10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Call for Papers: Green Renal Replacement Therapy: Caring for the Environment

      Submit here before July 31, 2024

      About Blood Purification: 3.0 Impact Factor I 5.6 CiteScore I 0.83 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Choosing Home Hemodialysis: A Critical Review of Patient Outcomes

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background/Aim: Home hemodialysis (HHD) has been associated with improved clinical outcomes vs. in-center HD (ICHD). The prevalence of HHD in the United States is still very low at 1.8%. This critical review compares HHD and ICHD outcomes for survival, hospitalization, cardiovascular (CV), nutrition, and quality of life (QoL). Methods: Of 545 publications identified, 44 were not selected after applying exclusion criteria. A systematic review of the identified publications was conducted to compare HHD to ICHD outcomes for survival, hospitalization, CV outcomes, nutrition, and QoL. Results: Regarding mortality, 10 of 13 trials reported 13–52% reduction; three trials found no differences. According to 6 studies, blood pressure and left ventricular size measurements were generally lower in HHD patients compared to similar measurements in ICHD patients. Regarding nutritional status, conflicting results were reported (8 studies); some found improved muscle mass, total protein, and body mass index in HHD vs. ICHD patients, while others found no significant differences. There were no significant differences in the rate of hospitalization between HHD and ICHD in the 6 articles reviewed. Seven studies on QoL demonstrated positive trends in HHD vs. ICHD populations. Conclusions: Despite limitations in the current data, 66% of the publications reviewed (29/44) demonstrated improved clinical outcomes in patients who chose HHD. These include improved survival, CV, nutritional, and QoL parameters. Even though HHD may not be preferred in all patients, a review of the literature suggests that HHD should be provided as a modality choice for substantially more than the current 1.8% of HHD patients in the United States.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effect of frequent nocturnal hemodialysis vs conventional hemodialysis on left ventricular mass and quality of life: a randomized controlled trial.

          Morbidity and mortality rates in hemodialysis patients remain excessive. Alterations in the delivery of dialysis may lead to improved patient outcomes. To compare the effects of frequent nocturnal hemodialysis vs conventional hemodialysis on change in left ventricular mass and health-related quality of life over 6 months. A 2-group, parallel, randomized controlled trial conducted at 2 Canadian university centers between August 2004 and December 2006. A total of 52 patients undergoing hemodialysis were recruited. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive nocturnal hemodialysis 6 times weekly or conventional hemodialysis 3 times weekly. The primary outcome was change in left ventricular mass, as measured by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging. The secondary outcomes were patient-reported quality of life, blood pressure, mineral metabolism, and use of medications. Frequent nocturnal hemodialysis significantly improved the primary outcome (mean left ventricular mass difference between groups, 15.3 g, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0 to 29.6 g; P = .04). Frequent nocturnal hemodialysis did not significantly improve quality of life (difference of change in EuroQol 5-D index from baseline, 0.05; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.17; P = .43). However, frequent nocturnal hemodialysis was associated with clinically and statistically significant improvements in selected kidney-specific domains of quality of life (P = .01 for effects of kidney disease and P = .02 for burden of kidney disease). Frequent nocturnal hemodialysis was also associated with improvements in systolic blood pressure (P = .01 after adjustment) and mineral metabolism, including a reduction in or discontinuation of antihypertensive medications (16/26 patients in the nocturnal hemodialysis group vs 3/25 patients in the conventional hemodialysis group; P < .001) and oral phosphate binders (19/26 patients in the nocturnal hemodialysis group vs 3/25 patients in the conventional dialysis group; P < .001). No benefit in anemia management was seen with nocturnal hemodialysis. This preliminary study revealed that, compared with conventional hemodialysis (3 times weekly), frequent nocturnal hemodialysis improved left ventricular mass, reduced the need for blood pressure medications, improved some measures of mineral metabolism, and improved selected measures of quality of life. isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN25858715.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Intensive hemodialysis associates with improved survival compared with conventional hemodialysis.

            Patients undergoing conventional maintenance hemodialysis typically receive three sessions per week, each lasting 2.5-5.5 hours. Recently, the use of more intensive hemodialysis (>5.5 hours, three to seven times per week) has increased, but the effects of these regimens on survival are uncertain. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to examine whether intensive hemodialysis associates with better survival than conventional hemodialysis. We identified 420 patients in the International Quotidian Dialysis Registry who received intensive home hemodialysis in France, the United States, and Canada between January 2000 and August 2010. We matched 338 of these patients to 1388 patients in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study who received in-center conventional hemodialysis during the same time period by country, ESRD duration, and propensity score. The intensive hemodialysis group received a mean (SD) 4.8 (1.1) sessions per week with a mean treatment time of 7.4 (0.87) hours per session; the conventional group received three sessions per week with a mean treatment time of 3.9 (0.32) hours per session. During 3008 patient-years of follow-up, 45 (13%) of 338 patients receiving intensive hemodialysis died compared with 293 (21%) of 1388 patients receiving conventional hemodialysis (6.1 versus 10.5 deaths per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.55 [95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.87]). The strength and direction of the observed association between intensive hemodialysis and improved survival were consistent across all prespecified subgroups and sensitivity analyses. In conclusion, there is a strong association between intensive home hemodialysis and improved survival, but whether this relationship is causal remains unknown.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Home hemodialysis and mortality risk in Australian and New Zealand populations.

              There is a resurgence of interest in home hemodialysis (HD), especially frequent or extended forms involving unconventionally frequent (>3 times/wk) and/or long (>6 hours) treatments. This resurgence is driven by cost containment and experience suggesting lower mortality risk compared with facility HD and peritoneal dialysis (PD). We performed an observational cohort study using the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry, using marginal structural modeling to adjust for time-varying medical comorbidity as both a source of selection bias and an intermediary variable on the causal pathway to death. All adult patients starting renal replacement therapy in Australia and New Zealand since March 31, 1996, followed up to December 31, 2007. The main predictor was dialysis modality (conventional facility HD, conventional home HD, frequent/extended facility HD, frequent/extended home HD, and PD). We adjusted for the confounding effects of patient demographics and comorbid conditions. Patient mortality. We analyzed 26,016 patients with 856,007 patient-months of follow-up. Relative to conventional facility HD, adjusted mortality HRs were 0.51 (95% CI, 0.44-0.59) for conventional home HD, 1.16 (95% CI, 0.94-1.44) for frequent/extended facility HD, 0.53 (95% CI, 0.41-0.68) for frequent/extended home HD, and 1.10 (95% CI, 1.06-1.16) for PD. The apparent benefit of home HD on mortality risk was less for patients who were nonwhite, non-Asian, and older. Potential for residual confounding from the limited collection of comorbid conditions (no collection of cognitive or motor impairment, depression, left ventricular volume or structure, or blood pressure/fluid volume status) and lack of socioeconomic, medication, and biochemical data in analyses. Our study supports a survival advantage of home HD without a difference between conventional and frequent/extended modalities. Suitably designed clinical trials of frequent/extended HD are needed to determine the presence and extent of mortality benefit with this modality. Copyright © 2011 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BPU
                Blood Purif
                10.1159/issn.0253-5068
                Blood Purification
                S. Karger AG
                0253-5068
                1421-9735
                2018
                April 2018
                26 January 2018
                : 45
                : 1-3
                : 224-229
                Affiliations
                Fresenius Medical Care North America, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
                Author notes
                *Dixie-Ann Sawin, Fresenius Medical Care North America, 309 E Morehead Street – Suite 240, Charlotte, NC 28202 (USA), E-Mail Dixie.Sawin@fmc-na.com
                Article
                485159 Blood Purif 2018;45:224–229
                10.1159/000485159
                29478056
                08d94581-cb32-43f6-a9cc-a6375439ff6d
                © 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 2, Pages: 6
                Categories
                Review – Advances in CKD 2018

                Cardiovascular Medicine,Nephrology
                Home hemodialysis,Cardiovascular blood pressure,Outcomes,Quality of life,Mortality

                Comments

                Comment on this article