomes are (repeated) measures during the first year of the second stage. The total follow-up will be a maximum of 4 years with a minimum of 1 year in the second stage. Discussion: By generating more insight in the effects of conservative care and dialysis on HRQoL, clinical outcomes, and costs, findings of this study will help patients and physicians make a shared decision on the best individual treatment option for kidney failure. Trial registration: The study was registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL-8352) on 5 February 2020

Safety of Ticagrelor Compared to Clopidogrel after Prehospital Initiation of Treatment

Objectives  The objective of this registry was to study the safety of prehospital initiation of ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel. Background  Ticagrelor has replaced clopidogrel in many hospitals as the routinely used antiplatelet drug in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Nevertheless, in the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial, ticagrelor was associated with an increase in non-CABG (non-coronary artery bypass grafting)-related major bleeding. Data comparing the safety of ticagrelor and clopidogrel after prehospital initiation of treatment are not available. Methods  A retrospective, multicenter registry was performed. Selection criteria were the administration of a prehospital loading dose of ticagrelor or clopidogrel according to the ambulance STEMI treatment protocol and the presentation to a percutaneous coronary intervention-capable hospital in our region between January 2011 and December 2012. Follow-up was performed using the electronic patient files for the time period between the antiplatelet loading dose and hospital discharge. The data were analyzed using a primary bleeding end point (any bleeding) and a secondary thrombotic end point (all-cause mortality, spontaneous myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, stroke, or transient ischemic attack). Results  Data of 304 clopidogrel-treated and 309 ticagrelor-treated patients were available for analysis. No significant difference in bleeding rate was observed between both groups, using univariate (17.8 vs. 20.1%; p  = 0.47; odds ratio, 1.16 [95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.74]) and multivariate ( p  = 0.42) analysis. Also for the secondary thrombotic end point (6.3 vs. 4.9%, p  = 0.45), no significant differences were observed. Conclusion  In this real-world registry, no significant differences in bleeding or thrombotic event rate were found between ticagrelor and clopidogrel after prehospital initiation of treatment