Personalising haemodialysis treatment with incremental dialysis for incident patients with end-stage kidney disease: an implementation study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Incremental dialysis is a personalised dialysis prescription based on residual kidney function that allows for the initial use of shorter duration, less frequent and less intense dialysis. It has been associated with enhanced quality of life and decreased healthcare costs when compared with conventional dialysis. While nephrologists report prescribing incremental dialysis, few dialysis programmes offer a systematic approach in offering and evaluating its use. To move evidence into practice, and in order to improve the safety and quality of providing incremental dialysis care, we have designed an implementation study. This study aims to evaluate the systematic assessment of patients starting facility-based haemodialysis for eligibility for incremental dialysis, and the prescription and monitoring of incremental dialysis treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A hybrid effectiveness and implementation study design is being used to evaluate the implementation of the programme at dialysis sites in Alberta, Canada. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework will be used to capture individual-level and organisational-level impact of the project. Clinical outcomes related to kidney function will be monitored on an ongoing basis, and patient-reported outcomes and experience measures will be collected at baseline and then quarterly throughout the first year of dialysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Health Research Ethics Board of the University of Alberta. The study is funded by the Strategic Clinical Networks of Alberta Health Services. The study will help answer important questions on the effectiveness of incremental dialysis, and inform the acceptability, adoption, feasibility, reach and sustainability of incremental dialysis within provision of haemodialysis care.

Population-Based Analysis of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug Prescription in Subjects With Chronic Kidney Disease.

Background: Pain is a prevalent symptom experienced by patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and appropriate management of pain is an important element of comprehensive care. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) are known to be nephrotoxic in persons with CKD. Objective: This study examined the pattern of NSAID prescribing practices in a population based-cohort of patients with CKD. Design: Retrospective cohort study using linked population-based health care data. Setting: Entire province of Alberta, Canada. Participants: All adults in Alberta with eGFR defined CKD G3 or greater between 2009 and 2017 were included. Measurements: CKD was defined using at least 2 outpatient serum creatinine (SCr) greater than 90 days apart; the date of second SCr measurement was used as index date. We determined the incidence of hyperkalemia using the peak serum potassium. Prescription drug information was obtained from the Pharmaceutical Information Network (PIN) database. Methods: All patients were followed from the index date until March 31, 2019, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Prescription drug information and the follow-up laboratory testing of serum creatinine and serum potassium were obtained. Patients with kidney failure defined as eGFR < 15 mL/min per 1.73 m2, receiving chronic dialysis, or prior kidney transplant at baseline were excluded. Results: A total of 170 574 adults (mean age 76.3; 44% male) with CKD were identified and followed for a median of 7 years; 27% were dispensed at least 1 NSAID prescription. While there was a trend toward fewer prescriptions in patients with more advanced CKD (P < .001), 16% of those with CKD G4 were prescribed an NSAID. Primary care providers provided 79% of the prescriptions. Among NSAID users, 21% had a follow-up serum creatinine (SCr) within 30 days of the index prescription. Limitations: Data collected were from clinical and administrative databases not created for research purposes. The study cohort is limited to subjects who sought medical care and had a serum creatinine measurement obtained. Measurement of NSAID use is limited to those who were dispensed a prescription, over-the-counter NSAIDs use is not captured. Conclusions: Despite guidelines advocating cautious use of NSAIDs in patients with CKD, this study indicates that there is a discrepancy from best practice recommendations. Effective strategies to better support and educate prescribers, as well as patients, may help reduce inappropriate prescribing and adverse events.

Contexte: La douleur est un symptôme fréquent chez les patients atteints d'insuffisance rénale chronique (IRC); sa prise en charge appropriée est un élément important des soins complets. Les anti-inflammatoires non stéroïdiens (AINS) sont connus pour être néphrotoxiques dans cette population de patients. Objectif: Cette étude a examiné les tendances de prescription d'AINS dans une cohorte de patients atteints d'IRC. Conception: Étude de cohorte rétrospective menée à partir des données couplées de santé de la population étudiée. Cadre: L'ensemble de la province de l'Alberta (Canada). Sujets: Tous les adultes de l'Alberta dont la mesure du DFGe correspondait à une IRC de stade 3 ou plus entre 2009 et 2017. Mesures: L'IRC a été définie par au moins deux mesures espacées de plus de 90 jours du taux de créatinine sérique (Crs) en consultation externe; la date de la deuxième mesure de Crs a servi de date indice. Le pic de potassium sérique a servi à déterminer l'incidence de l'hyperkaliémie. Les renseignements sur les médicaments d'ordonnance sont tirés de la base de données du réseau d'information pharmaceutique. Méthodologie: Tous les patients ont été suivis de leur date indice jusqu'au 31 mars 2019, soit pour un minimum de deux ans. Les renseignements sur les médicaments d'ordonnance et les résultats des tests de suivi pour la créatinine et le potassium sériques ont été obtenus. Les patients qui, au moment de l'inclusion, étaient atteints d'une insuffisance rénale définie par un DFGe inférieur à 15 mL/min/1.73 m2, sous dialyze chronique ou qui avaient reçu une greffe rénale ont été exclus. Résultats: En tout, 170 574 adultes atteints d'IRC (âge moyen: 76,3 ans; 44 % d'hommes) ont été répertoriés et suivis sur une période médiane de 7 ans; 27 % avaient reçu au moins une ordonnance d'AINS. Bien qu'on ait observé une tendance à réduire les prescriptions chez les patients atteints d'un stade plus avancé d'IRC (p < 0,001), 16 % des patients atteints d'IRC G4 avaient reçu une ordonnance d'AINS. Les prestataires de soins primaires étaient responsables de 79 % des ordonnances. Parmi les utilisateurs d'AINS, 21 % avaient une mesure de suivi pour la Crs dans les 30 jours suivant la prescription indice. Limites: Les données proviennent de bases de données cliniques et administratives qui ne sont pas créées à des fins de recherche. La cohorte est limitée aux sujets ayant requis des soins médicaux et pour qui on avait une mesure de créatinine sérique. La mesure de l'utilization d'AINS est limitée aux personnes ayant reçu une ordonnance, l'utilization d'AINS en vente libre n'est pas saisie. Conclusion: Bien que les lignes directrices prônent la prudence en ce qui concerne la prescription d'AINS chez les patients atteints d'IRC, cette étude indique que la pratique diverge des recommandations. Des stratégies efficaces pour soutenir et mieux éduquer les prescripteurs et les patients pourraient contribuer à réduire les prescriptions inappropriées et les effets indésirables.

Effect of Clinical Decision Support With Audit and Feedback on Prevention of Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing Coronary Angiography: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Contrast-associated acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) that has been associated with high costs and adverse long-term outcomes. Objective: To determine whether a multifaceted intervention is effective for the prevention of AKI after coronary angiography or PCI. Design, Setting, and Participants: A stepped-wedge, cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted in Alberta, Canada, that included all invasive cardiologists at 3 cardiac catheterization laboratories who were randomized to various start dates for the intervention between January 2018 and September 2019. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older who underwent nonemergency coronary angiography, PCI, or both; who were not undergoing dialysis; and who had a predicted AKI risk of greater than 5%. Thirty-four physicians performed 7820 procedures among 7106 patients who met the inclusion criteria. Participant follow-up ended in November 2020. Interventions: During the intervention period, cardiologists received educational outreach, computerized clinical decision support on contrast volume and hemodynamic-guided intravenous fluid targets, and audit and feedback. During the control (preintervention) period, cardiologists provided usual care and did not receive the intervention. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was AKI. There were 12 secondary outcomes, including contrast volume, intravenous fluid administration, and major adverse cardiovascular and kidney events. The analyses were conducted using time-adjusted models. Results: Of the 34 participating cardiologists who were divided into 8 clusters by practice group and center, the intervention group included 31 who performed 4327 procedures among 4032 patients (mean age, 70.3 [SD, 10.7] years; 1384 were women [32.0%]) and the control group included 34 who performed 3493 procedures among 3251 patients (mean age, 70.2 [SD, 10.8] years; 1151 were women [33.0%]). The incidence of AKI was 7.2% (310 events after 4327 procedures) during the intervention period and 8.6% (299 events after 3493 procedures) during the control period (between-group difference, -2.3% [95% CI, -0.6% to -4.1%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.72 [95% CI, 0.56 to 0.93]; P = .01). Of 12 prespecified secondary outcomes, 8 showed no significant difference. The proportion of procedures in which excessive contrast volumes were used was reduced to 38.1% during the intervention period from 51.7% during the control period (between-group difference, -12.0% [95% CI, -14.4% to -9.4%]; OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.90]; P = .002). The proportion of procedures in eligible patients in whom insufficient intravenous fluid was given was reduced to 60.8% during the intervention period from 75.1% during the control period (between-group difference, -15.8% [95% CI, -19.7% to -12.0%]; OR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.87]; P = .002). There were no significant between-group differences in major adverse cardiovascular events or major adverse kidney events. Conclusions and Relevance: Among cardiologists randomized to an intervention including clinical decision support with audit and feedback, patients undergoing coronary procedures during the intervention period were less likely to develop AKI compared with those treated during the control period, with a time-adjusted absolute risk reduction of 2.3%. Whether this intervention would show efficacy outside this study setting requires further investigation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03453996.

Associations between hemodialysis access type and clinical outcomes: a systematic review.

Clinical practice guidelines recommend an arteriovenous fistula as the preferred vascular access for hemodialysis, but quantitative associations between vascular access type and various clinical outcomes remain controversial. We performed a systematic review of cohort studies to evaluate the associations between type of vascular access (arteriovenous fistula, arteriovenous graft, and central venous catheter) and risk for death, infection, and major cardiovascular events. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and article reference lists and extracted data describing study design, participants, vascular access type, clinical outcomes, and risk for bias. We identified 3965 citations, of which 67 (62 cohort studies comprising 586,337 participants) met our inclusion criteria. In a random effects meta-analysis, compared with persons with fistulas, those individuals using catheters had higher risks for all-cause mortality (risk ratio=1.53, 95% CI=1.41-1.67), fatal infections (2.12, 1.79-2.52), and cardiovascular events (1.38, 1.24-1.54). Similarly, compared with persons with grafts, those individuals using catheters had higher risks for mortality (1.38, 1.25-1.52), fatal infections (1.49, 1.15-1.93), and cardiovascular events (1.26, 1.11-1.43). Compared with persons with fistulas, those individuals with grafts had increased all-cause mortality (1.18, 1.09-1.27) and fatal infection (1.36, 1.17-1.58), but we did not detect a difference in the risk for cardiovascular events (1.07, 0.95-1.21). The risk for bias, especially selection bias, was high. In conclusion, persons using catheters for hemodialysis seem to have the highest risks for death, infections, and cardiovascular events compared with other vascular access types, and patients with usable fistulas have the lowest risk.

Optimal Mode of clearance in critically ill patients with Acute Kidney Injury (OMAKI)--a pilot randomized controlled trial of hemofiltration versus hemodialysis: a Canadian Critical Care Trials Group project.

INTRODUCTION: Among critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) needing continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), the effect of convective (via continuous venovenous hemofiltration [CVVH]) versus diffusive (via continuous venovenous hemodialysis [CVVHD]) solute clearance on clinical outcomes is unclear. Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility of comparing these two modes in a randomized trial. METHODS: This was a multicenter open-label parallel-group pilot randomized trial of CVVH versus CVVHD. Using concealed allocation, we randomized critically ill adults with AKI and hemodynamic instability to CVVH or CVVHD, with a prescribed small solute clearance of 35 mL/kg/hour in both arms. The primary outcome was trial feasibility, defined by randomization of >25% of eligible patients, delivery of >75% of the prescribed CRRT dose, and follow-up of >95% of patients to 60 days. A secondary analysis using a mixed-effects model examined the impact of therapy on illness severity, defined by sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, over the first week. RESULTS: We randomized 78 patients (mean age 61.5 years; 39% women; 23% with chronic kidney disease; 82% with sepsis). Baseline SOFA scores (mean 15.9, SD 3.2) were similar between groups. We recruited 55% of eligible patients, delivered >80% of the prescribed dose in each arm, and achieved 100% follow-up. SOFA tended to decline more over the first week in CVVH recipients (-0.8, 95% CI -2.1, +0.5) driven by a reduction in vasopressor requirements. Mortality (54% CVVH; 55% CVVHD) and dialysis dependence in survivors (24% CVVH; 19% CVVHD) at 60 days were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that a large trial comparing CVVH to CVVHD would be feasible. There is a trend toward improved vasopressor requirements among CVVH-treated patients over the first week of treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00675818.