Search

Chronic kidney disease and the need for kidney replacement therapy have increased dramatically in recent decades. Forecasts for the coming years predict an even greater increase, especially in low- and middle-income countries, due to the rise in metabolic and cardiovascular diseases and the aging population. Access to kidney replacement treatments may not be available to all patients, making it especially strategic to set up therapy programs that can ensure the best possible treatment for the greatest number of patients. The choice of the "ideal" kidney replacement therapy often conflicts with medical availability and the patient's tolerance. This paper discusses the pros and cons of various kidney replacement therapy options and their real-world applicability limits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traditionally, patients that develop progressive chronic kidney disease in need of kidney replacement therapy are prescribed thrice weekly in-center hemodialysis sessions at the beginning of therapy. This empiric prescription is based on historic trials that were comprised of mostly prevalent patients. Incremental hemodialysis is the process of performing < 3 sessions of dialysis per week or limiting dialysis dose by duration at the initial onset of treatment to provide a more gradual transition, mimicking the progressive nature of kidney disease. Adding clearance contributions from residual kidney function is the standard of care with peritoneal dialysis but has not routinely been employed with hemodialysis. Accounting for residual kidney function accompanied by improvement in adjuvant pharmacotherapy, such as newer potassium binding agents and dietary modification, can augment dialytic clearances and allow for an incremental approach. Utilizing incremental dialysis has been associated with both preserving residual kidney function as well as improving patient quality of life. Barriers to this approach include concerns regarding patient acceptance of dialysis prescription changes, adherence to therapy, and provider factors that would require a restructuring of the current thrice weekly hemodialysis rubric. Candidacy for incremental therapy has shown the best outcomes when urea clearances exceed 3 mL/min and urine volumes are > 500 mL/day, although these measures have been deemed conservative. A significant amount of retrospective and registry data has been supportive of initiating incremental hemodialysis and several pilot studies have shown the feasibility of implementing such an approach. Larger, randomized control trials are needed to fully evaluate safety and efficacy to allow for more widespread acceptance of this patient-centered approach to chronic kidney disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Incremental peritoneal dialysis (PD) is recommended as a component of high‐quality care by the international society for PD; however, its feasibility and clinical outcomes have not been widely reported. The aim of this study is to describe our experience with incremental PD. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of incident PD patients at Eastern Health between 2015 and 2019. Patients who stopped PD within 30 days were excluded. Incremental PD was defined in CAPD as using <8 L/day of exchange volume and in automated PD as dialysing without a last fill. Dialysis modality accorded with patient and physician preferences. Results: The 96 patients were included in this study; 54 with incremental PD. Compared to full‐dose PD, incremental PD patients were more likely to be female, had less comorbid diabetes (28% vs. 52%) and higher residual kidney function (RKF) (Kt/V 2.0 ± 0.7 vs. 1.4 ± 0.7). Age, BMI and starting eGFR did not differ between groups. Incremental PD exposed patients to lower exchange volumes (4.4 ± 2.1 vs. 8.5 ± 1.1 L/day), glucose load (46 ± 41 g/day vs. 119 ± 46) and was associated with a longer peritonitis‐free survival. PD technique survival, rates of peritonitis or hospitalization were comparable between groups. Predictors for longer incremental PD use included older age and higher starting eGFR. Conclusions: Incremental PD is a feasible, goal‐directed initial prescription in patients with RKF with comparable peritonitis rates and technique survival. Validation of this prescription in prospective studies is warranted. SUMMARY AT A GLANCE: The authors retrospectively compared patients on incremental PD with standard PD dose in ANZ, and found that those treated with an incremental strategy had a longer peritonitis‐free period and comparable rates of peritonitis, hospitalization and technique survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The search for the 'perfect' renal replacement therapy has been paralleled by the search for the perfect biomarkers for assessing dialysis adequacy. Three main families of markers have been assessed: small molecules (prototype: urea); middle molecules (prototype β2-microglobulin); comprehensive and nutritional markers (prototype of the simplified assessment, albumin levels; composite indexes as malnutrition-inflammation score). After an era of standardization of dialysis treatment, personalized dialysis schedules are increasingly proposed, challenging the dogma of thrice-weekly hemodialysis. In this review, we describe the advantages and limitations of the approaches mentioned above, focusing on the open questions regarding personalized schedules and incremental hemodialysis. In the era of personalized dialysis, the assessment of dialysis adequacy should be likewise personalized, due to the limits of 'one size fits all' approaches. We have tried to summarize some of the relevant issues regarding the determination of dialysis adequacy, attempting to adapt them to an elderly, highly comorbidity population, which would probably benefit from tailor-made dialysis prescriptions. While no single biomarker allows precisely tailoring the dialysis dose, we suggest using a combination of clinical and biological markers to prescribe dialysis according to comorbidity, life expectancy, residual kidney function, and small and medium-size molecule depuration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Enfermería Nefrológica is the property of Sociedad Espanola de Enfermeria Nefrologica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Residual kidney function (RKF) conveys a survival benefit among dialysis patients, but the mechanism remains unclear. Improved volume control, clearance of protein-bound and middle molecules, reduced inflammation and preserved erythropoietin and vitamin D production are among the proposed mechanisms. Preservation of RKF requires techniques to measure it accurately to be able to uncover factors that accelerate its loss and interventions that preserve it and ultimately to individualize therapy. The average of renal creatinine and urea clearance provides a superior estimate of RKF in dialysis patients, when compared with daily urine volume. However, both involve the difficult task of obtaining an accurate 24-h urine sample.Summary: In this article, we first review the definition and measurement of RKF, including newly proposed markers such as serum levels of beta2-microglobulin, cystatin C and beta-trace protein. We then discuss the predictors of RKF loss in new dialysis patients. We review several strategies to preserve RKF such as renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade, incremental dialysis, use of biocompatible membranes and ultrapure dialysate in hemodialysis (HD) patients, and use of biocompatible solutions in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. Despite their generally adverse effects on renal function, aminoglycoside antibiotics have not been shown to have adverse effects on RKF in well-hydrated patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Presently, the roles of better blood pressure control, diuretic usage, diet, and dialysis modality on RKF remain to be clearly established. Key Messages: RKF is an important and favorable prognostic indicator of reduced morbidity, mortality, and higher quality of life in both PD an HD patients. Further investigation is warranted to uncover factors that protect or impair RKF. This should lead to improved quality of life and prolonged lifespan in patients with ESRD and cost-reduction through patient centeredness, individualized therapy, and precision medicine approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently the concept that prescription of chronic hemodialysis (HD) start should be tailored based on residual renal function (RRF) and urine output (UO) has been revived from the past and called infrequent or incremental dialysis. It mainly consists in prescribing 1 or 2 HD sessions per week instead of what has become the standard thrice-weekly HD. It is both surprising and fascinating that almost 60 years after the first end-stage kidney disease patient was treated by Scribner et al. [Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 1960; 6: 114–122], the nephrology community still questions the best way to start HD therapy. This comforting process is the result of pieces of evidence accumulated with time such as that RRF is associated with better outcomes that starting HD therapy favors the loss of RRF and/or UO and also results in a high rate of deaths in the first weeks of HD therapy. Through this review, we support the idea that when the decision to start HD therapy is made, ideally with the full collaboration of the patient, it is necessary to be efficient to alleviate uremic symptoms, to correct the fluid overload and to allow a full recovery from the uremic state associated with the late stages of non-dialysis chronic kidney disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The 2006 Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative guidelines suggest twice-weekly or incremental hemodialysis for patients with substantial residual kidney function (RKF). However, in most affluent nations de novo and abrupt transition to thrice-weekly hemodialysis is routinely prescribed for all dialysis-naïve patients regardless of their RKF. We review historical developments in hemodialysis therapy initiation and revisit twice-weekly hemodialysis as an individualized, incremental treatment especially upon first transitioning to hemodialysis therapy. Summary: In the 1960's, hemodialysis treatment was first offered as a life-sustaining treatment in the form of long sessions (≥10 hours) administered every 5 to 7 days. Twice- and then thrice-weekly treatment regimens were subsequently developed to prevent uremic symptoms on a long-term basis. The thrice-weekly regimen has since become the 'standard of care' despite a lack of comparative studies. Some clinical studies have shown benefits of high hemodialysis dose by more frequent or longer treatment times mainly among patients with limited or no RKF. Conversely, in selected patients with higher levels of RKF and particularly higher urine volume, incremental or twice-weekly hemodialysis may preserve RKF and vascular access longer without compromising clinical outcomes. Proposed criteria for twice-weekly hemodialysis include urine output >500 ml/day, limited interdialytic weight gain, smaller body size relative to RKF, and favorable nutritional status, quality of life, and comorbidity profile. Key Messages: Incremental hemodialysis including twice-weeklyregimens may be safe and cost-effective treatment regimens that provide better quality of life for incident dialysis patients who have substantial RKF. These proposed criteria may guide incremental hemodialysis frequency and warrant future randomized controlled trials. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Infrequent dialysis, namely once-a-week session combined with very low-protein, low-phosphorus diet supplemented with ketoacids was reported as a useful treatment schedule for ESRD patients with markedly reduced residual renal function but preserved urine output. This study reports our findings from the application of a weekly dialysis schedule plus less severe protein restriction (standard low-protein low-phosphorus diet) in stage 5 CKD patients with consistent dietary discipline. Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective controlled study, including 68 incident CKD patients followed in a pre-dialysis clinic with Glomerular Filtration Rate 5 to 10 ml/min/1.73/ m2 who became unstable on the only medical treatment. They were offered to begin a Combined Diet Dialysis Program (CDDP) or a standard thrice-a-week hemodialysis (THD): 38 patients joined the CDDP, whereas 30 patients chose THD. Patients were studied at baseline, 6 and 12 months; hospitalization and survival rate were followed-up for 24 months. Results: Volume output and residual renal function were maintained in the CDDP Group while those features dropped quickly in THD Group. Throughout the study, CDDP patients had a lower erythropoietin resistance index, lower β2 microglobulin levels and lower need for cinacalcet of phosphate binders than THD, and stable parameters of nutritional status. At 24 month follow-up, 39.4% of patients were still on CDDP; survival rates were 94.7% and 86.8% for CDDP and THD patients, respectively, but hospitalization rate was much higher in THD than in CDDP patients. The cost per patient per year resulted significantly lower in CDDP than in THD Group. Conclusions: This study shows that a CDDP served to protect the residual renal function, to maintain urine volume output and to preserve a good nutritional status. CDDP also blunted the rapid β2 microglobulin increase and resulted in better control of anemia and calcium-phosphate abnormalities. CDDP was also associated with a lower hospitalization rate and reduced need of erythropoietin, as well as of drugs used for treatment of calcium-phosphate abnormalities, thus leading to a significant cost-saving. We concluded that in selected ESRD patients with preserved urine output attitude to protein restriction, CDDP may be a beneficial choice for an incremental hemodialysis program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We analyzed the outcome of incremental dialysis with single nocturnal icodextrin exchange peritoneal dialysis (PD) as the initial treatment for end-stage kidney failure in patients who have significant residual renal function. All adult patients opting for PD as renal replacement therapy, having residual renal function, and urinary KT/V of 1.0 were offered incremental dialysis with single nocturnal icodextrin exchange as initial treatment. Adequacy of dialysis was calculated at 1, 3, and 6 months and then 6 monthly. Patients were shifted to conventional PD if short of adequacy or if clinically indicated. Median period on "Ico-alone" peritonitis, exit site infection rates, and patient survival, while on this protocol, were calculated. These outcomes were compared with the cohort of contemporary patients on conventional PD. Thirteen patients were initiated on "Ico-alone" dialysis between October 2006 and October 2011. The baseline characteristics were similar when compared with cohort of conventional PD patients, except urine volume, which was more in "Ico-alone" group (1265 ± 316 vs. 551 ± 504, P = 0.000). Total KT/V at 3 months (1.63 ± 0.6 vs. 1.7 ± 0.2, P = 0.6) and at 1 year (1.64 ± 0.5 vs. 1.53 ± 0.3, P = 0.6) was similar to the cohort of conventional PD patients. Median period on "Ico-alone" was 9.6 months. Peritonitis rate was 1 episode in 56.22 vs 25.29 patient-months and exit site infection was 1 episode in 56.2 vs 189.71 patient-months in "Ico-alone" and conventional group, respectively. Patient survival was 42.84 months in "Ico-alone" vs 25.29 months in conventional dialysis (P = 0.01). In conclusion, single icodextrin exchange offers adequate dialysis in patients with residual renal function (KT/V = 1) for a median period of 9 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Many haemodialysis patients have residual renal function (RRF), which as such is insufficient to maintain satisfactory quality of life but reduces the demands of treatment and improves outcomes. In incremental dialysis, the dose is adjusted according to RRF, but how should it be done? Methods. Urea generation rate (G) and distribution volume (V) were determined by the double-pool urea kinetic model in 225 haemodialysis sessions of 30 patients. The effect of different degrees of RRF on equivalent renal urea clearance (EKR), standard urea clearance (stdK) and urea concentrations and required treatment times to achieve the HEMO study standard dose equivalent EKR and stdK targets were studied by computer simulations. Results. Ignoring RRF leads to underestimation of EKR, stdK, urea generation rate and protein equivalent of nitrogen appearance. Both EKR and stdK increase linearly with renal urea clearance (Kr). The HEMO standard dose equivalent EKRc is 13.8 mL/min/40 L and stdK/V 2.29 /wk (9.1 mL/min/40 L). The required treatment time to achieve the HEMO-equivalent targets has an almost linear inverse relationship to Kr. If the HEMO standard dose equivalent EKR or stdK is used as the target, RRF may replace several hours of weekly dialysis treatment time. stdK appreciates RRF more than EKR. Conclusions. RRF is included in the original EKR and stdK concepts. EKR and stdK—determined by kinetic modelling—are promising measures of adequacy in incremental dialysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Allowing patients to live for decades without the function of a vital organ is a medical miracle, but one that is not without cost both in terms of morbidity and quality of life and in economic terms. Renal replacement therapy (RRT) consumes between 2% and 5% of the overall health care expenditure in countries where dialysis is available without restrictions. While transplantation is the preferred treatment in patients without contraindications, old age and comorbidity limit its indications, and low organ availability may result in long waiting times. As a consequence, 30–70% of the patients depend on dialysis, which remains the main determinant of the cost of RRT. Costs of dialysis are differently defined, and its reimbursement follows different rules. There are three main ways of establishing dialysis reimbursement. The first involves dividing dialysis into a series of elements and reimbursing each one separately (dialysis itself, medications, drugs, transportation, hospitalisation, etc.). The second, known as the capitation system, consists of merging these elements in a per capita reimbursement, while the third, usually called the bundle system, entails identifying a core of procedures intrinsically linked to treatment (e.g., dialysis sessions, tests, intradialyitc drugs). Each one has advantages and drawbacks, and impacts differently on the organization and delivery of care: payment per session may favour fragmentation and make a global appraisal difficult; a correct capitation system needs a careful correction for comorbidity, and may exacerbate competition between public and private settings, the latter aiming at selecting the least complex cases; a bundle system, in which the main elements linked to the dialysis sessions are considered together, may be a good compromise but risks penalising complex patients, and requires a rapid adaptation to treatment changes. Retarding dialysis is a clinical and economical goal, but the incentives for predialysis care are not established and its development may be unfavourable for the provider. A closer cooperation between policymakers, economists and nephrologists is needed to ensure a high quality of dialysis care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]