Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis: Association with outcomes.

The majority of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients start dialysis without adequate pre-dialysis planning. Of these patients, the vast majority initiate in-centre haemodialysis using a central venous catheter (ICHD-CVC). A minority utilise urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (USPD), whereby a peritoneal dialysis catheter is placed and used for dialysis without the usual 2-4-week waiting period. In this multicentre, retrospective study of adult patients initiating dialysis during 2018, we compared outcomes among patients utilising these two dialysis initiation routes. Patients who initiated dialysis via ICHD-CVC were matched 1:1 to patients who utilised USPD on the basis of aetiology of ESKD, race, diabetes status and insurance type. Hospitalisation and mortality were evaluated from dialysis initiation through the first of death, transplant, loss to follow-up or study end (30 June 2019). Outcomes were compared using models adjusted for age and sex. A total of 717 USPD patients were matched to ICHD-CVC patients. During follow-up, USPD patients were hospitalised at a rate of 1.21 admissions/patient-year (pt-yr) versus 1.51 admissions/pt-yr for ICHD-CVC. This corresponded to a 24% lower rate of hospitalisation among USPD patients (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-0.88). Mortality rates were 0.08 and 0.11 deaths/pt-yr among USPD patients and ICHD-CVC patients, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.62, 1.15). These findings suggest that more widespread adoption of USPD may be beneficial among patients with limited pre-dialysis planning.

Policy and Pandemic: The Changing Practice of Nephrology During the Coronavirus Disease-2019 Outbreak.

The coronavirus (coronavirus disease-2019) pandemic has changed care delivery for patients with end-stage kidney disease. We explore the US healthcare system as it pertains to dialysis care, including existing policies, modifications implemented in response to the coronavirus disease-2019 crisis, and possible next steps for policy makers and nephrologists. This includes policies related to resource management, use of telemedicine, prioritization of dialysis access procedures, expansion of home dialysis modalities, administrative duties, and quality assessment. The government has already established policies that have instated some flexibilities to help providers focus their response to the crisis. However, future policy during and after the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic can bolster our ability to optimize care for patients with end-stage kidney disease. Key themes in this perspective are the importance of policy flexibility, clear strategies for emergency preparedness, and robust health systems that maximize accessibility and patient autonomy.

Economic evaluation of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis versus urgent-start hemodialysis in the United States.

Patients presenting late in the course of kidney disease who require urgent initiation of dialysis have traditionally received temporary vascular catheters followed by hemodialysis. Recent changes in Medicare payment policy for dialysis in the USA incentivized the use of peritoneal dialysis (PD). Consequently, the use of more expeditious PD for late-presenting patients (urgent-start PD) has received new attention. Urgent-start PD has been shown to be safe and effective, and offers a mechanism for increasing PD utilization. However, there has been no assessment of the dialysis-related costs over the first 90 days of care. The objective of this study was to characterize the costs associated with urgent-start PD, urgent-start hemodialysis (HD), or a dual approach (urgent-start HD followed by urgent-start PD) over the first 90 days of treatment from a provider perspective. A survey of practitioners from 5 clinics known to use urgent-start PD was conducted to provide inputs for a cost model representing typical patients. Model inputs were obtained from the survey, literature review, and available cost data. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted. The estimated per patient cost over the first 90 days for urgent-start PD was $16,398. Dialysis access represented 15% of total costs, dialysis services 48%, and initial hospitalization 37%. For urgent-start HD, total per patient costs were $19,352, and dialysis access accounted for 27%, dialysis services 42%, and initial hospitalization 31%. The estimated cost for dual patients was $19,400. Urgent-start PD may offer a cost saving approach for the initiation of dialysis in eligible patients requiring an urgent-start to dialysis.

Infrastructure requirements for an urgent-start peritoneal dialysis program.

Patients with advanced chronic kidney disease nearing dialysis but without pre-established access almost uniformly initiate dialysis with a temporary central venous catheter. These catheters are associated with high rates of infection and flow disturbances, requiring removal and subsequent replacement. Many of these patients might be candidates for peritoneal dialysis (PD), but because of the absence of prior catheter placement, the default initial modality is hemodialysis. Recent reports, however, have demonstrated the feasibility of initiating PD urgently despite the late referral for access placement. Urgent-start PD clinical pathways require a unique infrastructure and treatment approach. This article reviews the salient features required to establish an urgent-start PD program.

PD First: peritoneal dialysis as the default transition to dialysis therapy.

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and in-center hemodialysis (HD) are accepted as clinically equivalent dialysis modalities, yet in-center HD is the predominant renal replacement therapy (RRT) modality offered to new end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients in the United States and most other industrialized nations. This predominance has little to do with clinical outcomes, patient choice, cost, or quality of life. It has been driven by ease of HD initiation, physician experience and training, inadequate pre-ESRD patient education, ample in-center HD capacity, and lack of adequate infrastructure for PD-related care. As compared with in-center HD, PD is a widely applicable, yet underutilized modality of RRT that provides comparable clinical outcomes, superior quality of life measures, significant cost savings, and many other unmeasured advantages. A "PD First" approach not only has advantages for patients but also physicians, healthcare systems, and society. In this review, we will summarize evidence demonstrating that PD should be the default modality when new ESRD patients are transitioning to dialysis therapy when preemptive transplantation is not an option and highlight the essential infrastructural requirements to allow for a "PD First" model.

Intermittent peritoneal dialysis: urea kinetic modeling and implications of residual kidney function.

BACKGROUND: Intermittent peritoneal dialysis (IPD) is an old strategy that has generally been eclipsed, in the home setting, by daily peritoneal therapies. However, for a select group of patients with exhausted vascular access or inability to receive PD at home, in-center IPD may remain an option or may serve as an incremental strategy before initiation of full-dose PD. We investigated the residual kidney clearance requirements necessary to allow thrice-weekly IPD regimens to meet current adequacy targets. METHODS: The 3-pore model of peritoneal transport was used to examine 2 thrice-weekly IPD dialysis modalities: 5 - 6 dwells with 10 - 12 L total volume (low-dose IPD), and 50% tidal with 20 - 24 L total volume (high-dose IPD). We assumed an 8-hour dialysis duration and 1.5% dextrose solution, with a 2-L fill volume, except in tidal mode. The PD Adequest application (version 2.0: Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Deerfield, IL, USA) and typical patient kinetic parameters derived from a large dataset [data on file from Treatment Adequacy Review for Gaining Enhanced Therapy (Baxter Healthcare Corporation)] were used to model urea clearances. The minimum glomerular filtration rate (GFR) required to achieve a total weekly urea Kt/V of 1.7 was calculated. RESULTS: In the absence of any dialysis, the minimum residual GFR necessary to achieve a weekly urea Kt/V of 1.7 was 9.7 mL/min/1.73 m(2). Depending on membrane transport type, the low-dose IPD modality met urea clearance targets for patients with a GFR between 6.0 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and 7.6 mL/min/1.73 m(2). Similarly, the high-dose IPD modality met the urea clearance target for patients with a GFR between 4.7 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and 6.5 mL/min/1.73 m(2). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with residual GFR of at least 7.6 mL/min/1.73 m(2), thrice-weekly low-dose IPD (10 L) achieved a Kt/V urea of 1.7 across all transport types. Increasing the IPD volume resulted in a decreased residual GFR requirement of 4.7 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (24 L, 50% tidal). In patients with residual kidney function and dietary compliance, IPD may be a viable strategy in certain clinical situations.

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis: a quality improvement report.

BACKGROUND: Compared with hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a cost-effective and patient-centered option with an early survival advantage, yet only 7% of patients with end-stage renal disease in the United States receive PD. PD underutilization is due in part to nephrologists' unfamiliarity with directly starting PD in patients who present with kidney failure requiring urgent initiation of dialysis. DESIGN: Quality improvement report. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Single-center study whereby 18 patients who presented urgently with chronic kidney disease stage 5 without a plan for dialysis modality were offered PD as the initial modality of dialysis. Concurrently, 9 patients started on PD therapy nonurgently were included as the comparative group. QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN: An urgent-start PD program was developed to support and standardize the process by which patients without a plan for dialysis modality were started on PD. This included rapid PD access placement, PD nursing education, and administrative support. Standardized protocols were created for modality selection, initial prescription, and prevention and management of complications. MEASURES: Short-term (90-day) clinical outcomes (Kt/V, hemoglobin, iron saturation, parathyroid hormone, phosphorus, calcium, and albumin) and complications (peritonitis, exit-site infections, leaks, and catheter malfunction) were compared between the urgent-start and non-urgent-start PD groups. RESULTS: Short-term clinical outcomes were similar between the 2 groups for all parameters except uncorrected serum calcium level, which was lower in the urgent-start group (P = 0.02). Peritonitis, exit-site infection, catheter-related complications, and other complications were similar between the 2 groups, although the number of minor leaks was higher in the urgent-start group. LIMITATIONS: This is a single-center nonrandomized study with a small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Our structured program shows safety and feasibility in starting PD in patients with kidney failure who present without a plan for dialysis modality. The steps laid out in this report can provide the framework for creating local urgent-start PD programs.

Total and individual coronary artery calcium scores as independent predictors of mortality in hemodialysis patients.

Many traditional and nontraditional risk factors contribute to vascular calcification among maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients. It is not clear whether coronary artery calcification (CAC) delineates a higher mortality risk independent of known risk factors. We examined 6-year (10/2001-9/2007) survival of 166 MHD patients, aged 53 +/- 13 years, with baseline CAC scores. Patients were grouped into four CAC groups: 0, 1-100, 101-400, and 400+. The 101-400 and 400+ groups were associated with a significantly higher adjusted risk of death than CAC 0 with hazard ratios (HR) 8.5 (95% CI: 1.1-48.1, p = 0.02) and 13.3 (95% CI: 1.3-65.1, p = 0.01), respectively, independent of demographics, comorbidity, lipids and other cardiovascular risks, surrogates of bone disease, nutritional and inflammatory markers and dialysis dose. Total CAC [HR 6.7 (1.1-21.5, p = 0.03)] followed by the presence of CAC in the left main [4.6 (2.2-9.8, p = 0.001)] and left anterior descending artery [4.3 (2.1-14.2, p = 0.001)] were strong independent predictors of mortality even after adjusting for above covariates. Total and vessel-specific CAC predict mortality in MHD patients independent of traditional and nontraditional risk factors.