Article

Hospitalization in Daily Home Hemodialysis and Matched Thrice-Weekly In-Center Hemodialysis Patients

Chronic Disease Research Group, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, MN 55404, USA.
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology (Impact Factor: 9.47). 02/2012; 23(5):895-904. DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2011080761
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Frequent hemodialysis improves cardiovascular surrogates and quality-of-life indicators, but its effect on survival remains unclear. We used a matched-cohort design to assess relative mortality in daily home hemodialysis and thrice-weekly in-center hemodialysis patients between 2005 and 2008. We matched 1873 home hemodialysis patients with 9365 in-center patients (i.e., 1:5 ratio) selected from the prevalent population in the US Renal Data System database. Matching variables included first date of follow-up, demographic characteristics, and measures of disease severity. The cumulative incidence of death was 19.2% and 21.7% in the home hemodialysis and in-center patients, respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, home hemodialysis associated with a 13% lower risk for all-cause mortality than in-center hemodialysis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.78-0.97). Cause-specific mortality HRs were 0.92 (95% CI, 0.78-1.09) for cardiovascular disease, 1.13 (95% CI, 0.84-1.53) for infection, 0.63 (95% CI, 0.41-0.95) for cachexia/dialysis withdrawal, 1.06 (95% CI, 0.81-1.37) for other specified cause, and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44-0.79) for unknown cause. Findings were similar using as-treated analyses. We did not detect statistically significant evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effects in subgroup analyses. In summary, these data suggest that relative to thrice-weekly in-center hemodialysis, daily home hemodialysis associates with modest improvements in survival. Continued surveillance should strengthen inference about causes of mortality and determine whether treatment effects are homogeneous throughout the dialysis population.

0 Followers
 · 
157 Views
  • Source
    American Journal of Kidney Diseases 01/2015; 65(1):6-8. DOI:10.1053/j.ajkd.2014.08.012 · 5.76 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients with chronic end stage renal disease need dialysis to survive; however, they also need a treatment that suits their life situation. It is important that healthcare providers provide reliable, up-to-date information about different dialysis treatment options. Since home haemodialysis is a relatively new treatment, it is necessary to gather more knowledge about what the treatment entails from the patient's perspective. The aim of this study was to describe patients' experiences of having home haemodialysis. To gain access to the patients' experiences, they were asked to write narratives, which describe both their good and bad experiences of life with the treatment. The narratives were analysed with a qualitative method. The results of this analysis are subdivided into five themes: freedom to be at home and control their own treatment, feeling of being alone with the responsibility, changes in the home environment, need for support, and security and well-being with home haemodialysis. The conclusion is that home haemodialysis provides a certain level of freedom, but the freedom is limited as the treatment itself is restrictive. In order to improve patients' experiences with home haemodialysis, more research based on patients' experiences is needed and it is necessary to involve the patients in the development of the care.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Over 40% of patients with end stage renal disease in the United States were treated with home hemodialysis (HHD) in the early 1970's. However, this number declined rapidly over the ensuing decades so that the overwhelming majority of patients were treated in-centre 3 times per week on a 3-4 hour schedule. Poor outcomes for patients treated in this fashion led to a renewed interest in home hemodialysis, with more intensive dialysis schedules including short daily (SDHD) and nocturnal (NHD). The relative infancy of these treatment schedules means that there is a paucity of data on 'how to do it'. We undertook a systematic survey of home hemodialysis programs in Canada to describe current practice patterns. Development and deployment of a qualitative survey instrument. Community and academic HHD programs in Canada. Physicians, nurses and technologists. Programmatic approaches to patient selection, delivery of dialysis, human resources available, and follow up. We developed the survey instrument in three phases. A focus group of Canadian nephrologists with expertise in NHD or SDHD discussed the scope the study and wrote questions on 11 domains. Three nephrologists familiar with all aspects of HHD delivery reviewed this for content validity, followed by further feedback from the whole group. Multidisciplinary teams at three sites pretested the survey and further suggestions were incorporated. In July 2010 we distributed the survey electronically to all renal programs known to offer HHD according to the Canadian Organ Replacement Registry. We compiled the survey results using qualitative and quantitative methods, as appropriate. Of the academic and community programs that were invited to participate, 80% and 63%, respectively, completed the survey. We observed wide variation in programmatic approaches to patient recruitment, human resources, equipment, water, vascular access, patient training, dialysis prescription, home requirements, patient follow up, medications, and the approach to non-adherent patients. Cross-sectional survey, unable to link variation to outcomes. Competition for patients between HHD and home peritoneal dialysis means that case mix for HHD may also vary between centres. There is wide variation between programs in all domains of HHD delivery in Canada. We plan further study of the extent to which differences in approach are related to outcomes.
    06/2014; 1:11. DOI:10.1186/2054-3581-1-11