FLOW: Flow dysfunction of hemodialysis vascular access: A randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of surveillance of arteriovenous fistulas and grafts.

INTRODUCTION: It is assumed that identification and correction of asymptomatic stenoses in the vascular access circuit will prevent thrombosis that would require urgent intervention to continue hemodialysis treatment. However, the evidence base for this assumption is limited. Recent international clinical practice guidelines reach different conclusions on the use of surveillance for vascular access flow dysfunction and recommend further research to inform clinical practice. METHODS: The FLOW trial is a double-blind, multicenter, randomized controlled trial with a 1:1 individual participant treatment allocation ratio over two study arms. In the intervention group, only symptomatic vascular access stenoses detected by clinical monitoring are treated, whereas in the comparison group asymptomatic stenoses detected by surveillance using monthly dilution flow measurements are treated as well. Hemodialysis patients with a functional arteriovenous vascular access are enrolled. The primary outcome is the access-related intervention rate that will be analyzed using a general linear model with Poisson distribution. Secondary outcomes include patient satisfaction, access-related serious adverse events, and quality of the surveillance process. A cost effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis will also be conducted. The study requires 828 patient-years of follow-up in 417 participants to detect a difference of 0.25 access-related interventions per year between study groups. DISCUSSION: As one of the largest randomized controlled trials assessing the clinical impact of vascular access surveillance using a strong double-blinded study design, we believe the FLOW trial will provide much-needed evidence to improve vascular access care for hemodialysis patients.

Choosing conservative care in advanced chronic kidney disease: a scoping review of patients' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Conservative care (CC) is a viable treatment option for some patients with kidney failure. Choosing between dialysis and CC can be a complex decision in which involvement of patients is desirable. Gaining insight into the experiences and preferences of patients regarding this decision-making process is an important initial step to improve care. We aimed to identify what is known about the perspective of patients regarding decision-making when considering CC. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were systematically searched on 23 February 2023 for qualitative and quantitative studies on patient-reported experiences on decision-making about CC. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Twenty articles were included. We identified three major themes: creating awareness about disease and treatment choice, decision support and motivation to choose CC. Patients were often not aware of the option to choose CC. Patients felt supported by their loved ones during the decision-making process, although they perceived they made the final decision to choose CC themselves. Some patients felt pressured by their healthcare professional to choose dialysis. Reported reasons to choose CC were maintaining quality of life, treatment burden of dialysis, cost and the desire not to be a burden to others. In general, patients were satisfied with their decision for CC. CONCLUSIONS: By focussing on the perspective of patients, we identified a wide range of patient experiences and preferences regarding the decision-making process. These findings can help to improve the complex decision-making process between dialysis and CC and to provide patient-centred care.

Exploring Patients' Perceptions About Chronic Kidney Disease and Their Treatment: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Unhelpful illness perceptions can be changed by means of interventions and can lead to improved outcomes. However, little is known about illness perceptions in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) prior to kidney failure, and no tools exist in nephrology care to identify and support patients with unhelpful illness perceptions. Therefore, this study aims to: (1) identify meaningful and modifiable illness perceptions in patients with CKD prior to kidney failure; and (2) explore needs and requirements for identifying and supporting patients with unhelpful illness perceptions in nephrology care from patients' and healthcare professionals' perspectives. METHODS: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposive heterogeneous samples of Dutch patients with CKD (n = 17) and professionals (n = 10). Transcripts were analysed using a hybrid inductive and deductive approach: identified themes from the thematic analysis were hereafter organized according to Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation principles. RESULTS: Illness perceptions considered most meaningful are related to the seriousness (illness identity, consequences, emotional response and illness concern) and manageability (illness coherence, personal control and treatment control) of CKD. Over time, patients developed more unhelpful seriousness-related illness perceptions and more helpful manageability-related illness perceptions, caused by: CKD diagnosis, disease progression, healthcare support and approaching kidney replacement therapy. Implementing tools to identify and discuss patients' illness perceptions was considered important, after which support for patients with unhelpful illness perceptions should be offered. Special attention should be paid towards structurally embedding psychosocial educational support for patients and caregivers to deal with CKD-related symptoms, consequences, emotions and concerns about the future. CONCLUSIONS: Several meaningful and modifiable illness perceptions do not change for the better by means of nephrology care. This underlines the need to identify and openly discuss illness perceptions and to support patients with unhelpful illness perceptions. Future studies should investigate whether implementing illness perception-based tools will indeed improve outcomes in CKD.

Differences in mental health status during the COVID-19 pandemic between patients undergoing in-center hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis.

BACKGROUND: The mental health of dialysis patients during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been modulated by dialysis modality. Studies comparing mental health of in-center hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients during the first 2 years of the pandemic are lacking. METHODS: We conducted repeated cross-sectional and multivariable regression analyses to compare the mental health of in-center hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients from March 2019 until August 2021 using data from the Dutch nOcturnal and hoME dialysis Study To Improve Clinical Outcomes. The study period was divided into one pre-pandemic and six 3-month pandemic periods (period 1-period 6). Mental health was assessed with the Mental Component Summary score of the 12-item Short Form health survey and mental symptoms of the Dialysis Symptom Index. RESULTS: We included 1274 patients (968 on in-center hemodialysis and 306 on peritoneal dialysis). Mental Component Summary scores did not differ between in-center hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients. In contrast, in-center hemodialysis patients more often reported nervousness during period 3 (27% vs 15%, P = 0.04), irritability and anxiety during period 3 (31% vs 18%, P = 0.03, 26% vs. 9%, P = 0.002, respectively) and period 4 (34% vs 22%, P = 0.04, 22% vs 11%, P = 0.03, respectively), and sadness in period 4 (38% vs 26%, P = 0.04) and period 5 (37% vs 22%, P = 0.009). Dialysis modality was independently associated with mental symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: In-center hemodialysis patients more often experienced mental symptoms compared to peritoneal dialysis patients from September 2020 to June 2021, which corresponds to the second lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mental health-related quality-of-life did not differ between in-center hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register NL6519, date of registration: 22 August, 2017.

Older patients' experiences with a shared decision-making process on choosing dialysis or conservative care for advanced chronic kidney disease: a survey study.

BACKGROUND: Many older patients approaching end-stage kidney disease have to decide whether to go for dialysis or non-dialytic conservative care (CC). Shared decision-making is recommended to align the treatment plan with the patient's preferences and values. Little is known about older patients' experiences with shared decision-making on dialysis or CC. METHODS: We performed a survey study, in collaboration with the Dutch Kidney Patients Association, in 99 patients aged ≥70 years who had chosen dialysis (n = 75) or CC (n = 24) after a shared decision-making process involving an experienced multidisciplinary team. RESULTS: Patients stated to be overall satisfied with the shared decision-making process (% with score 6-10 on 11-point Likert scale, dialysis versus CC: 93% vs. 91%, P = 0.06), and treatment decision (87% vs. 91%, P = 0.03). However, patients also reported negative experiences, especially those who had chosen dialysis. Such negative experiences were related to the timing, informing, and level of decision-making being shared. More patients who selected dialysis indicated to have felt forced to make a decision, mostly due to the circumstances, such as their deteriorating health or kidney function, or by their nephrologist (31% vs. 5%, P = 0.01). Also, patients who selected dialysis mentioned a perceived lack of choice as most common reason for choosing dialysis, and 55% considered their own opinion as most important rather than their nephrologists' or relatives' opinion compared to 90% of the patients who had chosen CC (P = 0.02). A subset of patients who had chosen dialysis still doubted their treatment decision compared to no patient who had chosen CC (17% vs. 0%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Older patients reported contrasting experiences with shared decision-making on dialysis or CC. Despite high overall satisfaction, the underlying negative experiences illustrate important but modifiable barriers to an optimal shared decision-making process.