Assisted peritoneal dialysis: strategies and outcomes

Assisted peritoneal dialysis (asPD) is a modality intended for not self-sufficient patients, mainly elderly, who are not able to perform peritoneal dialysis (PD) alone and require some help to manage the treatment. In the last decades, many countries developed strategies of asPD to face with aging of dialysis population and give an answer to the increasing demand of health service for elderly. Model of asPD varies according to the type of assistants employed and intensity of assistance provided. Both health care and non-health care assistants have been used with good clinical results. A mixed model of help, using different professional figures for short time or for longer according to patients’ need, has been proved successful and cost-effective. Outcomes of asPD are reported in different ways, and the comparative effect of asPD is unclear. Quality of life has rarely been evaluated; however, patients seem to be satisfied with the assistance provided, since it allows them to both retain independence and to be relieved from the burden of self-care. Assisted PD should not be intended as a PD-favoring strategy, but as a model that allows home dialysis also in patients who would not be eligible for PD because of social, cognitive or physical barriers.

Initial home dialysis is increased for rural patients by accessing urban facilities

Background: The 240,000 rural patients with end stage kidney disease in the United States have less access to nephrology care and higher mortality than those in urban settings. The Advancing American Kidney Health initiative aims to increase the use of home renal replacement therapy. Little is known about how rural patients access home dialysis and the availability and quality of rural dialysis facilities. Methods: Incident dialysis patients in 2017 and their facilities were identified in the United States Renal Data System. Facility quality and service availability was analyzed with descriptive statistics. We assessed the availability of home dialysis methods depending on rural versus urban counties, and then we used multivariate logistic regression to identify the likelihood of rural patients with home dialysis as their initial modality and the likelihood of rural patients changing to home dialysis within 90 days. Finally, we assessed mortality after dialysis initiation based on patient home location. Results: Of the 97,930 dialysis initiates, 15,310 (15.6%) were rural. Rural dialysis facilities were less likely to offer home dialysis (51.4% vs 54.1%, P<0.001). While a greater proportion of rural patients (9.2 vs 8.2%, P<0.001) were on home dialysis, this was achieved by traveling to urban facilities to obtain home dialysis (OR 2.74, P<0.001). After adjusting for patient and facility factors, rural patients had a higher risk of mortality (HR 1.06, P=0.004). Conclusions: Despite having fewer facilities that offer home dialysis, rural patients were more often on home dialysis methods because they traveled to urban facilities, representing an access gap. Even if rural patients accessed home dialysis at urban facilities, rural patients still suffered worse mortality. Future dialysis policy should address this access gap to improve care and overall mortality for rural patients.

Assisted peritoneal dialysis across Europe: Practice variation and factors associated with availability

Background: In Europe, the number of elderly end-stage kidney disease patients is increasing. Few of those patients receive peritoneal dialysis (PD), as many cannot perform PD autonomously. Assisted PD programmes are available in most European countries, but the percentage of patients receiving assisted PD varies considerably. Hence, we assessed which factors are associated with the availability of an assisted PD programme at a centre level and whether the availability of this programme is associated with proportion of home dialysis patients. Methods: An online survey was sent to healthcare professionals of European nephrology units. After selecting one respondent per centre, the associations were explored by χ 2 tests and (ordinal) logistic regression. Results: In total, 609 respondents completed the survey. Subsequently, 288 respondents from individual centres were identified; 58% worked in a centre with an assisted PD programme. Factors associated with availability of an assisted PD programme were Western European and Scandinavian countries (OR: 5.73; 95% CI: 3.07–10.68), non-academic centres (OR: 2.01; 95% CI: 1.09–3.72) and centres with a dedicated team for education (OR: 2.87; 95% CI: 1.35–6.11). Most Eastern & Central European respondents reported that the proportion of incident and prevalent home dialysis patients was <10% (72% and 63%), while 27% of Scandinavian respondents reported a proportion of >30% for both incident and prevalent home dialysis patients. Availability of an assisted PD programme was associated with a higher incidence (cumulative OR: 1.91; 95% CI: 1.21–3.01) and prevalence (cumulative OR: 2.81; 95% CI: 1.76–4.47) of patients on home dialysis. Conclusions: Assisted PD was more commonly offered among non-academic centres with a dedicated team for education across Europe, especially among Western European and Scandinavian countries where higher incidence and prevalence of home dialysis patients was reported.[Formula: see text]

Using random forests to understand unrecognized progression to late-stage CKD, a case-control study

Background and objectives Patients with undiagnosed CKD are at increased risk of suboptimal dialysis initiation and therefore reduced access to home dialysis and transplantation as well as poor outcomes. Improved understanding of how patients remain undiagnosed is important to determine better intervention strategies. Design, setting, participants, and measurements A retrospective, matched, case-control analysis of 1,535,053 patients was performed to identify factors differentiating 4 patient types: unrecognized late-stage CKD, recognized late-stage CKD, early-stage CKD and a control group without CKD. The sample included patients with commercial insurance, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare fee-for service coverage. Patient demographics, comorbidities, health care utilization, and prescription use were analyzed using random forests to determine the most salient features discriminating the types. Models were built using all four types, as well as pairwise for each type versus the unrecognized late-stage type. Results Area under the curve for the three pairwise models (unrecognized late-stage vs recognized late-stage; unrecognized late-stage vs early-stage; unrecognized late-stage vs no CKD) were 82%, 68% and 82%. Conclusions The lower performance of the unrecognized late-stage vs early-stage model indicates a greater similarity of these two patient groups. The unrecognized late-stage CKD group is not simply avoiding or unable to get care in a manner distinguishable from the early-stage group. New outreach for CKD to undiagnosed or undetected, insured patients should look more closely at patient sets that are like diagnosed early-stage CKD patients.

Challenges, Facilitators, and Recommendations for Implementation of Home Dialysis in the Veterans Health Administration: Patient, Caregiver, and Clinician Perceptions

BackgroundHome dialysis confers similar survival and greater quality of life than in-center hemodialysis for adults with ESKD but remains underutilized. We examined challenges and facilitators to implementation of home dialysis and identified stakeholder-centered strategies for improving it.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative, cross-sectional, multisite evaluation that included five geographically dispersed Veterans Health Administration (VHA) home dialysis programs. Participants included patients with ESKD receiving home dialysis, their informal caregivers, and home dialysis staff. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted and audio-recorded from 2017 through 2018, to assess perceived barriers and facilitators to patient home dialysis use in VHA. Transcribed interviews were analyzed thematically by each participant group.ResultsParticipants included 22 patients receiving home dialysis (18 on peritoneal dialysis [PD] and four hemodialysis [HD]); 20 informal caregivers, and 19 home dialysis program staff. Ten themes emerged as challenges to implementing home dialysis, of which six (60%) spanned all groups: need for sterility, burden of home dialysis tasks, lack of suitable home environment, physical side effects of home dialysis, negative psychosocial effects of home dialysis, and loss of freedom. Four themes (40%), identified only by staff, were insufficient self-efficacy, diminished peer socialization, geographic barriers, and challenging health status. Twelve themes emerged as facilitators to implementing home dialysis, of which seven (58%) spanned all groups: convenience, freedom, avoidance of in-center HD, preservation of autonomy, adequate support, favorable disposition, and perceptions of improved health. Two themes (17%) common among patients and staff were adequate training and resources, and physical and cognitive skills for home dialysis. Recommendations to promote implementation of home dialysis common to all participant groups entailed incorporating mental health care services, offering peer-to-peer coaching, increasing home visits, providing health data feedback, and reducing patient burden.ConclusionsStakeholder-centered challenges were rigorously identified. Facilitators and recommendations can inform efforts to support home dialysis implementation.