15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Ambulatory Hemodialysis-Technology Landscape and Potential for Patient-Centered Treatment

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          CKD is a worldwide health problem and the number of patients requiring kidney replacement therapy is rising. In the United States, most patients with ESKD rely on in-center hemodialysis, which is burdensome and does not provide the same long-term benefits as kidney transplantation. Intensive hemodialysis treatments have demonstrated improved clinical outcomes, but its wider adoption is limited by equipment complexity and patient apprehension. Ambulatory devices for hemodialysis offer the potential for self-care treatment outside the clinical setting as well as frequent and prolonged sessions. This article explains the motivation for ambulatory hemodialysis and provides an overview of the necessary features of key technologies that will be the basis for new wearable and implantable devices. Early work by pioneers of hemodialysis is described followed by recent experience using a wearable unit on patients. Finally, ongoing efforts to develop an implantable device for kidney replacement and its potential for implantable hemodialysis are presented.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

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

          MXene Sorbents for Removal of Urea from Dialysate - a Step Towards the Wearable Artificial Kidney

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

            Uremic malnutrition is a predictor of death independent of inflammatory status.

            Several studies have pointed out the influence of nutritional parameters and/or indices of inflammation on morbidity and mortality. Often, these conditions coexist, and the relative importance of poor nutritional status and chronic inflammation in terms of predicting clinical outcomes in chronic hemodialysis (CHD) patients has not been clarified. We undertook a prospective cohort study analyzing time-dependent changes in several established nutritional and inflammatory markers, and their influence on mortality in 194 CHD patients (53% male, 36% white, 30% with diabetes mellitus, mean age 55.7 +/- 15.4 years) throughout a 57-month period. Serial measurements of serum concentrations of albumin, prealbumin, creatinine, transferrin, cholesterol, and C-reactive protein (CRP), as well as normalized protein catabolic rate, postdialysis weight, and phase angle and reactance by bioelectrical impedance analysis were performed every 3 months. Clinical outcomes were simultaneously assessed using indicators of mortality. Serum albumin, serum prealbumin, serum creatinine, and phase angle were significant predictors of all-cause mortality, even after adjustment for serum CRP concentrations. Serum CRP concentrations were not significantly associated with mortality. Serum albumin concentrations and phase angle were also independent predictors of cardiovascular deaths in the multivariate model. The nutritional status of CHD patients predicts mortality independent of concomitant presence or absence of inflammatory response. Prevention of, and timely intervention to treat uremic malnutrition by suitable means are necessary independent of the presence and/or therapy of inflammation in terms of improving clinical outcomes in CHD patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Dialysis modality preference of patients with CKD and family caregivers: a discrete-choice study.

              Dialysis modality preferences of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and family caregivers are important, yet rarely quantified. Prospective, unlabeled, discrete-choice experiment with random-parameter logit analysis. Adults with stages 3-5 CKD and caregivers educated about dialysis treatment options from 8 Australian renal clinics. Preferences for and trade-offs between the dialysis treatment attributes of life expectancy, number of hospital visits per week, ability to travel, hours per treatment, treatment time of day, subsidized transport service, and flexibility of treatment schedule. Results presented as ORs for preferring home-based or in-center dialysis to conservative care. 105 predialysis patients and 73 family caregivers completed the study. Median patient age was 63 years, and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was 18.1 (range, 6-34) mL/min/1.73 m(2). Median caregiver age was 61 years. Home-based dialysis (either peritoneal or home hemodialysis) was chosen by patients in 65% of choice sets; in-center dialysis, in 35%; and conservative care, in 10%. For caregivers, this was 72%, 25%, and 3%, respectively. Both patients and caregivers preferred longer rather than shorter hours of dialysis (ORs of 2.02 [95% CI, 1.51-2.70] and 2.67 [95% CI, 1.85-3.85] for patients and caregivers, respectively), but were less likely to choose nocturnal than daytime dialysis (ORs of 0.07 [95% CI, 0.01-0.75] and 0.03 [95% CI, 0.01-0.20]). Patients were willing to forgo 23 (95% CI, 19-27) months of life expectancy with home-based dialysis to decrease their travel restrictions. For caregivers, this was 17 (95% CI, 16-18) patient-months. Data were limited to stated preferences rather than actual choice of dialysis modality. Our study suggests that it is rare for caregivers to prefer conservative nondialytic care for family members with CKD. Home-based dialysis modalities that enable patients and their family members to travel with minimal restriction would be strongly aligned with the preferences of both parties. Copyright © 2012 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
                CJASN
                American Society of Nephrology (ASN)
                1555-9041
                1555-905X
                November 14 2019
                : CJN.01970219
                Article
                10.2215/CJN.01970219
                6946084
                31727617
                98621cfd-32cc-497f-a232-6be395d27620
                © 2019
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article