Prescribing the dialysis dose and treatment frequency in home haemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in home haemodialysis (HHD) performed with low-flow dialysate devices and variable treatment schedules. The target standard Kt/V (stdKt/V) should be 2.3 volumes/week, according to KDOQI guidelines (2015). The current formula for stdKt/V does not help prescribe the dialysis dose (eKt/V) and treatment frequency (TF). The aim of this study was to obtain a formula for stdKt/V that is able to define the minimum required values of eKt/V and TF to achieve the targeted stdKtV. METHODS: Thirty-eight prevalent patients on HHD were enrolled. A total of 231 clinical datasets were available for urea modelling using the Solute-Solver software (SS), recommended by KDOQI guidelines. A new formula (stdKt/V = a + b × Kru + c × eKt/V) was obtained from multivariable regression analysis of stdKt/V vs eKt/V and residual kidney urea clearance (Kru). The values of coefficients a, b and c depend on the treatment schedules and the day of the week of blood sampling for the kinetic study (labdayofwk) and then vary for each of their foreseen 62 combinations. For practical purposes, we used only seven combinations, assuming Monday as a labdayofwk for each of the most common schedules of the 7 days of the week. RESULTS: The stdKt/V values obtained with SS were compared with the paired ones obtained with the formula. The mean ± standard deviation stdKt/V values obtained with SS and the formula were 3.043 ± 0.530 and 2.990 ± 0.553, respectively, with 95% confidence interval +0.15 to -0.26. A 'prescription graph' was built using the formula to draw lines expressing the relationship between Kru and required eKt/V for each TF. Using this graph, TF could have been reduced from the delivered 5.8 ± 0.8 to 4.8 ± 0.8 weekly sessions. CONCLUSIONS: The new formula for stdKtV is reliable and can support clinicians to prescribe the dialysis dose and TF in patients undergoing HHD.

Parathyroidectomy and survival in a cohort of Italian dialysis patients: results of a multicenter, observational, prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Severe secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) is associated with mortality in end stage kidney disease (ESKD). Parathyroidectomy (PTX) becomes necessary when medical therapy fails, thus highlighting the interest to compare biochemical and clinical outcomes of patients receiving either medical treatment or surgery. METHODS: We aimed to compare overall survival and biochemical control of hemodialysis patients with severe hyperparathyroidism, treated by surgery or medical therapy followed-up for 36 months. Inclusion criteria were age older than 18 years, renal failure requiring dialysis treatment (hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis) and ability to sign the consent form. A control group of 418 patients treated in the same centers, who did not undergo parathyroidectomy was selected after matching for age, sex, and dialysis vintage. RESULTS: From 82 Dialysis units in Italy, we prospectively collected data of 257 prevalent patients who underwent parathyroidectomy (age 58.2 ± 12.8 years; M/F: 44%/56%, dialysis vintage: 15.5 ± 8.4 years) and of 418 control patients who did not undergo parathyroidectomy (age 60.3 ± 14.4 years; M/F 44%/56%; dialysis vintage 11.2 ± 7.6 y). The survival rate was higher in the group that underwent parathyroidectomy (Kaplan-Meier log rank test = 0.002). Univariable analysis (HR 0.556, CI: 0.387-0.800, p = 0.002) and multivariable analysis (HR 0.671, CI:0.465-0.970, p = 0.034), identified parathyroidectomy as a protective factor of overall survival. The prevalence of patients at KDOQI targets for PTH was lower in patients who underwent parathyroidectomy compared to controls (PTX vs non-PTX: PTH < 150 pg/ml: 59% vs 21%, p = 0.001; PTH at target: 18% vs 37% p = 0.001; PTH > 300 pg/ml 23% vs 42% p = 0.001). The control group received more intensive medical treatment with higher prevalence of vitamin D (65% vs 41%, p = 0.0001), calcimimetics (34% vs 14%, p = 0.0001) and phosphate binders (77% vs 66%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that parathyroidectomy is associated with survival rate at 36 months, independently of biochemical control. Lower exposure to high PTH levels could represent an advantage in the long term.

Validation of formulas calculating normalized protein catabolic rate in patients undergoing home hemodialysis.

Depner and Daugirdas developed a simplified formula to estimate the normalized protein catabolic rate in patients on twice- or thrice-weekly hemodialysis (JASN, 1996). The aim of our work was to establish formulas in more frequent schedules and validate them in home-based hemodialysis patients. We realized that the structure of Depner and Daugirdas' normalized protein catabolic rate formulas has a general meaning and can be expressed as PCRn = C0/[a + b*(Kt/V) + c/(Kt/V)] + d, where C0 is pre-dialysis blood urea nitrogen, Kt/V is dialysis dose, a, b, c, d are the specific coefficients for each combination of home-based hemodialysis schedules and the day of blood sampling. The same applies to the formula that adjusts C0 (C'0) for residual kidney clearance of blood water urea (Kru) and urea distribution volume (V): C'0 = C0*[1 + (a1 + b1/(Kt/V))*Kru/V]. On this basis, we computed the six coefficients (a, b, c, d, a1, b1) for each of the 50 possible combinations and simulated a total of 24,000 weekly dialysis cycles using the Daugirdas Solute Solver software recommended by the KDOQI 2015 guidelines. From the associated statistical analyses we obtained 50 sets of coefficient values, which were validated comparing the paired normalized protein catabolic rate values (i.e., those estimated with our formulas with those modeled with Solute Solver) in 210 datasets of 27 patients on home-based hemodialysis. The mean values ± SD were 1.06 ± 0.262 and 1.07 ± 0.283 g/kg/day, respectively, with a mean difference of 0.004 ± 0.034 g/kg/day (p = 0.11). The paired values were highly correlated (R2 = 0.99). In conclusion, even if the coefficient values were validated in a relatively small sample of patients, they allow an accurate estimation of normalized protein catabolic rate in home-based hemodialysis patients.

Could incremental haemodialysis be a new standard of care? A suggestion from a long-term observational study.

Introduction: The term incremental haemodialysis (HD) means that both dialysis dose and frequency can be low at dialysis inception but should be progressively increased, to compensate for any subsequent reduction in residual kidney function. Policy of the Matera Dialysis Center is to attempt an incremental start of HD without a strict low-protein diet in all patients choosing HD and with urine output (UO) >500 ml/day. The present study aimed at analyzing the results of this policy over the last 20 years. Subjects and methods: The dataset of all patients starting HD between January 1st, 2000 and December 31st, 2019 was retrieved from the local electronic database. Exclusion criteria were: urine output <500 ml/day or follow-up <3 months after the start of the dialysis treatment. Results: A total of 266 patients were retrieved; 64 of them were excluded from the study. The remaining 202 patients were enrolled into the study and subdivided into 3 groups (G1, G2 and G3) according to the frequency of treatment at the start of dialysis: 117 patients (57.9%) started with once-a-week (1HD/wk) (G1); 46 (22.8%) with twice-a-week (2HD/wk) (G2); 39 (19.3%) with thrice-a-week (3HD/wk) dialysis regimen (G3). Patients of G1 remained on 1HD/wk for 11.9 ±14.8 months and then transferred to 2HD/wk for further 13.0 ±20.3 months. Patients of G2 remained on 2HD/wk for 16.7 ±23.2 months. Altogether, 25943 sessions were administered during the less frequent treatment periods instead of 47988, that would have been delivered if the patients had been on 3HD/wk, thus saving 22045 sessions (45.9%). Gross mortality of the entire group was 12.6%, comparable to the mean mortality of the Italian dialysis population (16.2%). Survival at 1 and 5 years was not significantly different among the 3 groups: 94% and 61% (G1); 83% and 39% (G2); 84% and 46% (G3). Conclusions: Our long-term observational study suggests that incremental HD is a valuable option for incident patients. For most of them (80.7%) it is viable for about 1-2 years, with obvious socio-economic benefits and survival rates comparable to that of the Italian dialysis population. However, randomized controlled trials are lacking and therefore urgently needed. If they will confirm observational data, incremental HD will be a new standard of care.

Does delivering more dialysis improve clinical outcomes? What randomized controlled trials have shown.

Some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have sought to determine whether different dialysis techniques, dialysis doses and frequencies of treatment are able to improve clinical outcomes in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Virtually all of these RCTs were enacted on the premise that 'more' haemodialysis might improve clinical outcomes compared to 'conventional' haemodialysis. Aim of the present narrative review was to analyse these landmark RCTs by posing the following question: were their intervention strategies (i.e., earlier dialysis start, higher haemodialysis dose, intensive haemodialysis, increase in convective transport, starting haemodialysis with three sessions per week) able to improve clinical outcomes? The answer is no. There are at least two main reasons why many RCTs have failed to demonstrate the expected benefits thus far: (1) in general, RCTs included relatively small cohorts and short follow-ups, thus producing low event rates and limited statistical power; (2) the designs of these studies did not take into account that ESKD does not result from a single disease entity: it is a collection of different diseases and subtypes of kidney dysfunction. Patients with advanced kidney failure requiring dialysis treatment differ on a multitude of levels including residual kidney function, biochemical parameters (e.g., acid base balance, serum electrolytes, mineral and bone disorder), and volume overload. In conclusion, the different intervention strategies of the RCTs herein reviewed were not able to improve clinical outcomes of ESKD patients. Higher quality studies are needed to guide patients and clinicians in the decision-making process. Future RCTs should account for the heterogeneity of patients when considering inclusion/exclusion criteria and study design, and should a priori consider subgroup analyses to highlight specific subgroups that can benefit most from a particular intervention.

Kidney dysfunction requiring dialysis is a heterogeneous syndrome: we should treat it like one.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Advanced kidney failure requiring dialysis, commonly labeled end-stage kidney disease or chronic kidney disease stage 5D, is a heterogeneous syndrome -a key reason that may explain why: treating advanced kidney dysfunction is challenging and many clinical trials involving patients on dialysis have failed, thus far. Treatment with dialytic techniques - of which maintenance thrice-weekly hemodialysis is most commonly used - is broadly named kidney 'replacement' therapy, a term that casts the perception of a priori abandonment of intrinsic kidney function and subsumes patients into a single, homogeneous group. RECENT FINDINGS: Patients with advanced kidney failure necessitating dialytic therapy may have ongoing endogenous kidney function, and differ in their clinical manifestations and needs. Different terminology, for example, kidney dysfunction requiring dialysis (KDRD) with stages of progressive severity could better capture the range of phenotypes of patients who require kidney 'assistance' therapy. SUMMARY: Classifying patients with KDRD based on objective, quantitative levels of endogenous kidney function, as well as patient-reported symptoms and quality of life, would facilitate hemodialysis prescriptions tailored to level of kidney dysfunction, clinical needs, and personal priorities. Such classification would encourage clinicians to move toward personalized, physiological, and adaptive approach to hemodialysis therapy.

The spectrum of kidney dysfunction requiring chronic dialysis therapy: Implications for clinical practice and future clinical trials.

Staging to capture kidney function and pathophysiologic processes according to severity is widely used in chronic kidney disease or acute kidney injury not requiring dialysis. Yet the diagnosis of "end-stage kidney disease" (ESKD) considers patients as a single homogeneous group, with negligible kidney function, in need of kidney replacement therapy. Herein, we review the evidence behind the heterogeneous nature of ESKD and discuss potential benefits of recasting the terminology used to describe advanced kidney dysfunction from a monolithic entity to a disease with stages of ascending severity. We consider kidney assistance therapy in lieu of kidney replacement therapy to better reconcile all available types of therapy for advanced kidney failure including dietary intervention, kidney transplantation, and dialysis therapy at varied schedules. The lexicon "kidney dysfunction requiring dialysis" (KDRD) with stages of ascending severity based on levels of residual kidney function (RKF)-that is, renal urea clearance-and manifestations related to uremia, fluid status, and other abnormalities is discussed. Subtyping KDRD by levels of RKF could advance dialysis therapy as a form of kidney assistance therapy adjusted based on RKF and clinical symptoms. We focus on intermittent hemodialysis and underscore the need to personalize dialysis treatments and improve characterization of patients included in clinical trials.

Routine assessment of kidney urea clearance, dialysis dose and protein catabolic rate in the once-weekly haemodialysis regimen.

BACKGROUND: The dialysis dose (Kt/V) and normalized protein catabolic rate (PCRn) are the most useful indices derived from the urea kinetic model (UKM) in haemodialysis (HD) patients. The kidney urea clearance (Kru) is another important UKM parameter which plays a key role in the prescription of incremental HD. Ideally, the three kinetic parameters should be assessed using the complex software Solute Solver based on the double pool UKM. In the clinical setting, however, the three indices are estimated with simplified formulae. The recently introduced software SPEEDY assembles the aforementioned equations in a plain spreadsheet, to produce quite accurate results of Kru, Kt/V and PCRn. Unfortunately, specific equations to compute Kt/V and PCRn for patients on a once-weekly HD regimen (1HD/wk) were not available at the time SPEEDY was built-up. We devised a new version of SPEEDY (SPEEDY-1) and an even simpler variant (SPEEDY-1S), using two recently published equations for the 1HD/wk schedule . Moreover, we also added a published equation to estimate the equivalent renal clearance (EKR) normalized to urea distribution volume (V) of 35 L (EKR35) from Kru and Kt/V . Aim of the present study was to compare the results obtained using the new methods (SPEEDY-1 and SPEEDY-1S) with those provided by the reference method Solute Solver. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: One hundred historical patients being treated with the once-weekly HD regimen were enrolled. A total of 500 HD sessions associated to the availability of monthly UKM studies were analysed in order to obtain Kru, single pool Kt/V (spKt/V), equilibrated Kt/V (eKt/V), V, PCRn and EKR35 values by using Solute Solver, SPEEDY-1 and SPEEDY-1S. RESULTS: When comparing the paired values of the above UKM parameters, as computed by SPEEDY-1 and Solute Solver, respectively, all differences but one were statistically significant at the one-sample t-test; however, the agreement limits at Bland-Altman analysis showed that all differences were negligible. When comparing the paired values of the above UKM parameters, as computed by SPEEDY-1S and Solute Solver, respectively, all differences were statistically significant; however, the agreement limits showed that the differences were negligible as far as Kru, spKt/V and eKt/V are concerned, though much larger regarding V, PCRn and EKR35. CONCLUSIONS: We implemented SPEEDY with a new version specific for the once-weekly HD regimen, SPEEDY-1. It provides accurate results and is presently the best alternative to Solute Solver. Using SPEEDY-1S led to a larger difference in PCRn and EKR35, which could be acceptable for clinical practice if SPEEDY-1 is not available.

Improving the "second generation Daugirdas equation" to estimate Kt/V on the once-weekly haemodialysis schedule.

INTRODUCTION: The haemodialysis (HD) dose, as expressed by Kt/V urea, is currently routinely estimated with the second generation Daugirdas (D2) equation (Daugirdas in J Am Soc Nephrol 4:1205-1213, 1993). This equation, initially devised for a thrice-weekly schedule, was modified to be used for all dialysis schedules (Daugirdas et al. in Nephrol Dial Transplant 28:2156-2160, 2013), by adopting a variable factor that adjusts for the urea generation (GFAC) over the preceding inter-dialysis interval (PIDI, days). This factor was set at 0.008 for the mid-week session of the standard thrice-weekly HD schedule. In theory, by setting PIDI = 7, one could get GFAC = 0.0025, to be used in patients on the once-weekly (1HD/wk) schedule, but actually this has never been tested. Moreover, GFAC was derived not taking into account the residual kidney urea clearance (Kru). Aim of the present study was to provide a specific value of GFAC for patients on  a once-weekly hemodialysis schedule. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The equation to predict GFAC (GFAC-1) in the 1HD/wk schedule was established in a group of 80 historical Italian patients (group 1) and validated in a group of 100 historical Spanish patients (group 2), by comparing the Kt/V computed using GFAC-1 (Kt/VGFAC-1) with the reference Kt/V (Kt/VSS) values, as computed with the web-based Solute-Solver software (SS) (Daugirdas et al. in Am J Kidney Dis 54:798-809, 2009). Three more sets of Kt/V (Kt/V0.008, Kt/V0.0025 and Kt/V0.0035) values were computed using the GFAC of the original D2 equation (0.008), the GFAC predicted by PIDI/7 (0.0025) and the mean observed GFAC-1 (0.0035), respectively. They were compared with the reference Kt/VSS values. RESULTS: The predicting equation obtained from group 1 was: GFAC-1 = 0.0022 + 0.0105 × Kru/V (R2 = 0.93). Mean Kt/VSS in the group 2 was 1.54 ± 0.29 SD (N = 500 HD sessions). The mean percent differences for Kt/V0.008, Kt/V0.0025, Kt/VGFAC-1, and Kt/V0.0035 were 5.1 ± 1.0%, - 1.4 ± 0.7%, 0.0 ± 0.3%, - 0.3 ± 0.7%, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between Kt/V values, except for Kt/V0.008. CONCLUSION: A linear relationship was found between GFAC and Kru/V in patients on the 1HD/wk schedule. Such a relationship is able to improve the "second generation Daugirdas equation" for an accurate estimate of the single pool Kt/V in this setting. However, a simple replacement in the D2 equation of 0.008 with the mean observed GFAC (0.0035) could suffice in the clinical practice.

The lacking equation that estimates the protein catabolic rate in patients on once-weekly haemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: The normalized protein catabolic rate (PCRn) is one of the key indices derived from the urea kinetic model (UKM) in haemodialysis (HD) patients. Ideally, it should be assessed using the double pool UKM (KDOQI clinical practice guidelines, AIKD, 2015), as the web-based software Solute-Solver (SS) does (Daugirdas et al., AJKD, 2009). Simple formulae exist to compute PCRn for patients on thrice- or twice-weekly HD schedule, but not for patients on once-weekly HD schedule (1HD/wk). Aim of the present technical note was to introduce the lacking equation that estimates PCRn in the 1HD/wk regimen. METHODS: Data of a single HD session associated to monthly UKM studies were retrieved from the electronic database of our dialysis unit for 80 historical patients on 1HD/wk regimen. The UKM parameters, as calculated with SS, were used in a subgroup of 40 randomly selected patients (group 1) to build-up a multiple regression model of PCRn. The latter was used to predict PCRn (PCRnPred) values in the cohort of the remaining 40 patients (group 2). The Bland-Altman plot was used to analyse the agreement between PCRnPred and the paired "observed" (PCRnObs) values, as measured with SS. RESULTS: The following equation was established by means of the multiple regression analysis: PCRn = - 0.46 + 0.01 × C0 + 0.09 × eKt/V + 3.94 × Kru/V, where C0 is pre-dialysis blood urea nitrogen concentration, eKt/V is the equilibrated Kt/V, Kru is the residual renal urea clearance and V is the post-dialysis urea distribution volume. The PCRnPred values were 0.99 ± 0.24 g/kg/day; the PCRnObs values were 0.96 ± 0.23 g/kg/day (mean difference 0.03 ± 0.05 g/kg/day). Their difference at the Bland-Altman analysis ranged from - 0.08 to + 0.13 g/kg/day. Finally, a nomogram was drawn: it can be used to estimate not only PCRn from Kru/V and C0, but also C0 as a function of Kru/V and PCRn. CONCLUSIONS: The equation here introduced allows a simple and accurate estimate of PCRn in patients on once-weekly HD regimen. The availability of the nomogram relating C0 to PCRn and Kru/V could be a further step to make safer and safer the once-weekly HD regimen. The following equation was established by means of the multiple regression analysis [Formula: see text] where PCRn is the normalized protein catabolic rate (PCRn), C0 is pre-dialysis blood urea nitrogen concentration (BUN), eKt/V is the equilibrated Kt/V, Kru is the residual renal urea clearance and V is the post-dialysis urea distribution volume. A nomogram relating pre-dialysis BUN to PCRn and Kru/V could be drawn: it can be used to estimate not only PCRn from Kru/V and pre-dialysis BUN, but also pre-dialysis BUN as a function of Kru/V and PCRn.

What volume to choose to assess online Kt/V?

INTRODUCTION: Urea distribution volume (V) can be assessed in different ways, among them the anthropometric Watson Volume (VW). However, many studies have shown that VW does not coincide with V and that the latter can be more accurately estimated with other methods. The present multicentre study was designed to answer the question: what V to choose to assess online Kt/V? MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pre- and postdialysis blood urea nitrogen concentrations and the usual input data set for urea kinetic modelling were obtained for a single dialysis session in 201 Caucasian patients treated in 9 Italian dialysis units. Only dialysis machines measuring ionic dialysance (ID) were utilized. ID reflects very accurately the mean effective dialyser urea clearance (Kd). Six different V values were obtained: the first one was VW; the second one was computed from the equation established by the HEMO Study to predict the single pool-adjusted modelled V from VW (VH) (Daugirdas JT et al. KI 64: 1108, 2003); the others were estimated kinetically as: 1. V_ID, in which ID is direct input in the in the double pool variable volume (dpVV) calculation by means of the Solute-solver software; 2. V_Kd, in which the estimated Kd is direct input in the dpVV calculation by means of the Solute-solver software; 3. V_KTV, in which V is calculated by means of the second generation Daugirdas equation; 4. V_SPEEDY, in which ID is direct input in the dpVV calculation by means of the SPEEDY software able to provide results quite similar to those provided by Solute-solver. RESULTS: Mean± SD of the main data are reported: measured ID was 190.6 ± 29.6 mL/min, estimated Kd was 211.6 ± 29.0 mL/min. The relationship between paired data was poor (R2 = 0.34) and their difference at the Bland-Altman plot was large (21 ± 27 mL/min). VW was 35.3 ± 6.3 L, VH 29.5 ± 5.5, V_ID 28.99 ± 7.6 L, V_SPEEDY 29.4 ± 7.6 L, V_KTV 29.7 ± 7.0 L. The mean ratio VW/V_ID was 1.22, (i.e. VW overestimated V_ID by about 22%). The mean ratio VH/V_ID was 1.02 (i.e. VH overestimated V_ID by only 2%). The relationship between paired data of V_ID and VW was poor (R2 = 0.48) and their mean difference at the Bland-Altman plot was very large (- 6.39 ± 5.59 L). The relationship between paired data of V_ID and VH was poor (R2 = 47) and their mean difference was small but with a large SD (- 0.59 ± 5.53 L). The relationship between paired data of V_ID and V_SPEEDY was excellent (R2 = 0.993) and their mean difference at the Bland-Altman plot was very small (- 0.54 ± 0.64 L). The relationship between paired data of V_ID and V_KTV was excellent (R2 = 0.985) and their mean difference at the Bland-Altman plot was small (- 0.85 ± 1.06 L). CONCLUSIONS: V_ID can be considered the reference method to estimate the modelled V and then the first choice to assess Kt/V. V_SPEEDY is a valuable alternative to V_ID. V_KTV can be utilized in the daily practice, taking also into account its simple way of calculation. VW is not advisable because it leads to underestimation of Kt/V by about 20%.

Incremental hemodialysis, a valuable option for the frail elderly patient.

Management of older people on dialysis requires focus on the wider aspects of aging as well as dialysis. Recognition and assessment of frailty is vital in changing our approach in elderly patients. Current guidelines in dialysis have a limited evidence base across all age group, but particularly the elderly. We need to focus on new priorities of care when we design guidelines "for people not diseases". Patient-centered goal-directed therapy, arising from shared decision-making between physician and patient, should allow adaption of the dialysis regime. Hemodialysis (HD) in the older age group can be complicated by intradialytic hypotension, prolonged time to recovery, and access-related problems. There is increasing evidence relating to the harm associated with the delivery of standard thrice-weekly HD. Incremental HD has a lower burden of treatment. There appears to be no adverse clinical effects during the first years of dialysis in presence of a significant residual kidney function. The advantages of incremental HD might be particularly important for elderly patients with short life expectancy. There is a need for more research into specific topics such as the assessment of the course of frailty with progression of chronic kidney disease and after dialysis initiation, the choice of dialysis modality impacting on the trajectory of frailty, the timing of dialysis initiation impacting on frailty or on other outcomes. In conclusion, understanding each individual's goals of care in the context of his or her life experience is particularly important in the elderly, when overall life expectancy is relatively short, and life experience or quality of life may be the priority.

IHDIP: a controlled randomized trial to assess the security and effectiveness of the incremental hemodialysis in incident patients.

BACKGROUND: Most people who make the transition to renal replacement therapy (RRT) are treated with a fixed dose thrice-weekly hemodialysis réegimen, without considering their residual kidney function (RKF). Recent papers inform us that incremental hemodialysis is associated with preservation of RKF, whenever compared with conventional hemodialysis. The objective of the present controlled randomized trial (RCT) is to determine if start HD with one sessions per week (1-Wk/HD), it is associated with better patient survival and other safety parameters. METHODS/DESIGN: IHDIP is a multicenter RCT experimental open trial. It is randomized in a 1:1 ratio and controlled through usual clinical practice, with a low intervention level and non-commercial. It includes 152 incident patients older than 18 years, with a RRF of ≥4 ml/min/1.73 m2, measured by renal clearance of urea (KrU). The intervention group includes 76 patients who will start with incremental HD (1-Wk/HD). The control group includes 76 patients who will start with thrice-weekly hemodialysis régimen. The primary outcome is assessing the survival rate, while the secondary outcomes are the morbidity rate, the clinical parameters, the quality of life and the efficiency. DISCUSSION: This study will enable to know the number of sessions a patient should receive when starting HD, depending on his RRF. The potentially important clinical and financial implications of incremental hemodialysis warrant this RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: U.S. National Institutes of Health, ClinicalTrials.gov . Number: NCT03239808 , completed 13/04/2017. SPONSOR: Foundation for Training and Research of Health Professionals of Extremadura.

Justificación y diseño de DiPPI: un ensayo controlado aleatorizado para evaluar la seguridad y la efectividad de la hemodiálisis progresiva en pacientes incidentes / Rationale and design of DiPPI: A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of progressive hemodialysis in incident patients

INTRODUCCIÓN: La hemodiálisis (HD) progresiva es una modalidad de inicio del tratamiento renal sustitutivo adaptada a las necesidades individuales de cada paciente. Está condicionada fundamentalmente por la función renal residual (FRR). En ella, la frecuencia de sesiones con las que el paciente inicia HD (una o 2 sesiones por semana) es menor que en la HD convencional (3 por semana). Dicha frecuencia aumenta (de una a 2, y de 2 a 3) con el declinar de la FRR. Metodología/diseño: DiPPI es un estudio abierto, multicéntrico, experimental, aleatorizado 1:1 y controlado con procedimiento de práctica clínica habitual, de bajo nivel de intervención y no comercial. Incluye 152 pacientes mayores de 18 años, con enfermedad renal crónica estadio 5, que inician HD como tratamiento renal sustitutivo; y la FRR, medida por aclaramiento renal de urea (KrU) es ≥ 4ml/min/1,73 m2. El estudio se basa en un grupo de intervención con 76 pacientes que iniciarán HD con una sola sesión por semana (modalidad progresiva) y un grupo control con 76 pacientes que comenzarán con 3 sesiones por semana. El objetivo primario es evaluar la supervivencia y los objetivos secundarios son la morbilidad (hospitalizaciones), los parámetros clínicos habituales, la calidad de vida y la eficiencia. DISCUSIÓN: Este estudio permitirá conocer, con la máxima evidencia científica, cuántas sesiones debe recibir un paciente al inicio del tratamiento con HD, dependiendo de su FRR. Registro: Registrado en U.S. National Institutes of Health, ClinicalTrials.gov con número NCT03239808

INTRODUCTION: Progressive haemodialysis (HD) is a starting regime for renal replacement therapy (RRT) adapted to each patient's necessities. It is mainly conditioned by the residual renal function (RRF). The frequency of sessions with which patients start HD (one or two sessions per week), is lower than that for conventional HD (three times per week). Such frequency is increased (from one to two sessions, and from two to three sessions) as the RRF declines. Methodology/DESIGN: IHDIP is a multicentre randomised experimental open trial. It is randomised in a 1:1 ratio and controlled through usual clinical practice, with a low intervention level and non-commercial. It includes 152 patients older than 18 years with chronic renal disease stage 5 and start HD as RRT, with an RRF of ≥ 4 ml/min/1.73 m2, measured by renal clearance of urea (KrU). The intervention group includes 76 patients who will start with one session of HD per week (progressive HD). The control group includes 76 patients who will start with three sessions per week (conventional HD). The primary purpose is assessing the survival rate, while the secondary purposes are the morbidity rate (hospital admissions), the clinical parameters, the quality of life and the efficiency. DISCUSSION: This study will enable us to know, with the highest level of scientific evidence, the number of sessions a patient should receive when starting the HD treatment, depending on his/her RRF. Trial registration: Registered at the U.S. National Institutes of Health, ClinicalTrials.gov under the number NCT03239808

Rationale and design of DiPPI: A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of progressive hemodialysis in incident patients. / Justificación y diseño de DiPPI: un ensayo controlado aleatorizado para evaluar la seguridad y la efectividad de la hemodiálisis progresiva en pacientes incidentes.

INTRODUCTION: Progressive haemodialysis (HD) is a starting regime for renal replacement therapy (RRT) adapted to each patient's necessities. It is mainly conditioned by the residual renal function (RRF). The frequency of sessions with which patients start HD (one or two sessions per week), is lower than that for conventional HD (three times per week). Such frequency is increased (from one to two sessions, and from two to three sessions) as the RRF declines. METHODOLOGY/DESIGN: IHDIP is a multicentre randomised experimental open trial. It is randomised in a 1:1 ratio and controlled through usual clinical practice, with a low intervention level and non-commercial. It includes 152 patients older than 18 years with chronic renal disease stage 5 and start HD as RRT, with an RRF of ≥4ml/min/1.73m2, measured by renal clearance of urea (KrU). The intervention group includes 76 patients who will start with one session of HD per week (progressive HD). The control group includes 76 patients who will start with three sessions per week (conventional HD). The primary purpose is assessing the survival rate, while the secondary purposes are the morbidity rate (hospital admissions), the clinical parameters, the quality of life and the efficiency. DISCUSSION: This study will enable us to know, with the highest level of scientific evidence, the number of sessions a patient should receive when starting the HD treatment, depending on his/her RRF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at the U.S. National Institutes of Health, ClinicalTrials.gov under the number NCT03239808.