Search

IntroductionMost patients with kidney failure commence and continue hemodialysis (HD) thrice weekly. Incremental initiation (defined as HD less than thrice weekly) is increasingly considered to be safe and less burdensome, but little is known about patients' perspectives. We aimed to describe patients' priorities and concerns regarding incremental HD.MethodsPatients currently, previously, or soon to be receiving HD in Australia participated in two 90-minute online workshops to discuss views about HD focusing on incremental start and priorities for trial outcomes. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. Outcomes were ranked on the basis of the sum of participants' priority scores (i.e., single allocation of 3 points for most important, 2 for second, and 1 for third most important outcome).ResultsAll 26 participants (1 caregiver and 25 patients) preferred an incremental HD approach. The top prioritized outcomes were quality of life (QOL) (56 points), residual kidney function (RKF) (27 points), and mortality (16 points). The following 4 themes underpinning outcome priorities, experience, and safety concerns were identified: (i) unpreparedness and pressure to adapt, (ii) disruption to daily living, (iii) threats to safety, and (iv) hope and future planning.ConclusionPatients with kidney failure preferred an incremental start to HD to minimize disruption to daily living and reduce the negative impacts on their education, ability to work, and family life. QOL was the most critically important outcome, followed by RKF and survival.

International audience; Introduction: 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.Areas covered: 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.Expert opinion: 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.

BackgroundWhile clinical guidelines recommend that residual kidney function (RKF) is measured in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients, 24-h urine collection is cumbersome and prone to errors. We wished to determine whether an equation using serum β2-microglobulin (β2M) could prove of clinical benefit in estimating RKF and identifying patients who could start PD with incremental prescriptions.MethodsWe measured serum β2M in consecutive PD outpatients recently starting dialysis with continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD) or automated PD (APD), attending a single tertiary hospital for their routine clinical visit. RKF was defined as the mean of 24-h urine clearances of creatinine and urea. An equation estimating RKF (eRKF) was generated based on serum β2M levels on a randomly selected modelling group.ResultsWe included 511 patients, of whom 351 in the modelling group and 150 in the validation group. Mean age was 58.7 ± 15.8, 307 (60.0%) were men and median RKF value was 4.5 (2.4–6.5) mL/min/1.73 m2. In the validation group, an equation based on β2M, creatinine, urea, age and gender showed minimal bias of − 0.1 mL/min/1.73 m2to estimate RKF. Area under the receiving operator characteristic curve was 0.915 to detect RKF ≥ 2 mL/min/1.73 m2.ConclusionAn equation based on serum β2M concentration would not be able to replace 24-h urine collection as the standard of care when an exact measurement of RKF is required. However, it could prove useful in identifying patients suitable for an incremental PD prescription and for monitoring RKF in individuals unable to reliably collect urine.Graphic abstract

Incremental peritoneal dialysis (PD), defined as less than “standard dose” PD prescription, has a number of possible benefits, including better preservation of residual kidney function (RKF), reduced risk of peritonitis, lower peritoneal glucose exposure, lesser environmental impact, and reduced costs. Patients commencing PD are often new to kidney replacement therapy and possess substantial RKF, which may allow safe delivery of an incremental prescription, often in the form of lower frequency or duration of PD. This has the potential to help improve quality of life (QOL) and life participation through reducing time requirements and burden of treatment. Alternatively, incremental PD could potentially contribute to reduced small solute clearance, fluid overload, or patient reluctance to increase dialysis prescription when later needed. This review discusses the definition, rationale, uptake, potential advantages and disadvantages, and clinical trial evidence pertaining to the use of incremental PD.

The prescription of hemodialysis (HD) in patients with incident end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is fundamentally empirical. The abrupt transition from nondialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD) to thrice-weekly in-center HD of much the same dialysis intensity as in those with prevalent ESKD underappreciates the progressive nature of kidney disease whereby the decline in renal function has been gradual and ongoing—including at the time of HD initiation. Adjuvant pharmacologic treatment (i.e., diuretics, acid buffers, potassium binders), coupled with residual kidney function (RKF), can complement an initial HD regimen of lower intensity. Barriers to less intensive HD in incident ESKD include risk of inadequate clearance of uremic toxins due to variable and unexpected loss of RKF, lack of patient adherence to assessments of RKF or adjustment of HD intensity, increased burden for all stakeholders in the dialysis units, and negative financial repercussions. A stepped dialysis regimen with scheduled transition from time-delineated twice-weekly HD to thrice-weekly HD could represent an effective and safe strategy to standardize incremental HD in patients with CKD transitioning to early-stage ESKD. Patients’ adherence and survival as well as other clinical outcomes should be rigorously evaluated in clinical trials before large-scale implementation of different incremental schedules of HD. This review discusses potential benefits of and barriers to alternative dialysis regimens in patients with incident ESKD, with emphasis on twice-weekly HD with pharmacologic therapy, and summarizes in-progress clinical trials of incremental HD schedules. Keywords: clinical trials, hemodialysis, incremental dialysis, transition, twice-weekly

Incremental haemodialysis has the potential to allow better preservation of renal function, is less invasive to the patient and has lower cost. Despite these advantages, it is not commonly applied. This may be due to uncertainty about how to account for renal function in the prescription of dialysis and measurement of dose. In this issue, Vartia describes the practical basis for including the effect of renal function in the prescription and quantification of dialysis. He uses a well-known and validated urea kinetic model to calculate time average urea concentrations and the equivalent renal clearance (EKR) from dialysis. The effect of renal function is amplified by a weighting factor to account for the relatively greater effect of renal function compared with dialysis with the same urea clearance. In that way, patients on differing dialysis regimens can be dialysed with the same target dose. A further step would be to use a downward adjusting factor for dialysis to convert the urea clearance by dialysis (as EKR) to a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) equivalent. A factor of 0.75 is suggested. In that way, dialysis dose can be reported as GFR equivalent in mL/min/1.73 m2, comparable between different types of dialysis and also to renal function without dialysis.

Resumen Introducción: El interés por preservar la función renal residual una vez iniciado un tratamiento renal sustitutivo (TRS) es notorio en técnicas como la diálisis peritoneal pero es menor en hemodiálisis (HD). En nuestro centro la pauta de diálisis incremental (2 HD/semana) ha sido una opción posible para un grupo de pacientes. Mostramos nuestra experiencia con dicha pauta desde marzo de 2008. Material y métodos: Incluimos a pacientes incidentes con diuresis residual > 1.000 ml/24 h, estabilidad clínica, ausencia de edemas, ausencia de hiperpotasemia > 6,5 mEq/l y de fosforemia > 6 mg/dl, con aceptable comprensión de los cuidados dietéticos. Fueron criterios de exclusión: la inestabilidad clínica, el no cumplimiento dietético ni médico y las alteraciones analíticas referidas. Resultados: Veinticuatro pacientes han sido incluidos en la técnica incremental. La edad media al inicio de TRS fue de 60 (15 años. El tiempo medio en técnica incremental fue de 19 (18 meses (rango: 7-80), con una permanencia media en TRS de 31 (23 meses (rango: 12-86). Los motivos de cambio a 3 HD/semana fueron: 6 pacientes por parámetros analíticos, 2 por episodios de insuficiencia cardiaca, uno por mal cumplimiento terapéutico y 3 por recibir un injerto renal. La diuresis residual desciende en el primer año de 2.106 (606 ml/día a 1.545 (558 (p = 0,07) junto con el aclaramiento de urea y la función renal residual calculada, basal de 5,7 (1,5 vs. 3,8 (1,9 ml/min al año (p = 0,01) y basal de 8,9 (2,4 vs. 6,9 (4,3 al año (p = 0,28), respectivamente. Conclusiones: La HD incremental, con 2 sesiones de HD/semana, puede ser una alternativa en un grupo seleccionado de pacientes. Esta modalidad puede preservar la función renal residual en buena medida, al menos durante el primer año. Aunque probablemente no sea aplicable a todos los pacientes que inician TRS, puede y debe ser una alternativa inicial que considerar. Abstract Introduction: The interest in the preservation of residual kidney function on starting renal replacement therapy (RRT) is very common in techniques such as peritoneal dialysis but less so in haemodialysis (HD). In our centre the pattern of incremental dialysis (2 HD/week) has been an option for a group of patients. Here we share our experience with this regimen from March 2008. Material and methods: We included incident patients with residual diuresis > 1,000 ml/24 h, clinical stability, absence of oedema, absence of hyperkalaemia > 6.5 mEq/l and phosphoremia > 6 mg/dl, with acceptable comprehension of dietetic care. Exclusion criteria were: Clinical instability, no dietary or medical compliance and the afore mentioned laboratory abnormalities. Results: A total of 24 patients were included in incremental technique. The mean age at start of RRT was 60 (15 years. The average time on incremental technique was 19 (18 months (range: 7-80), with a mean time on dialysis of 31 (23 months (range: 12-86). The reasons for transfer to thrice-weekly HD were: in 6 patients due to laboratory tests, in 2 patients for heart failure events, one for poor compliance and 3 for receiving a kidney graft. The residual diuresis decreased in the first year from 2,106 (606 ml/day to 1,545 (558 (P = .17) with the urea clearance and calculated residual renal function, basal 5.7 (1.5 vs. 3.8 (1.9 ml/min per year (P = .01) and basal 8.9 (2.4 vs. 6.9 (4.3 per year (P = .28), respectively. Conclusions: Incremental HD treatment, with twice-weekly HD, may be an alternative in selected patients. This approach can largely preserve residual renal function at least for the first year. Although this pattern probably is not applicable to all patients starting RRT, it can and should be an initial alternative to consider.

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.

Introduction Incremental dialysis consists in prescribing a dialysis dose aimed towards maintaining total solute clearance (renal + dialysis) near the targets set by guidelines. Incremental peritoneal dialysis (incrPD) is defined as one or two dwell-times per day on CAPD, whereas standard peritoneal dialysis (stPD) consists in three-four dwell-times per day. Patients and methods Single-centre cohort study. Enrollement period: January 2002–December 2007; end of follow up (FU): December 2012. Inclusion criteria: incident patients with FU ≥6 months, initial residual renal function (RRF) 3–10 ml/min/1.73 sqm BSA, renal indication for PD. Results Median incrPD duration was 17 months (I–III Q: 10; 30). There were no statistically significant differences between 29 patients on incrPD and 76 on stPD regarding: clinical, demographic and anthropometric characteristics at the beginning of treatment, adequacy indices, peritonitis-free survival (peritonitis incidence: 1/135 months-patients in incrPD vs. 1/52 months-patients in stPD) and patient survival. During the first 6 months, RRF remained stable in incrPD (6.20 ± 2.02 vs. 6.08 ± 1.47 ml/min/1.73 sqm BSA; p = 0.792) whereas it decreased in stPD (4.48 ± 2.12 vs. 5.61 ± 1.49; p

There is no simple way to prescribe hemodialysis. Changes in the dialysis population, improvements in dialysis techniques, and different attitudes towards the initiation of dialysis have influenced treatment goals and, consequently, dialysis prescription. However, in clinical practice prescription of dialysis still often follows a “one size fits all” rule, and there is no agreed distinction between treatment goals for the younger, lower-risk population, and for older, high comorbidity patients. In the younger dialysis population, efficiency is our main goal, as assessed by the demonstrated close relationship between depuration (tested by kinetic adequacy) and survival. In the ageing dialysis population, tolerance is probably a better objective: “good dialysis” should allow the patient to attain a stable metabolic balance with minimal dialysis-related morbidity. We would like therefore to open the discussion on a personalized approach to dialysis prescription, focused on efficiency in younger patients and on tolerance in older ones, based on life expectancy, comorbidity, residual kidney function, and nutritional status, with particular attention placed on elderly, high-comorbidity populations, such as the ones presently treated in most European centers. Prescription of dialysis includes reaching decisions on the following elements: dialysis modality (hemodialysis (HD) or hemodiafiltration (HDF)); type of membrane (permeability, surface); and the frequency and duration of sessions. Blood and dialysate flow, anticoagulation, and reinfusion (in HDF) are also briefly discussed. The approach described in this concept paper was developed considering the following items: nutritional markers and integrated scores (albumin, pre-albumin, cholesterol; body size, Body Mass Index (BMI), Malnutrition Inflammation Score (MIS), and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA)); life expectancy (age, comorbidity (Charlson Index), and dialysis vintage); kinetic goals (Kt/V, normalized protein catabolic rate (n-PCR), calcium phosphate, parathyroid hormone (PTH), beta-2 microglobulin); technical aspects including vascular access (fistula versus catheter, degree of functionality); residual kidney function and weight gain; and dialysis tolerance (intradialytic hypotension, post-dialysis fatigue, and subjective evaluation of the effect of dialysis on quality of life). In the era of personalized medicine, we hope the approach described in this concept paper, which requires validation but has the merit of providing innovation, may be a first step towards raising attention on this issue and will be of help in guiding dialysis choices that exploit the extraordinary potential of the present dialysis “menu”.

The interest in the preservation of residual kidney function on starting renal replacement therapy (RRT) is very common in techniques such as peritoneal dialysis but less so in haemodialysis (HD). In our centre the pattern of incremental dialysis (2 HD/week) has been an option for a group of patients. Here we share our experience with this regimen from March 2008.

Identical decline of residual renal function in high-flux biocompatible hemodialysis and CAPD. Background Patients on conventional hemodialysis lose residual renal function more rapidly than patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). The effect of dialysis using synthetic membranes and ultrapure water is less clear. Methods The decline of urea clearance was compared in a cohort of 475 incident end-stage renal failure patients who received treatment with CAPD ( N = 175) or hemodialysis (HD) utilizing high-flux polysulphone membranes, ultrapure water, and bicarbonate as the buffer ( N = 300). Results CAPD patients were significantly younger, fitter (lower comorbidity severity score), less dependent (higher Karnofsky performance score) and less likely to have presented late than HD patients. There was no difference in the mean urea clearance in each group at dialysis initiation, or at any 6-month time point during the ensuing 48 months. This was true even after exclusion of patients who had died in the first year after initiation, those transferred to another dialysis modality, or those who had been transplanted. Only age and chronic interstitial disease predicted retention of urea clearance at one year. The rate of decline of urea clearance was similar in pre- and post-dialysis initiation phases, though there may have been a step-decline of about 2mL/min at initiation, which requires further investigation. Conclusions In hemodialysis using high-flux biocompatible membranes and ultrapure water, residual renal function declines at a rate indistinguishable from that in CAPD. This may have important implications, since preservation of residual renal function has major benefits and is a valid therapeutic goal.

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.