Nocturnal home haemodialysis: The 17 years experience of a single Australian dialysis service.

AIM: The Barwon Health nocturnal home haemodialysis (NHHD) program was established in 2000 as the first formal NHHD program in Australia. We aimed to assess reasons for and factors associated with program exit, and technique and patient survival rates. METHODS: This retrospective audit included all patients enrolled in the NHHD program from 1st September 2000 to 31st July 2017. The primary outcome was technique failure, defined as transfer to satellite haemodialysis (HD) or to peritoneal dialysis (PD) for greater than or equal to 60 days, or death. Predictors of technique failure were identified by competing risk regression analyses. Patient and technique survival were estimated by Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: A total of 109 patients underwent 112 periods of NHHD during the study period. Technique failure occurred in 33 patients (30%), of whom 16 were transferred to satellite HD for medical reasons, 16 died, and 1 transferred to PD due to a lack of vascular access. Median technique survival was 7.8 years (interquartile range 4.1, 11.1) and median patient survival 14.6 years (interquartile range 6.2,-). Average NHHD duration for those who transferred to satellite HD was 5.2 ± 3.6 years, and for those who died was 4.7 ± 3.8 years. Older age and diabetes were associated with technique failure. However, due to a small number of events the risk of confounding in this study was high. CONCLUSION: Nocturnal home haemodialysis has excellent long-term technique and patient outcomes. Clinicians should be aware of factors associated with poorer outcomes, to ensure that additional support can be provided to patients at greatest risk.

Using water wisely: New, affordable, and essential water conservation practices for facility and home hemodialysis.

Despite a global focus on resource conservation, most hemodialysis (HD) services still wastefully or ignorantly discard reverse osmosis (R/O) "reject water" (RW) to the sewer. However, an R/O system is producing the highly purified water necessary for dialysis, it rejects any remaining dissolved salts from water already prefiltered through charcoal and sand filters in a high-volume effluent known as RW. Although the RW generated by most R/O systems lies well within globally accepted potable water criteria, it is legally "unacceptable" for drinking. Consequently, despite being extremely high-grade gray water, under current dialysis practices, it is thoughtlessly "lost-to-drain." Most current HD service designs neither specify nor routinely include RW-saving methodology, despite its simplicity and affordability. Since 2006, we have operated several locally designed, simple, cheap, and effective RW collection and distribution systems in our in-center, satellite, and home HD services. All our RW water is now recycled for gray-water use in our hospital, in the community, and at home, a practice that is widely appreciated by our local health service and our community and is an acknowledged lead example of scarce resource conservation. Reject water has sustained local sporting facilities and gardens previously threatened by indefinite closure under our regional endemic local drought conditions. As global water resources come under increasing pressure, we believe that a far more responsible attitude to RW recycling and conservation should be mandated for all new and existing HD services, regardless of country or region.

Nocturnal haemodialysis: an Australian cost comparison with conventional satellite haemodialysis.

Dialysis is an expensive therapy, particularly considering its recurrent, protracted nature while patient numbers are also increasing. To afford dialysis for those in need, smarter, more efficient use of limited funds is mandatory. Newer techniques and improved equipment now permit safe, highly effective haemodialysis (HD) at home, alone and while asleep. Indeed, the increase in treatment hours and frequency achieved through nocturnal HD both increase HD efficiency and reduce cardiovascular stress when comparing nocturnal HD (6 nights/week for 8 h/treatment) to conventional daytime HD (4 h/treatment, three times/week). This study compares the expenditure of two distinct HD programmes in the same renal service during the Australian financial year 2003/2004. A conventional satellite HD unit (SHDU) and a nocturnal home HD programme (NHHD(6)) are compared, with both programmes 'notionalised' to 30 patients. The state-derived funding models under which these programmes operate are explained. All wage costs, recurrent expenditure, fixed costs and the estimated costs of building and infrastructure are included. The total NHHD(6) programme expenditure was 33,392 Australian dollars/patient per year (103.82 Australian dollars/treatment) and was 3,892 Australian dollars/patient per year less (a 10.75% saving) when compared with the SHDU expenditure of 36,284 Australian dollars/patient per year (232.58 Australian dollars/treatment). This represented an annual 116,750 Australian dollars programme saving for a 30 patient cohort. Potential additional NHHD(6) savings in erythropoietin, hospitalization and social security dependence were also identified. Home-based therapies are clinically sound, effective and fiscally prudent and efficient. Funding models should reward home-based HD. Health services should encourage home training and support systems, sustaining patients at home wherever possible.

Nocturnal hemodialysis in australia.

BACKGROUND: Because home hemodialysis has long been a common Australian support modality, the advent of home-based nocturnal hemodialysis (NHD) in Canada stimulated the extension of our existing home- and satellite-based conventional hemodialysis (CHD) programs to NHD. As a result, the first government-funded, home-based, 6-nights-per-week NHD program in Australia began in July 2001. METHODS: Sixteen patients have been trained for NHD; 13 dialyzed at home 8 to 9 hr per night for 6 nights per week, whereas 3 preferred to train for NHD at home using an 8- to 9-hr alternate-night regime. RESULTS: The program experience to March 1, 2003, was 655 patient-weeks. Two patients had withdrawn for transplantation and 2 for social reasons, although 1 continues on alternate-night NHD. There hade been no deaths. Ten patients had dialyzed without partners. All patients ceased phosphate binders at entry. Thirteen of 16 discontinued all antihypertensive drugs. There were no fluid or dietary restrictions. Phosphate was added to the dialysate to prevent hypophosphatemia. Pre- and postdialysis urea and phosphate levels were broadly within the normal ranges. All patients reported restorative sleep; similarly partners reported stable sleep patterns and noted improved mood, cognitive function, and marital relationships in their NHD partners. Preliminary cost analyses show that whereas consumables had doubled, and epoetin and iron expenditures had risen by 28.9%, other pharmaceutical costs had fallen by 47%, and nursing wage costs were 48% of the notional cost had these patients remained on CHD. Three patients on NHD were retired, 7 worked full-time, 3 worked part-time, and 3 drew disability support, whereas previously on CHD, 3 were retired, 3 had worked full-time, 3 had worked part-time, and 7 had drawn disability support. CONCLUSION: We believe that NHD is viable, safe, effective, and well accepted with significant lifestyle benefits and reemployment outcomes. Although initial setup costs are significant, NHD cost advantage over CHD progressively accrues as program numbers exceed 12 to 15 patients.