Cost-Effectiveness of High Dose Hemodialysis in Comparison to Conventional In-Center Hemodialysis in the Netherlands

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.

Patients with end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis have limited tolerance of metabolic and volume-related deviations from normal ranges; in addition, the prevalence of cardiovascular disease is high among such patients. Given these problems, we hypothesized that a long interdialytic interval is associated with adverse events in patients receiving hemodialysis. We studied 32,065 participants in the End-Stage Renal Disease Clinical Performance Measures Project, a nationally representative sample of U.S. patients receiving hemodialysis three times weekly, at the end of calendar years 2004 through 2007. We compared rates of death and cardiovascular-related hospital admissions on the day after the long (2-day) interdialytic interval with rates on other days. The mean age of the cohort was 62.2 years; 24.2% of the patients had been receiving dialysis treatment for 1 year or less. Over a mean follow-up interval of 2.2 years, the following event rates were higher on the day after the long interval than on other days: all-cause mortality (22.1 vs. 18.0 deaths per 100 person-years, P<0.001), mortality from cardiac causes (10.2 vs. 7.5, P<0.001), infection-related mortality (2.5 vs. 2.1, P = 0.007), mortality from cardiac arrest (1.3 vs. 1.0, P = 0.004), mortality from myocardial infarction (6.3 vs. 4.4, P<0.001), and admissions for myocardial infarction (6.3 vs. 3.9, P<0.001), congestive heart failure (29.9 vs. 16.9, P<0.001), stroke (4.7 vs. 3.1, P<0.001), dysrhythmia (20.9 vs. 11.0, P<0.001), and any cardiovascular event (44.2 vs. 19.7, P<0.001). The long (2-day) interdialytic interval is a time of heightened risk among patients receiving hemodialysis. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health.).

The prevalence of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis therapy continues to increase worldwide, and despite technological advances, treatment remains resource intensive. Thus, the increasing burden of dialysis therapy on finite health-care budgets is an important consideration. The principles of allocative efficiency and the concept of 'opportunity cost' can be used to assess whether dialysis is economically justified; if dialysis is to be provided, cost-minimization and cost-utility analyses can be used to identify the most efficient dialysis modality. Existing studies have examined the cost, and where relevant the effectiveness, of the various currently available peritoneal dialysis and haemodialysis modalities. In this Review, we discuss variations in the intrinsic costs of the available dialysis modalities as well as other factors, such as variation by country, available health-care infrastructures, the timing of dialysis initiation and renal transplantation. We draw on data from robust micro-costing studies of the various dialysis modalities in Canada to highlight key issues.