Robert P. Pauly

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.

Survival among nocturnal home haemodialysis patients compared to kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND Kidney transplantation is the gold standard renal replacement therapy. Nocturnal haemodialysis (NHD) is an intensive dialysis modality (6-8 h/session, 3-7 sessions/week) associated with a significant improvement of clinical and biochemical parameters compared to conventional dialysis. To date, no studies have compared survival in patients treated with NHD and kidney transplantation. METHODS Using data from two regional NHD programmes and the USRDS from 1994 to 2006, we performed a matched cohort study comparing survival between NHD and deceased and living donor kidney transplantation (DTX and LTX) by randomly matching NHD patients to transplant recipients in a 1:3:3 ratio. The independent association of treatment modality with survival was determined using Cox multivariate regression. RESULTS The total study population consisted of 177 NHD patients matched to 1062 DTX and LTX recipients (total 1239 patients) followed for a maximum of 12.4 years. During the follow-up period, the proportion of deaths among NHD, DTX and LTX patients was 14.7%, 14.3% and 8.5%, respectively (P = 0.006). We found no difference in the adjusted survival between NHD and DTX (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.50-1.51; NHD reference group), while LTX survival was better (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28-0.91). CONCLUSIONS These results indicate that NHD and DTX survival is comparable, and suggest that this intensive dialysis modality may be a bridge to transplantation or even a suitable alternative in the absence of LTX in the current era of growing transplant waiting lists and organ shortage.

Patient and Technique Survival among a Canadian Multicenter Nocturnal Home Hemodialysis Cohort

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES As a result of improved clinical and quality-of-life outcomes compared with conventional hemodialysis, interest in nocturnal home hemodialysis (NHD) has steadily increased in the past decade; however, little is known about the flow of patients through NHD programs or about patient-specific predictors of mortality or technique failure associated with this modality. This study addressed this gap in knowledge. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS This study included 247 NHD patients of the Canadian Slow Long nightly ExtEnded dialysis Programs (CAN-SLEEP) cohort from 1994 through 2006 inclusive. The association between program- and patient-specific variables and risk for adverse outcomes was determined using uni- and multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS A total of 14.6% of the cohort experienced death or technique failure. Unadjusted 1- and 5-year adverse event-free survival was 95.2 and 80.1%, respectively. Significant predictors of a composite of mortality and technique failure included advanced age (P < 0.001), diabetes (P < 0.001), central venous catheter use (P = 0.01), and inability to perform NHD independently (P = 0.009) and were adjusted for center effect. Weekly frequency of NHD was not predictive. Age and diabetes remained significant with multivariable analysis (hazard ratio 1.07 and 2.64, respectively). Unadjusted 1- and 5-year technique survival was 97.9 and 95.2%, respectively. Only age was a significant predictor of technique failure. CONCLUSIONS NHD is associated with excellent adverse event-free survival. This study underscores the importance of modality-specific predictors in the success of home hemodialysis, as well as favorable baseline characteristics such as younger age and the absence of diabetes.

Canadian Society of Nephrology guidelines for the management of patients with ESRD treated with intensive hemodialysis.

Intensive (longer and more frequent) hemodialysis has emerged as an alternative to conventional hemodialysis for the treatment of patients with end-stage renal disease. However, given the differences in dialysis delivery and models of care associated with intensive dialysis, alternative approaches to patient management may be required. The purpose of this work was to develop a clinical practice guideline for the Canadian Society of Nephrology. We applied the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for guideline development and performed targeted systematic reviews and meta-analysis (when appropriate) to address prioritized clinical management questions. We included studies addressing the treatment of patients with end-stage renal disease with short daily (≥5 days per week, <3 hours per session), long (3-4 days per week, ≥5.5 hours per session), or long-frequent (≥5 days per week, ≥5.5 hours per session) hemodialysis. We included clinical trials and observational studies with or without a control arm (1990 and later). Based on a prioritization exercise, 6 interventions of interest included optimal vascular access type, buttonhole cannulation, antimicrobial prophylaxis for buttonhole cannulation, closed connector devices, and dialysate calcium and dialysate phosphate additives for patients receiving intensive hemodialysis. We developed 6 recommendations addressing the interventions of interest. Overall quality of the evidence was very low and all recommendations were conditional. We provide detailed commentaries to guide in shared decision making. The main limitation was the very low overall quality of evidence that precluded strong recommendations. Most included studies were small single-arm observational studies. Three randomized controlled trials were applicable, but provided only indirect evidence. Published information for patient values and preference was lacking. In conclusion, we provide 6 recommendations for the practice of intensive hemodialysis. However, due to very low-quality evidence, all recommendations were conditional. We therefore also highlight priorities for future research.

Economic Evaluation of Frequent Home Nocturnal Hemodialysis Based on a Randomized Controlled Trial

Provider and patient enthusiasm for frequent home nocturnal hemodialysis (FHNHD) has been renewed; however, the cost-effectiveness of this technique is unknown. We performed a cost-utility analysis of FHNHD compared with conventional hemodialysis (CvHD; 4 hours three times per week) from a health payer perspective over a lifetime horizon using patient information from the Alberta NHD randomized controlled trial. Costs, including training costs, were obtained using microcosting and administrative data (CAN

Vascular Access for Intensive Maintenance Hemodialysis: A Systematic Review for a Canadian Society of Nephrology Clinical Practice Guideline

2012). We determined the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Robustness was assessed using scenario, sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Compared with CvHD (61% in-center, 14% satellite, and 25% home dialysis), FHNHD led to incremental cost savings (-

Procedure-Related Serious Adverse Events Among Home Hemodialysis Patients: A Quality Assurance Perspective

6700) and an additional 0.38 QALYs. In sensitivity analyses, when the annual probability of technique failure with FHNHD increased from 7.6% (reference case) to ≥19%, FHNHD became unattractive (>

Left ventricular dysfunction in the haemodialysis population

75,000/QALY). The cost/QALY gained became

Dialysate Calcium Concentration and Mineral Metabolism in Long and Long-Frequent Hemodialysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis for a Canadian Society of Nephrology Clinical Practice Guideline

13,000 if average training time for FHNHD increased from 3.7 to 6 weeks. In scenarios with alternate comparator modalities, FHNHD remained dominant compared with in-center CvHD; cost/QALYs gained were

Nocturnal Home Hemodialysis and Short Daily Hemodialysis Compared With Kidney Transplantation: Emerging Data in a New Era

18,500,