Technique Failure in a Multicenter Canadian Home Hemodialysis Cohort.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Increasing uptake of home hemodialysis (HD) has led to interest in characteristics that predict discontinuation of home HD therapy for reasons other than death or transplantation. Recent reports of practice pattern variability led to the hypothesis that there are patient- and center-specific factors that influence these discontinuations. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Incident home HD patients at 7 centers in Canada between 2000 and 2010. PREDICTOR: Treatment center, case-mix, and process-of-care variables. OUTCOMES: Technique failure (defined as discontinuation of home HD therapy for any reason other than training failure, death, or transplantation) and mortality. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Regression modeling of technique failure using Cox proportional hazard models adjusting for treatment center and modifiable and nonmodifiable patient-level variables, censored for death and transplantation. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 579 patients. Mean age was 49.9±14.1 years, 74% were of European ancestry, median dialysis vintage was 1.9 (IQR, 0.6-5.2) years, and 68% used an arteriovenous access. Mean duration of dialysis was 31.2±12.6 hours per week. Unadjusted 1- and 2-year technique survival and overall survival were 90% and 83% and 94% and 87%, respectively. Treating center was a strong predictor of technique failure and mortality, with HRs ranging from 0.37 to 5.11 for technique failure (1 of 6 centers with P<0.05 relative to the reference) and 0.17 to 8.73 for mortality (3 of 6 centers with P<0.05 relative to the reference). With baseline adjustment for center, only older age and more than 3 treatments per week remained significant predictors of technique failure, while no individual-level variables remained as significant predictors of survival. LIMITATIONS: Limited statistical power. CONCLUSIONS: Home HD treating centers may influence technique failure and patient mortality independent of case-mix. The relationship between processes of care and patient outcomes requires further investigation.

In-Center Nocturnal Hemodialysis Versus Conventional Hemodialysis: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Owing to its longer treatment duration-up to 8 hours per dialysis treatment-in-center thrice-weekly nocturnal hemodialysis (HD) is receiving greater attention. To better understand the evidence for in-center nocturnal HD, we sought to systematically review the literature to determine the effects of in-center nocturnal HD versus conventional HD on clinically relevant outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (EBMR), Web of Science, and Scopus from the earliest date in the database to November 2016. SETTING & POPULATION: Adults receiving in-center nocturnal HD compared with those receiving conventional HD. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: All quasi-experimental and observational studies were considered; randomized trials were sought but not found. PREDICTOR: Nocturnal vs conventional in-center HD. OUTCOMES: Indexes of blood pressure and left ventricular hypertrophy, markers of anemia, measures of bone mineral metabolism, nutrition, quality of life, sleep quality, episodes of intradialytic hypotension, hospitalization, and mortality. RESULTS: Of 2,086 identified citations, 21 met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 1,165 in-center nocturnal HD patients and 15,865 conventional HD patients. Although there was substantial heterogeneity in reporting of outcomes, we pooled data for measures of blood pressure, anemia, and mineral metabolism. Though heterogeneity was generally high, in-center nocturnal HD was associated with improved systolic blood pressure (-3.18 [95% CI, -5.58 to -0.78) mm Hg, increased hemoglobin levels (0.53 [95% CI, 0.11-0.94] g/dL), and lower serum phosphate levels (-0.97 [95% CI, -1.48 to -0.46] mg/dL). LIMITATIONS: No randomized trials have been conducted to address the clinical effects of in-center nocturnal HD. The quality of the observational literature contributing to the results of this review was generally poor to moderate. Confounded outcomes are a significant concern. Publication bias and outcome reporting bias remain possibilities. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to conventional HD, in-center nocturnal HD was associated with improvements in several clinically relevant outcomes. Other benefits may not have been detected due to small sample sizes of included studies; no prespecified outcome was worse with in-center nocturnal HD.

Buttonhole versus rope-ladder cannulation of arteriovenous fistulas for hemodialysis: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The buttonhole technique is an alternative method of cannulating the arteriovenous fistula (AVF) in hemodialysis (HD), frequently used for home HD patients. However, the balance of risks and benefits of the buttonhole compared with the rope-ladder technique is uncertain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized trials and observational studies (case reports, case series, studies without a control group, non-English studies, and abstracts were excluded). SETTING & POPULATION: HD patients (both in-center conventional HD and home HD) using an AVF for vascular access. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL from the earliest date in the databases to March 2014 for studies comparing clinical outcomes of the buttonhole versus rope-ladder technique. INTERVENTION: Buttonhole versus rope-ladder cannulation technique. OUTCOMES: The primary outcomes of interest were patient-reported cannulation pain and rates of AVF-related local and systemic infections. Secondary outcomes included access survival, intervention, hospitalization, and mortality, as well as hematoma and aneurysm formation, time to hemostasis, and all-cause hospitalization and mortality. RESULTS: Of 1,044 identified citations, 23 studies were selected for inclusion. There was equivocal evidence with respect to cannulation pain: pooled observational studies yielded a statistical reduction in pain with buttonhole cannulation (standardized mean difference, -0.76 [95%CI, -1.38 to -0.15] standard deviations), but no difference in cannulation pain was found among randomized controlled trials (standardized mean difference, 0.34 [95%CI, -0.76 to 1.43] standard deviations). Buttonhole, as compared to rope-ladder, technique appeared to be associated with increased risk of local and systemic infections. LIMITATIONS: Overall poor quality and substantial heterogeneity among studies precluded pooling of most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence does not support the preferential use of buttonhole over rope-ladder cannulation in either facility-based conventional HD or home HD. This does not preclude buttonhole cannulation as being appropriate for some patients with difficult-to-access AVFs.