Explore the vast range of titles available.

This study aimed to investigate the effects of different dialysis modalities on cognitive function in patients with end stage renal disease and to explore their association with the clearance of protein bound uremic toxins. A total of 135 patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups hemodialysis HD hemodialysis combined with hemodiafiltration HD + HDF and hemodialysis combined with hemodiafiltration plus hemoperfusion HD + HDF + HP. Cognitive function was evaluated using the Mini Mental State Examination MMSE and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment MoCA which assess multiple domains including memory attention executive function and orientation. Plasma levels of homocysteine Hcy and indoxyl sulfate IS were measured before and after dialysis sessions. Statistical analysis included comparisons among groups Spearman correlation multiple linear and logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic ROC curve analysis. Cognitive scores improved progressively across the three groups with the greatest improvement observed in the HD + HDF + HP group. Toxin levels decreased accordingly and were lowest in the HD + HDF + HP group. Multivariate analysis identified Hcy and IS as independent risk factors for cognitive impairment. ROC analysis demonstrated that both toxins had strong predictive value for cognitive decline. The results indicate that combined HDF and HP enhances removal of protein bound toxins and is associated with better preservation of cognitive function. These findings suggest that triple modality dialysis may provide a promising strategy to reduce cognitive decline and improve neurological outcomes in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis.

The annual survey of the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy Renal Data Registry (JRDR) was sent to 4458 dialysis facilities at the end of 2018; among these facilities, 4402 facilities (98.7%) responded to the facility questionnaire, and 4222 (94.7%) responded to the patient questionnaire. The number of chronic dialysis patients in Japan continues to increase every year; as of the end of 2018, it had reached 339,841 patients, representing 2688 patients per million population. Among the prevalent dialysis patients, the mean age was 68.75 years, and diabetic nephropathy was the most common primary disease among the prevalent dialysis patients (39.0%), followed by chronic glomerulonephritis (26.8%) and nephrosclerosis (10.8%). The number of incident dialysis patients was 40,468, and a reduction by 491 from 2017. The mean age of the incident dialysis patients was 69.99 years old. Diabetic nephropathy was also the most common primary disease (42.3%), representing a 0.2 percent point reduction from 2017. The distribution of diabetic nephropathy appears to have reached a plateau. The number of deceased patients during 2018 was 33,863, and the crude annual death rate was 10.0%. Heart failure was the most common cause of death (23.5%), followed by infection (21.3%) and malignant tumor (8.4%); these causes were similar to those for 2017. The number of patients receiving hemodiafiltration has been increasing since 2012, reaching 125,793 or 37.0% of all dialysis patients at the end of 2018. The number of patients receiving peritoneal dialysis has been gradually increasing since 2017, reaching 9445, and 19.7% of these patients were treated using a combination of peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis or hemodiafiltration. The proportion of patients receiving combination therapy has remained at around 20% of all peritoneal dialysis patients. The number of patients undergoing home hemodialysis was 720, representing an increase of 36 patients from 2017. The 2018 JRDR survey included several topics such as the present status of the patient kinetics of chronic dialysis patients at the end of 2018, water treatment and hemodiafiltration, peritoneal dialysis, treatments for diabetes, mental and physical conditions, and the present status of viral hepatitis. In this paper, we describe the patient and facility kinetics. Trial registration The JRDR was approved by the ethics committee of the JSDT (approval number 1-3) and was registered in the “University hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trials Registry” under the clinical trial ID of UMIN000018641 on August 8, 2015: (Accessed June 2, 2020)

Background The mortality following blood stream infection (BSI) and risk of subsequent BSI in relation to dialysis modality, vascular access, and other potential risk factors has received relatively little attention. Consequently, we assessed these matters in a retrospective cohort study, by use of the Danish nation-wide registries. Methods Patients more than 17 years of age, who initiated dialysis between 1.1.2010 and 1.1.2014, were grouped according to their dialysis modality and vascular access. Survival was modeled in time-dependent Cox proportional hazard analyses. Potential risk factors confined by a modified Charlson comorbidity index (MCCI), were subsequently assessed in stepwise selection models. Results At baseline, 764 patients received peritoneal dialysis (PD), and 434, 479, and 782 hemodialysis (HD) patients were dialyzed by use of arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs), tunneled catheters (TCs), and non-tunneled catheters (NTCs), respectively. We identified 1069 BSIs with an overall incidence rate of 17.7 episodes per 100 person years, and 216 BSIs occurred more than one time in the same patient. HRs of post BSI mortality relative to PD were 3.20 (95% CI 1.86–5.50; p  < 0.001) with NTCs; whereas no associations were found for AVF and TC. The risk of subsequent BSIs was higher with NTCs [HR 2.29 (95% CI 1.09–4.82), p  = 0.030], and no significant difference was found for AVF and TC, in relation to PD. There was an increased risk of both outcomes with TC relative to AVF [death: 1.57 (95% CI 1.07–2.29, P  < 0.021); BSI: 1.78 (95% CI 1.13–2.83, P  < 0.014], and risk of death was reduced in patients who changed to AVF after first-time BSI. The MCCI was significantly associated with the risk of subsequent BSI and post BSI death; however, only some of the variables contained in the index were found to be significant risk predictors when analyzed in the fitted model. Conclusions While NTC was the most predominant risk factor for subsequent BSI and post BSI mortality, AVF appeared protective.

Background High rates of hospitalization in dialysis patients impose an increasing healthcare burden. We explored and compared hospital admission rates among patients starting hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD), and investigated causes of admission/readmission in search of potentially preventable risks. Methods Observational study recruiting 8902 patients (3101 on PD) who started maintenance dialysis in Sweden between 2006 and 2016 and were followed-up for 2 years. We compared the Hazard Ratios (HR) for hospital admission and in-hospital death, and calculated the odds ratios (OR) of readmission within 30 days after discharge. Results Six thousand four hundred ninety-three (73%) patients were hospitalized at least once, and 246 admissions ended with in-hospital death. Compared with HD, patients on PD had a higher risk of hospitalization (HR 1.07; 95% CI 1.01–1.13), longer length of stay (mean difference of 2.06; 1.39–2.73 days), and higher risk of in-hospital death (HR 1.18; 1.03–1.37). Peritonitis and cardiovascular events were the most frequent causes of admission. Of 5810 patients discharged from the hospital, 1447 (25%) were readmitted and 124 (2%) died within 30 days. No differences in readmission risk were observed between dialysis modalities. There was frequently discordance between the cause of hospital admission and readmission, and we identified a consistent pattern of readmission attributed to complications from infections and their interplay with cardiovascular diseases. Conclusions Our study illustrates a high burden of hospitalization in patients on dialysis, suggests the risk of longer hospitalizations for patients on PD, and identifies cardiovascular events and infections as complications that may benefit from closer post-discharge monitoring. Graphic abstract

Background In-center hemodialysis (IHD) is the most common dialysis modality. Assisted peritoneal dialysis (assPD) is an option for frail and/or incapacitated patients. Both modalities can be used to alleviate uremic symptoms towards the end of life. There are few studies comparing these modalities. The primary aim is to compare hospital admissions between assPD and IHD. The secondary aim is to compare continuation of the dialysis modality and patient survival. Methods Patients > 65 years, registered in the Swedish Renal Registry (SRR) and starting dialysis 2010–2017 were eligible for inclusion. Patients starting on assPD were matched with patients starting on IHD according to sex, Charlson Index, age and date for start of dialysis. Data were collected from SRR and other registries. Results During the first year, patients on assPD and IHD had in median one (IQR 0–5.0; 0–4.0) hospitalization ( p  = 0.412). There was no significant difference after two years, in the annual number of days admitted to hospital, in hospitalizations with cardiovascular or infectious disease diagnoses or continuation of the dialysis modality, respectively. However, patients on assPD had a worse median survival (1.1 years IQR 0.6–2.1; IHD 3.1 years IQR 0.2–5.8; p  < 0.001). Conclusion In this study patients starting assPD, often as a palliative treatment, showed no difference compared to IHD concerning the number of hospitalizations, number of days in hospital/year or continuation of the dialysis modality. Patients on assPD had a worse survival, which is likely due to residual confounding. Without that, patients on assPD would probably have lower number of hospitalizations. Despite limitations due to the retrospective observational design of the study, the results indicate that assPD is a feasible alternative to IHD when self-care dialysis is not possible and/or IHD too arduous.

Background It is not known how widely used in Italy an incremental start to in peritoneal dialysis (Incr-PD) is. Methods By analyzing the peritoneal dialysis (PD) censuses conducted by the PD Study Group (GSDP-SIN) for the years 2005, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014 in all the Centers performing PD in Italy, the use of Incr-PD, i.e. continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) with 1 or 2 exchanges/day or automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) with 3–4 sessions/week, was examined among incident PD patients. Results In 2014 PD was started in Italy by 1,652 patients, 455 (27.5%) of whom incrementally (Incr-CAPD 82.2% vs. Incr-APD 17.8%). Incr-PD was used in 53.5% of the 225 Centers. The number of patients and of Centers using Incr-DP increased constantly over the years up to 2012 (in 2005 Incr-PD was used in 33.4% of Centers, and in 11.9% of patients). The use of Incr-PD was greater in Centers with a more extensive PD program and greater use of PD in general. The most widely-used modality in Incr-PD was CAPD. Conclusions Incr-PD is used in Italy in a large number of incident PD patients. The reasons for this increase need to be clarified, as current adequacy targets are based on full-dose studies with a very low glomerular filtration rate (GFR).

Objectives To explore the influencing factors and relationships associated with decisional conflict of dialysis modality in End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients. Methods This study was a survey-based cross-sectional investigation conducted on 150 ESKD patients in a third-class hospital in Wuhan. The general information questionnaire, decisional conflict scale, Montreal cognitive assessment, frail scale, perceived social support scale, and brief health literacy screen were used for investigation. SPSS 25.0 was used to compare the differences between the decisional and non-decisional conflict groups, and AMOS 23.0 was used to construct a structural equation model to explore the influencing factors. Results The incidence of decisional conflict in 150 ESKD patients was 33.3% (50/150). Binary logistic regression analysis showed that the independent risk factors for decisional conflict of dialysis modality in ESKD patients included monthly household income (OR = 0.184), cognitive function (OR = 7.0), social support (OR = 0.891), health literacy (OR = 0.608), the level of eGFR (OR = 1.488), and the level of cTnI (OR = 9.558). The constructed path analysis model had a good fit (x2/df = 1.499, GFI = 0.957, AGFI = 0.911, NFI = 0.906, CFI = 0.967, RMSEA = 0.055). The path analysis showed that health literacy (0.577) had the greatest impact on the decisional conflict, with a direct effect of 0.480 and an indirect effect of 0.097 through cognitive function and monthly household income. Next was social support, with an effect value of 0.434. Conclusions In clinical practice, it is important to enhance the health literacy of patients and their families and to provide advanced education on dialysis plans. Additionally, in managing and planning chronic kidney disease progression and dialysis, it is recommended to regularly and systematically assess cognitive function, particularly before the patient’s cognitive impairment worsens or the severity of the disease progresses. Advanced care planning can be established through collaboration between healthcare professionals and patients to ensure appropriate decision-making and management. Implications for the profession and patient care This paper finds that the factors that influence and relate to dialysis methods in end-stage renal disease patients help nurses exercise autonomy better, assist patients in reducing their decisional conflict, and improve clinical outcomes. Patient or public contribution Patients received a relevant questionnaire survey, and caregivers assisted in conducting the study.

Background Patients reaching end-stage renal disease must make a difficult decision regarding renal replacement therapy (RRT) options. Because the choice between dialysis modalities should include patient preferences, it is critical that patients are engaged in the dialysis modality decision. As part of the Empowering Patients on Choices for RRT (EPOCH-RRT) study, we assessed dialysis patients’ perceptions of their dialysis modality decision-making process and the impact of their chosen modality on their lives. Methods A 39-question survey was developed in collaboration with a multi-stakeholder advisory panel to assess perceptions of patients on either peritoneal dialysis (PD) or in-center hemodialysis (HD). The survey was disseminated to participants in the large US cohorts of the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) and the Peritoneal DOPPS (PDOPPS). Survey responses were compared between PD and in-center HD patients using descriptive statistics, adjusted logistic generalized estimating equation models, and linear mixed regression models. Results Six hundred fourteen PD and 1346 in-center HD participants responded. Compared with in-center HD participants, PD participants more frequently reported that they were engaged in the decision-making process, were provided enough information, understood differences between dialysis modalities, and felt satisfied with their modality choice. PD participants also reported more frequently than in-center HD participants that partners or spouses (79% vs. 70%), physician assistants (80% vs. 66%), and nursing staff (78% vs. 60%) had at least some involvement in the dialysis modality decision. Over 35% of PD and in-center HD participants did not know another dialysis patient at the time of their modality decision and over 60% did not know the disadvantages of their modality type. Participants using either dialysis modality perceived a moderate to high impact of dialysis on their lives. Conclusions PD participants were more engaged in the modality decision process compared to in-center HD participants. For both modalities, there is room for improvement in patient education and other support for patients choosing a dialysis modality.

Background Although femoral vein catheters are less preferred than internal jugular vein catheters, they are still actively used as an alternative. However, limited studies have assessed whether the patency of femoral vein catheters differs according to the initial dialysis modality. We compared and analyzed femoral vein catheter outcomes according to the initial dialysis modality and clinical factors. Methods We retrospectively analyzed medical records of 279 patients (a total of 318 cases) who underwent femoral vein catheterization for hemodialysis from January 2019 to August 2023. We divided the patients into two groups according to the initial dialysis modality (hemodialysis group [ n  = 182] and continuous renal replacement therapy group [ n  = 121]) and analyzed catheter survival. Results We eventually included 303 cases of femoral vein catheterization for hemodialysis from 264 patients. Catheter survival did not differ significantly between the hemodialysis and continuous renal replacement therapy groups. Body mass index was associated with overall catheter survival. In the hemodialysis group, no significant factor was associated with catheter survival. However, in the continuous renal replacement therapy group, increased body mass index, age, and platelet counts were associated with low catheter survival. Conclusion Femoral dialysis catheter survival was not associated with the initial dialysis modality, and a high body mass index was associated with low survival rates of femoral dialysis catheters in patients who underwent continuous renal replacement therapy. Clinical trial number Not applicable.