Reducing the harm associated in treating hyperkalaemia with insulin and dextrose.

Inpatient treatment of hyperkalaemia with insulin and dextrose can be complicated by iatrogenic hypoglycaemia. We sought to assess the incidence of hypoglycaemia in hospitalised patients with renal disease and assess the impact of the introduction of a local guideline incorporating the use of sodium zirconium cyclosilicate (SZC) for patients with moderate hyperkalaemia. After, establishing a significant burden of hypoglycaemia in the initial observation period, a requirement for hourly-capillary blood glucose monitoring (for up to 6 hours) following the administration of insulin for hyperkalaemia, was incorporated into the guidelines. The two-fold introduction of SZC alongside changes in patient care after the administration of insulin/dextrose, resulted in more appropriate use of insulin/dextrose as well as a significant (73%) reduction in the iatrogenic burden of hypoglycaemia (P=0.04).

Handgrip Strength Index: A Novel Parameter Which Quantifies Clinical Weakness in People on Haemodialysis.

OBJECTIVE: The muscle strength in people on haemodialysis is associated with nutritional status, quality of life, functional independence, and survival. Handgrip Strength (HGS) is simple to measure, but clinical interpretation is limited by the lack of reference ranges for a haemodialysis population. This study aims to define a novel parameter, HGS index, which quantifies degree of clinical weakness specific to a haemodialysis population and to test if this predicts survival. METHODS: In a cross-sectional single center study HGS was measured in stable participants on haemodialysis. HGS in the well-nourished subgroup, was used to develop a predictive equation for "expected" HGS according to demographic variables. This then was compared to observed HGS resulting in HGS index (%), an individualized parameter indicating weakness due to clinical variables while accounting for demographic contributors to strength. The association between HGS index and survival was explored in all participants. RESULTS: Among 427 well-nourished individuals on haemodialysis, HGS was strongly associated with demographic variables and predicted in males by the equation: HGS (kg) = 0.38∗height (cm) - 0.31∗age (years) - 18, and in females by the equation: HGS (kg) = 0.25∗height (cm) - 0.11∗age (years) - 16. Among 547 participants (22% with protein energy wasting), lower HGS index was associated with diabetes (P = .004), lower body mass index (BMI) (P = .005), lower albumin (P = .033), and longer dialysis vintage (P = .007). Over a mean observation period of 2.8 years, quintile of HGS index was strongly associated with survival (P = .023), and in a Cox proportional hazards model, the independent predictors of mortality were age, albumin, BMI and HGS index. CONCLUSION: HGS index, defined as observed relative to expected HGS, is an individualized measure of clinical weakness. It is a novel parameter which independently predicts survival. HGS index improves the detection of clinically relevant muscle weakness in people on haemodialysis, opening up the possibility of earlier, individualized interventions, and improving outcomes in this vulnerable group.

Predictors of iron versus erythropoietin responsiveness in anemic hemodialysis patients.

Anemia protocols for hemodialysis patients usually titrate erythropoietin (ESA) according to hemoglobin and iron according to a threshold of ferritin, with variable response seen. A universally optimum threshold for ferritin may be incorrect, and another view is that ESA and iron are alternative anemia treatments, which should be selected based on the likely response to each. Hemodialysis patients developing moderate anemia were randomised to treatment with either an increase in ESA or a course of intravenous iron. Over 2423 patient-months in 197 patients, there were 133 anemia episodes with randomized treatment. Treatment failure was seen in 20/66 patients treated with ESA and 20/67 patients treated with iron (30.3 vs. 29.9%, p = 1.0). Successful ESA treatment was associated with lower C-reactive protein (13.5 vs. 28.6 mg/L, p = 0.038) and lower previous ESA dose (6621 vs. 9273 µg/week, p = 0.097). Successful iron treatment was associated with lower reticulocyte hemoglobin (33.8 vs. 35.5 pg, p = 0.047), lower hepcidin (91.4 vs. 131.0 µg/ml, p = 0.021), and higher C-reactive protein (29.5 vs. 12.6 mg/L, p = 0.085). A four-variable iron preference score was developed to indicate the more favorable treatment, which in a retrospective analysis reduced treatment failure to 17%. Increased ESA and iron are equally effective, though treatment failure occurs in almost 30%. Baseline variables including hepcidin can predict treatment response, and a four-variable score shows promise in allowing directed treatment with improved response rates.

Severity of COVID-19 after Vaccination among Hemodialysis Patients: An Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patients receiving hemodialysis are at high risk from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and demonstrate impaired immune responses to vaccines. There have been several descriptions of their immunologic responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination, but few studies have described the clinical efficacy of vaccination in patients on hemodialysis. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In a multicenter observational study of the London hemodialysis population undergoing surveillance PCR testing during the period of vaccine rollout with BNT162b2 and AZD1222, all of those positive for SARS-CoV-2 were identified. Clinical outcomes were analyzed according to predictor variables, including vaccination status, using a mixed effects logistic regression model. Risk of infection was analyzed in a subgroup of the base population using a Cox proportional hazards model with vaccination status as a time-varying covariate. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 infection was identified in 1323 patients of different ethnicities (Asian/other, 30%; Black, 38%; and White, 32%), including 1047 (79%) unvaccinated, 86 (7%) after first-dose vaccination, and 190 (14%) after second-dose vaccination. The majority of patients had a mild course; however, 515 (39%) were hospitalized, and 172 (13%) died. Older age, diabetes, and immune suppression were associated with greater illness severity. In regression models adjusted for age, comorbidity, and time period, prior two-dose vaccination was associated with a 75% (95% confidence interval, 56 to 86) lower risk of admission and 88% (95% confidence interval, 70 to 95) fewer deaths compared with unvaccinated patients. No loss of protection was seen in patients over 65 years or with increasing time since vaccination, and no difference was seen between vaccine types. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate a substantially lower risk of severe COVID-19 after vaccination in patients on dialysis who become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Outcome and effect of vaccination in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection in hemodialysis patients: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Hemodialysis patients are at high risk of Covid-19, though vaccination has significant efficacy in preventing and reducing the severity of infection. Little information is available on disease severity and vaccine efficacy since the dissemination of the Omicron variant. METHODS: In a multi-center study, during a period of the epidemic driven by the Omicron variant, all hemodialysis patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 were identified. Outcomes were analyzed according to predictor variables including vaccination status. Risk of infection was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 infection was identified in 1126 patients including 200 (18%) unvaccinated, 56 (5%) post first dose, 433 (38%) post second dose, and 437 (39%) at least 7 days beyond their third dose. The majority of patients had a mild course but 160 (14%) were hospitalized and 28 (2%) died. In regression models adjusted for age and comorbidity, two-dose vaccination was associated with a 39% (95%CI: 2%-62%) reduction in admissions, but third doses provided additional protection, with a 51% (95%CI: 25%-69%) further reduction in admissions. Among 1265 patients at risk at the start of the observation period, SARS-CoV-2 infection was observed in 211 (17%). Two-dose vaccination was associated with a 41% (95%CI: 3%-64%) reduction in the incidence of infection, with no clear additional effect provided by third doses. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination in dialysis patients during an Omicron dominant period of the epidemic. Among those developing infection, severe illness was less common with prior vaccination, particularly after third vaccine doses.

Diagnosis of tuberculosis in dialysis and kidney transplant patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In patients with chronic kidney disease the risk of developing Tuberculosis is increased, while the presentation is often atypical making the diagnosis more difficult. The aim of this study is to describe the presentation of Tuberculosis in dialysis and kidney transplant patients, including the range of diagnostic approaches and the utility of different sample types. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASUREMENTS: In this retrospective study, case records of dialysis and kidney transplant patients were reviewed, including all those treated for Tuberculosis between January 2009 and December 2020. RESULTS: Over 12 years, there were 143 cases of Tuberculosis in 141 patients (aged 17-86, 50.4% male). Tuberculosis was most common in Asian patients (64%) and those receiving hemodialysis (82%), particularly during the first year after dialysis initiation (54% of dialysis cases). Non-pleural/pulmonary disease accounted 40% of cases, and non-organ-specific presenting features were prominent including fever, lymphadenopathy, and weight loss. The diagnosis was confirmed microbiologically or histologically in 87 cases (61%), with low sensitivity observed for many types of samples including sputum (18%) and pleural fluid (12%). Higher sensitivity was observed with tissue samples including bronchoscopic lymph node aspiration (75%) and other lymph node sampling (92%). In the 52 cases where drug sensitivities were available, resistance to a first line treatment, most commonly isoniazid, was seen in 12 cases (23%). Furthermore, 1- and 5-year survival from diagnosis were 78% and 61%, respectively. Baseline variables independently associated with poorer survival were age (OR 1.8 per decade, 95% CI 1.4-2.3), weight loss over 10% (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.5), and a non-confirmed diagnosis (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.1). CONCLUSIONS: Tuberculosis is common in dialysis and kidney transplant patients, particularly during the first year of dialysis. Short-term mortality is high, but the diagnostic sensitivity of many types of samples is low, so that diagnosis is difficult, with treatment often initiated without confirmation. These data highlight the importance of judgment and clinical experience with this complex patient group.

Diagnostic value of pericardial aspiration in dialysis patients: Case report with management informed by a retrospective case series.

INTRODUCTION: Pericardial effusions and uremic pericarditis have been described in patients with kidney disease since 1836 [1] when they were considered a pre-terminal sign [2]. Fortunately today this pathology is less frequently encountered [3]; however, this has resulted in highly variable management. AIMS: This report aims to describe the case of a 61-year-old female presenting with a large pericardial effusion prior to kidney transplantation, and how local activity was reviewed to guide management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective service evaluation project, where 44 cases of pericardial effusion encountered at a tertiary renal center over 8 years were reviewed. Clinical data, investigation results, and outcomes were collected to identify the common clinical categories encountered and the role pericardial intervention may have had in those cases. RESULTS: A total of 44 cases of pericardial effusion were encountered, grouped into the following clinical categories; procedural (8), classical (3), uremic (15), and other etiology (18). Pericardial intervention occurred in 50% of cases due to current or impending hemodynamic compromise. Aspiration was of limited diagnostic use, providing a clinically relevant culture result in only one of the cases reviewed. No deaths were observed in the classical group, and 1-year survival was 86%, 67% and 43% in the uremic, other, and procedural groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that in patients with advanced kidney disease requiring renal replacement therapy and pericardial effusions, aspiration should largely be reserved for cases with hemodynamic compromise only, as in this series aspiration did not significantly improve diagnosis or guide subsequent treatment.

Soft Target Weight: Theory and Simulation of a Novel Haemodialysis Protocol Which Reduces Excessive Ultrafiltration.

INTRODUCTION: Excessive ultrafiltration is associated with intra-dialytic symptoms, loss of residual function, and mortality in haemodialysis patients. A major contributor to excessive ultrafiltration is within-individual variation in pre-dialysis weight and the concept of achieving a fixed target weight by the end of each dialysis session. Haemodialysis protocols which allow variable post-dialysis weight have not been proposed. METHODS: Weight variation was observed in haemodialysis patients and healthy controls to estimate the proportion of pre-dialysis weight variation which could be considered natural variation. These estimates were used to derive a novel protocol for setting ultrafiltration, which was evaluated by mathematical modelling. RESULTS: Amongst 20 haemodialysis patients, mean (SD) pre-dialysis weight was 102.74 (0.94)% of target weight after a 2-day gap and 103.50 (0.94)% after a 3-day gap. Amongst 10 healthy individuals, mean (SD) daily weight was 100.0 (0.71)% of average weight. A 4-component model of pre-dialysis weight was derived using these estimates, in which the best estimate of pre-dialysis excess fluid is the midpoint of excess weight and average fluid gain, and used to propose a novel protocol for ultrafiltration setting. In simulations, the novel protocol reduced ultrafiltration variation by more than half (standard deviation 0.6 vs. 1.3% of target weight, p < 0.001), without increasing the variation in post-dialysis fluid excess. Excessive ultrafiltration rates (over 13 mL/h/kg) were far less frequent using this protocol (2.6% vs. 7.5% of sessions, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Considering natural weight variation allows the development of a novel protocol for ultrafiltration in which target weight does not have to be achieved precisely: it is therefore a soft target. This protocol, which is predicted to substantially reduce excessive ultrafiltration variation, is a zero-cost intervention with the potential to improve symptoms and clinical outcome for haemodialysis patients.

Oral sodium bicarbonate in people on haemodialysis: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events and mortality tend to cluster around dialysis sessions, potentially due to the impact of the saw-toothed profile of uraemic toxins such as potassium, peaking pre-dialysis and rapidly dropping during dialysis. Acidosis could be contributing to this harm by exacerbating a rise in potassium. The objectives of this study were to investigate the effects of oral bicarbonate treatment on reducing inter-dialytic potassium gain as well as other clinical consequences of preserving muscle mass and function and reducing intradialytic arrhythmia risk in people on haemodialysis. METHODS: Open-label randomised controlled trial in a single-centre (London, UK). Forty-three clinically stable adults on haemodialysis were recruited, with a 6 month average pre-dialysis serum bicarbonate level < 22 mmol/l and potassium > 4 mmol/l. Thirty-three participants completed the study. Oral sodium bicarbonate tablets titrated up to a maximum of 3 g bd (6 g total) in intervention group for 12 weeks versus no treatment in the control group. Outcomes compared intervention versus non-intervention phases in the treated group and equivalent time points in the control group: pre- and post-dialysis serum potassium; nutritional assessments: muscle mass and handgrip strength and electrocardiograms (ECGs) pre and post dialysis. RESULTS: Participants took an average of 3.7 ± 0.5 g sodium bicarbonate a day. In the intervention group, inter-dialytic potassium gain was reduced from 1.90 ± 0.60 to 1.69 ± 0.49 mmol/l (p = 0.032) and pre-dialysis potassium was reduced from 4.96 ± 0.62 to 4.79 ± 0.49 mmol/l without dietary change. Pre-dialysis bicarbonate increased from 18.15 ± 1.35 to 20.27 ± 1.88 mmol/l, however with an increase in blood pressure. Nutritionally, lean tissue mass was reduced in the controls suggesting less catabolism in the intervention group. There was no change in ECGs. Limitations are small sample size and unblinded study design lacking a placebo, with several participants failing to achieve the target of 22 mmol/l serum bicarbonate levels due mainly to tablet burden. CONCLUSION: Oral sodium bicarbonate reduced bicarbonate loss and potassium gain in the inter-dialytic period, and may also preserve lean tissue mass. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered prospectively on 06/08/2015 with EU Clinical Trials Register EudraCT number 2015-001439-20 .

Risk of COVID-19 Disease, Dialysis Unit Attributes, and Infection Control Strategy among London In-Center Hemodialysis Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patients receiving in-center hemodialysis treatment face unique challenges during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, specifically the need to attend for treatment that prevents self-isolation. Dialysis unit attributes and isolation strategies that might reduce dialysis center COVID-19 infection rates have not been previously examined. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We explored the role of variables, including community disease burden, dialysis unit attributes (size and layout), and infection control strategies, on rates of COVID-19 among patients receiving in-center hemodialysis in London, United Kingdom, between March 2, 2020 and May 31, 2020. The two outcomes were defined as (1) a positive test for infection or admission with suspected COVID-19 and (2) admission to the hospital with suspected infection. Associations were examined using a discrete time multilevel time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: Data on 5755 patients dialyzing in 51 units were analyzed; 990 (17%) tested positive and 465 (8%) were admitted with suspected COVID-19 between March 2 and May 31, 2020. Outcomes were associated with age, diabetes, local community COVID-19 rates, and dialysis unit size. A greater number of available side rooms and the introduction of mask policies for asymptomatic patients were inversely associated with outcomes. No association was seen with sex, ethnicity, or deprivation indices, nor with any of the different isolation strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of COVID-19 in the in-center hemodialysis population relate to individual factors, underlying community transmission, unit size, and layout.

Informing the Risk of Kidney Transplantation Versus Remaining on the Waitlist in the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Era.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited data pertaining to comparative outcomes of remaining on dialysis versus kidney transplantation as the threat of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains. In this study we delineate the differential risks involved using serologic methods to help define exposure rates. METHODS: From a cohort of 1433 patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), we analyzed COVID-19 infection rates and outcomes in 299 waitlist patients compared with 237 transplant recipients within their first year post-transplant. Patients were followed over a 68-day period from the time our transplant program closed due to COVID-19. RESULTS: The overall mortality rates in waitlist and transplant populations were equivalent (P = 0.69). However, COVID-19 infection was more commonly diagnosed in the waitlist patients (P = 0.001), who were more likely to be tested by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (P = 0.0004). Once infection was confirmed, mortality risk was higher in the transplant patients (P = 0.015). The seroprevalence in dialysis and transplant patients with undetected infection was 18.3% and 4.6%, respectively (P = 0.0001). After adjusting for potential screening bias, the relative risk of death after a diagnosis of COVID-19 remained higher in transplant recipients (hazard ratio = 3.36 [95% confidence interval = 1.19-9.50], P = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: Although COVID-19 infection was more common in the waitlist patients, a higher COVID-19‒associated mortality rate was seen in the transplant recipients, resulting in comparable overall mortality rates.

Central venous catheters and arrhythmia: Two unusual cases.

Jugular Tesio lines (TesioCaths; MedCOMP, Harleysville, PA, USA) are frequently used as permanent vascular accesses in haemodialysis patients. During the insertion procedure, arrhythmias are a relatively common complication, usually related to an excessively advanced catheter tip, without major consequences. We present two cases of life-threatening arrhythmias triggered by the Tesio catheter eccentric high-velocity jet of blood resolved after reposition of the catheter without further episodes, despite both lines being inserted under real-time ultrasound and fluoroscopic guidance. We believe dialysis lines should be checked for tip position even when long-standing to prevent relevant complications due to catheter sliding.

The Effect of Kidney Biopsy on Glomerular Filtration Rate: A Frequent Patient Concern.

The effect of percutaneous kidney biopsy on glomerular filtration rate has never been identified, though it is frequently a concern raised by patients. Following a clinical interaction with an inquisitive patient undergoing her fifth biopsy, we attempted to estimate the effect using retrospective data. In a cohort of patients with stable kidney function undergoing transplant biopsy without clinical indication (as part of a surveillance programme) the effect of biopsy was observed as a step change in glomerular filtration rate. Reassuringly, the loss of glomerular filtration rate resulting from a biopsy, has a 1-sided 95% confidence interval of <1.4 mL/min.

Cohort Study of Outpatient Hemodialysis Management Strategies for COVID-19 in North-West London.

BACKGROUND: Dialysis patients are at risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We managed COVID-19 hemodialysis outpatients in dedicated satellite dialysis units. This provided rare opportunity to study early disease progress in community-based patients. We aimed to (i) understand COVID-19 progression, (ii) identify markers of future clinical severity, and (iii) assess associations between dialysis management strategies and COVID-19 clinical outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of all outpatients managed at a COVID-19 hemodialysis unit. We analyzed data recorded as part of providing COVID-19 clinical care. We analyzed associations between features at diagnosis and the first 3 consecutive hemodialysis sessions in patients who required future hospital admission, and those who had died at 28 days. RESULTS: Isolated outpatient hemodialysis was provided to 106 patients over 8 weeks. No patients received antiviral medication or hydroxychloroquine. Twenty-one patients (20%) were admitted at COVID-19 diagnosis; 29 of 85 patients (34%) were admitted after initial outpatient management; 16 patients (15%) died. By multivariate analysis, nonactive transplant list status, use of institutional transport, and increased white cell count associated with future hospitalization and increased age associated with death. Oxygen saturations progressively decreased over the first 3 dialysis sessions in the cohorts that progressed to future hospital admission or death. Mean ultrafiltration volume of the first 3 hemodialysis sessions was reduced in the same cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient hemodialysis in patients with COVID-19 is safe for patients and staff. Features at the first 3 dialysis sessions can identify individuals at risk of future hospitalization and death from COVID-19.

Central venous stenosis in a transplant patient due to thyroid pathology: A teachable moment.

Central venous stenosis is a well-recognized complication of central venous catheter use in hemodialysis patients, which may present with significant swelling of the upper limbs, neck, and face. Here, we describe a renal transplant recipient previously on hemodialysis, who underwent endovascular intervention for central venous stenosis after presenting with facial swelling and exertional dyspnoea. His symptoms continued to progress, however, until the underlying thyroid pathology was recognized. Ruling out the possible mimics of central venous stenosis is important in preventing unnecessary intervention. This case highlights the role of specialty bias in the process of diagnosis.

Epidemiology of COVID-19 in an Urban Dialysis Center.

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic, many countries have instituted population-wide measures for social distancing. The requirement of patients on dialysis for regular treatment in settings typically not conducive to social distancing may increase their vulnerability to COVID-19. METHODS: Over a 6-week period, we recorded new COVID-19 infections and outcomes for all adult patients receiving dialysis in a large dialysis center. Rapidly introduced control measures included a two-stage routine screening process at dialysis entry (temperature and symptom check, with possible cases segregated within the unit and tested for SARS-CoV-2), isolated dialysis in a separate unit for patients with infection, and universal precautions that included masks for dialysis nursing staff. RESULTS: Of 1530 patients (median age 66 years; 58.2% men) receiving dialysis, 300 (19.6%) developed COVID-19 infection, creating a large demand for isolated outpatient dialysis and inpatient beds. An analysis that included 1219 patients attending satellite dialysis clinics found that older age was a risk factor for infection. COVID-19 infection was substantially more likely to occur among patients on in-center dialysis compared with those dialyzing at home. We observed clustering in specific units and on specific shifts, with possible implications for aspects of service design, and high rates of nursing staff illness. A predictive epidemic model estimated a reproduction number of 2.2; cumulative cases deviated favorably from the model from the fourth week, suggesting that the implemented measures controlled transmission. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 epidemic affected a large proportion of patients at this dialysis center, creating service pressures exacerbated by nursing staff illness. Details of the control strategy and characteristics of this epidemic may be useful for dialysis providers and other institutions providing patient care.

Renal Association Clinical Practice Guideline on Haemodialysis.

This guideline is written primarily for doctors and nurses working in dialysis units and related areas of medicine in the UK, and is an update of a previous version written in 2009. It aims to provide guidance on how to look after patients and how to run dialysis units, and provides standards which units should in general aim to achieve. We would not advise patients to interpret the guideline as a rulebook, but perhaps to answer the question: "what does good quality haemodialysis look like?"The guideline is split into sections: each begins with a few statements which are graded by strength (1 is a firm recommendation, 2 is more like a sensible suggestion), and the type of research available to back up the statement, ranging from A (good quality trials so we are pretty sure this is right) to D (more like the opinion of experts than known for sure). After the statements there is a short summary explaining why we think this, often including a discussion of some of the most helpful research. There is then a list of the most important medical articles so that you can read further if you want to - most of this is freely available online, at least in summary form.A few notes on the individual sections: 1. This section is about how much dialysis a patient should have. The effectiveness of dialysis varies between patients because of differences in body size and age etc., so different people need different amounts, and this section gives guidance on what defines "enough" dialysis and how to make sure each person is getting that. Quite a bit of this section is very technical, for example, the term "eKt/V" is often used: this is a calculation based on blood tests before and after dialysis, which measures the effectiveness of a single dialysis session in a particular patient. 2. This section deals with "non-standard" dialysis, which basically means anything other than 3 times per week. For example, a few people need 4 or more sessions per week to keep healthy, and some people are fine with only 2 sessions per week - this is usually people who are older, or those who have only just started dialysis. Special considerations for children and pregnant patients are also covered here. 3. This section deals with membranes (the type of "filter" used in the dialysis machine) and "HDF" (haemodiafiltration) which is a more complex kind of dialysis which some doctors think is better. Studies are still being done, but at the moment we think it's as good as but not better than regular dialysis. 4. This section deals with fluid removal during dialysis sessions: how to remove enough fluid without causing cramps and low blood pressure. Amongst other recommendations we advise close collaboration with patients over this. 5. This section deals with dialysate, which is the fluid used to "pull" toxins out of the blood (it is sometimes called the "bath"). The level of things like potassium in the dialysate is important, otherwise too much or too little may be removed. There is a section on dialysate buffer (bicarbonate) and also a section on phosphate, which occasionally needs to be added into the dialysate. 6. This section is about anticoagulation (blood thinning) which is needed to stop the circuit from clotting, but sometimes causes side effects. 7. This section is about certain safety aspects of dialysis, not seeking to replace well-established local protocols, but focussing on just a few where we thought some national-level guidance would be useful. 8. This section draws together a few aspects of dialysis which don't easily fit elsewhere, and which impact on how dialysis feels to patients, rather than the medical outcome, though of course these are linked. This is where home haemodialysis and exercise are covered. There is an appendix at the end which covers a few aspects in more detail, especially the mathematical ideas. Several aspects of dialysis are not included in this guideline since they are covered elsewhere, often because they are aspects which affect non-dialysis patients too. This includes: anaemia, calcium and bone health, high blood pressure, nutrition, infection control, vascular access, transplant planning, and when dialysis should be started.

Central Venous Stenosis, Access Outcome and Survival in Patients undergoing Maintenance Hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Central venous catheters have traditionally provided access for urgent hemodialysis, but are also sometimes advocated as an option for older or more comorbid patients. Adverse effects of this type of dialysis access include central venous stenosis, for which the risk factors and consequences are incompletely understood. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We conducted two studies within the same population cohort, comprising all patients starting hemodialysis in a single center from January 2006 to December 2013. First, patients were retrospectively analyzed for the presence of central venous stenosis; their access outcomes are described and survival compared with matched controls drawn from the same population. Second, a subset of patients with a history of catheter access within this cohort was analyzed to determine risk factors for central venous stenosis. RESULTS: Among 2811 patients, central venous stenosis was diagnosed in 120 (4.3%), at a median dialysis vintage of 2.9 (interquartile range, 1.8-4.6) years. Compared with matched controls, patients with central venous stenosis had similar survival (median 5.1 versus 5.2 years; P=0.54). Among a subset of 500 patients, all with a history of catheter use, 34 (6.8%) developed central venous stenosis, at a rate of 2.2 per 100 patient-years. The incidence of central venous stenosis was higher with larger number of previous catheters (relative risk [RR], 2.2; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]. 1.6 to 2.9), pacemaker insertion (RR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.7 to 8.9), and was lower with older age (RR, 0.7 per decade; 95% CI, 0.6 to 0.8). In a Cox proportional hazards model, the catheter number, pacemaker, and younger age at dialysis initiation were all significant independent risk factors for central venous stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: Central venous stenosis occurred in a minority of patients on hemodialysis, and was associated with compromised future access, but unchanged survival. Among patients with a history of catheter use, risk related to both the number of catheters and the total catheter duration, although nondialysis factors such as pacemakers were also important. Central venous stenosis risk was lower in older patients, supporting the selective use of tunneled catheters in this group.