Effect of dialyzer reuse on survival of patients treated with hemodialysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of dialyzer reuse on the survival of US hemodialysis patients. STUDY DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Nonconcurrent cohort study of 27938 patients beginning hemodialysis in the United States in 1986 and 1987. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Patient survival. RESULTS: Dialysis in freestanding facilities reprocessing dialyzers with the combination of peracetic and acetic acids was associated with greater mortality than treatment in facilities not reprocessing dialyzers (rate ratio [RR],1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.18; P=.02) In contrast, there was no significant difference between survival in freestanding facilities reprocessing dialyzers with either formaldehyde (RR,1.03, 95% CI, 0.96-1.10; P=.45) or glutaraldehyde (RR, 1.13, 95% CI, 0.95-1.35, P=.18) and survival in freestanding facilities not reprocessing dialyzers. Among freestanding facilities reprocessing dialyzers, use of peracetic/acetic acid was associated with a higher rate of death than use of formaldehyde (RR = 1.08, 95% CI, 1.01-1.14; P=.02). There was no statistical difference between survival in hospital-based facilities reprocessing dialyzers with either peracetic/acetic acid (RR=0.95, 95% CI, 0.85-1.06; P=.40), formaldehyde (RR=1.06, 95% CI, 0.98-1.15; P=.12), or glutaraldehyde (RR=1.09, 95% CI, 0.71-1.67; P=.70) and survival in hospital-based facilities not reprocessing dialyzers. In addition, choice of sterilant was not associated with a statistically significant difference in survival among hospital-based facilities reprocessing dialyzers. CONCLUSIONS: Dialysis in freestanding facilities reprocessing dialyzers with peracetic/acetic acid may be associated with worse survival than dialysis in free-standing facilities not reprocessing dialyzers or in those reprocessing with formaldehyde. We were unable to determine whether these relationships arose from greater comorbidity among patients treated in facilities using peracetic/acetic acid, poor quality of dialysis procedures in these facilities, or direct toxicity of peracetic/acetic acid. These findings raise important concerns about potentially avoidable mortality among US hemodialysis patients treated in dialysis facilities reprocessing hemodialyzers.

Internists' practices in health promotion and disease prevention. A survey.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate internists' use of disease prevention and health promotion activities, and to explore demographic, professional, behavioral, psychological, cognitive, and organizational factors associated with the use of such practices. DESIGN: Mail survey. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: A sample of 2610 members and fellows of the American College of Physicians (ACP) participated in the study. They engaged in patient care activities more than 20 hours per week and were stratified by gender and region. They lived in four geographic areas of the United States (Northeast, Southeast, Central, and West), comprising 21 ACP regions. MEASUREMENTS: A questionnaire requesting background information as well as information about personal health; record keeping; use of immunizations (pneumococcal, influenza, tetanus, hepatitis B); use of screening tests and procedures for detecting cancer (breast examination, Papanicolaou smear, stool occult blood test) and other diseases (electrocardiograms, cholesterol level tests, chest radiographs); and behavioral counseling to promote health (in the areas of smoking, exercise, and alcohol and seat belt use). MAIN RESULTS: Internists used effective preventive interventions less frequently and ineffective practices more frequently than experts recommend. Internists' use of health promotion and disease prevention activities is associated with habit, attitude, and a lack of adequate knowledge. Younger physician age, general internal medicine practice, and personal health promotion and disease prevention practices were strongly associated with more appropriate use of recommended practices (P less than 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Internists' use of disease prevention and health promotion activities falls short of expert recommendations. Programs to improve the delivery of preventive services might be aimed at improving physicians' personal health practices, might be directed toward patients, and might include the development of effective systems to remind physicians.