Sodium Dialysate Prescription in a New Dialysis Facility

As the Medical Director of this new dialysis facility, I recommend a fixed sodium dialysate (Nadial) concentration at 138 mEq/L. This relates to my former experience in the Tassin unit in France and the fear of sodium as a powerful uremic toxin. I realize that, according to the Na+ set-point theory, a fixed value of the Nadial may create a plasma–dialysate (P–D) gradient and may favor intradialytic plasma Na+ changes. In cases where this is associated with signs of negative Na+ balance (bad session tolerance/quality of life) or positive Na+ balance (high interdialytic weight gain or high blood pressure), individualization of the Nadial to reduce the P–D gradient and change in plasma Na+ concentration may be useful, even though evidence remains scarce. I look forward to the possibility of using new dialysis machines that allow for the evaluation of sodium balance and tailoring of the sodium diffusion process.

The dialysis facility levels and sizes are associated with outcomes of incident hemodialysis patients

The outcomes of patients with incident kidney failure who start hemodialysis are influenced by several factors. Whether hemodialysis facility characteristics are associated with patient outcomes is unclear. We included adults diagnosed as having kidney failure requiring hemodialysis during January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2013 from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database to perform this retrospective cohort study. The exposures included different sizes and levels of hemodialysis facilities. The outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, infection-related death, hospitalization, and kidney transplantation. During 2001–2013, we identified 74,406 patients and divided them in to three groups according to the facilities where they receive hemodialysis: medical center (n = 8263), non-center hospital (n = 40,008), and clinic (n = 26,135). The multivariable Cox model demonstrated that a larger facility size was associated with a low mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR] 0.991, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.984–0.998; every 20 beds per facility). Compared with medical centers, patients in non-center hospitals and clinics had higher mortality risks (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.09–1.17 and HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06–1.15, respectively). Patients in medical centers and non-center hospitals had higher risk of hospitalization (subdistribution HR [SHR] 1.11, 95% CI 1.10–1.12 and SHR 1.22, 95% CI 1.21–1.23, respectively). Patients in medical centers had the highest rate of kidney transplantation among the three groups. In patients with incident kidney failure, a larger hemodialysis facility size was associated with lower mortality. Overall, medical center patients had a lower mortality rate and higher transplantation rate, whereas clinic patients had a lower hospitalization risk.

Patient Health Outcomes following Dialysis Facility Closures in the United States

BackgroundOngoing changes to reimbursement of United States dialysis care may increase the risk of dialysis facility closures. Closures may be particularly detrimental to the health of patients receiving dialysis, who are medically complex and clinically tenuous.MethodsWe used two separate analytic strategies—one using facility-based matching and the other using propensity score matching—to compare health outcomes of patients receiving in-center hemodialysis at United States facilities that closed with outcomes of similar patients who were unaffected. We used negative binomial and Cox regression models to estimate associations of facility closure with hospitalization and mortality in the subsequent 180 days.ResultsWe identified 8386 patients affected by 521 facility closures from January 2001 through April 2014. In the facility-matched model, closures were associated with 9% higher rates of hospitalization (relative rate ratio [RR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.03 to 1.16), yielding an absolute annual rate difference of 1.69 hospital days per patient-year (95% CI, 0.45 to 2.93). Similarly, in a propensity-matched model, closures were associated with 7% higher rates of hospitalization (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.13; P=0.04), yielding an absolute rate difference of 1.08 hospital days per year (95% CI, 0.04 to 2.12). Closures were associated with nonsignificant increases in mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.18; P=0.05 for the facility-matched comparison; HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.17; P=0.08 for the propensity-matched comparison).ConclusionsPatients affected by dialysis facility closures experienced increased rates of hospitalization in the subsequent 180 days and may be at increased risk of death. This highlights the need for effective policies that continue to mitigate risk of facility closures.

Dialysis Facility Profit Status and Early Steps in Kidney Transplantation in the Southeastern United States

Background and objectivesDialysis facilities in the United States play a key role in access to kidney transplantation. Previous studies reported that patients treated at for-profit facilities are less likely to be waitlisted and receive a transplant, but their effect on early steps in the transplant process is unknown. The study’s objective was to determine the association between dialysis facility profit status and critical steps in the transplantation process in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsIn this retrospective cohort study, we linked referral and evaluation data from all nine transplant centers in the Southeast with United States Renal Data System surveillance data. The cohort study included 33,651 patients with kidney failure initiating dialysis from January 1, 2012 to August 31, 2016. Patients were censored for event (date of referral, evaluation, or waitlisting), death, or end of study (August 31, 2017 for referral and March 1, 2018 for evaluation and waitlisting). The primary exposure was dialysis facility profit status: for profit versus nonprofit. The primary outcome was referral for evaluation at a transplant center after dialysis initiation. Secondary outcomes were start of evaluation at a transplant center after referral and waitlisting.ResultsOf the 33,651 patients with incident kidney failure, most received dialysis treatment at a for-profit facility (85%). For-profit (versus nonprofit) facilities had a lower cumulative incidence difference for referral within 1 year of dialysis (−4.5%; 95% confidence interval, −6.0% to −3.2%). In adjusted analyses, for-profit versus nonprofit facilities had lower referral (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.80 to 0.88). Start of evaluation within 6 months of referral (−1.0%; 95% confidence interval, −3.1% to 1.3%) and waitlisting within 6 months of evaluation (1.0%; 95% confidence interval, −1.2 to 3.3) did not meaningfully differ between groups.ConclusionsFindings suggest lower access to referral among patients dialyzing in for-profit facilities in the Southeast United States, but no difference in starting the evaluation and waitlisting by facility profit status.

FC 135A STEP TOWARD GREEN NEPHROLOGY: APPLYING THE PASSIVE HOUSE CONCEPT TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF DIALYSIS FACILITIES

Background and Aims The environmental impact of dialysis is now being largely recognized. It requires from the nephrology community to actively explore novel environmentally responsible health-care practices. Among them, conception of energy-efficient facilities may be an important prerequisite for improving the environmental impact of dialysis. The Passive House concept is an internationally recognised, performance-based energy standard in construction which so far has been rarely applied to medical facilities and never to dialysis centres. We report our experience with the first passive-house certified dialysis facility in Europe. Method The Passive House concept is a sustainable construction standard for nearly zero energy buildings (the Resolution of the European Parliament of 31/01/2008 has called for its implementation by all member states by 2021). Principles and design tools of the Passive House concept are freely available for all architects. The concept combines a particularly high level of insulation with a specific system of ventilation. Geothermal energy and energy from inside the building such as the body heat from the residents or solar heat entering the building are the main energy sources. Passive House buildings allow for heating and cooling related energy savings of up to 90% compared with typical building stock and over 75% compared with average new buildings. Results The François Berthoux Center (www.artic42.fr) is a 4 400 m2 dialysis facility operated by 40 health care agents and providing care to 135 patients. It was designed following the Passive-House standard, applied for the first time to such a medical building. Several adjustments specific to the dialysis activity were necessary. The most unexpected aspect was the importance of hemodialysis machines as an energy source. Thorough thermal evaluation showed that the heat provided by different type of hemodialysis machines was systematically superior to the energy mandatory during the coldest day of the year (>10 W/m2). In practice, the center turned out to be fully operational with no external source of heating. The downside was that the geothermal pump system was not sufficient to fully regulate temperatures during the warmest period of the year. Optimal cooling was achieved by the addition of conventional AC systems in the hemodialysis rooms. Overall, as compared to a similar center, energy savings provided by the The François Berthoux Center were substantially less than what is expected from a conventional Passive House building but were over 50%. The extra-cost of the construction was estimated to 3 to 5%. Conclusion In conclusion, the concept of eco-friendly building should extend to dialysis facilities. Application of the Passive House Standard in the context of hemodialysis requires to take into account some specificities that can impact the global environmental performance of the building. However, the net result is clearly in favor of such a construction, which is both affordable and sustainable.

Proactive Measures to Combat a SARS-CoV-2 Transmission Among High Risk Patients and Health Care Workers in an Outpatient Dialysis Facility

Background: End-stage-renal-failure (ESRF) patients attending clustered out-patient dialysis are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Comorbidities render them vulnerable to severe COVID-19. Although preventative and mitigation strategies are recommended, the effect of these are unknown. A period of “potential-high-infectivity” results if a health-care-worker (HCWs) or a patient becomes infected.Aim: We describe and analyze early, universal SARS-CoV-2 real time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests, biomarker monitoring and SARS-CoV-2 preventative strategies, in a single dialysis center, after a positive patient was identified.Methodology: The setting was a single outpatient dialysis center in Johannesburg, South Africa which had already implemented preventative strategies. We describe the management of 57 patients and 11 HCWs, after one of the patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. All individuals were subjected to RT-PCR tests and biomarkers (Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio, C-reactive protein, and D-Dimer) within 72 h (initial-tests). Individuals with initial negative RT-PCR and abnormal biomarkers (one or more) were subjected to repeat RT-PCR and biomarkers (retest subgroup) during the second week. Additional stringent measures (awareness of viral transmission, dialysis distancing and screening) were implemented during the period of “potential high infectivity.” The patient retest subgroup also underwent clustered dialysis until retest results became available.Results: A second positive-patient was identified as a result of early universal RT-PCR tests. In the two positive-patients, biomarker improvement coincided with RT-PCR negative tests. We identified 13 individuals for retesting. None of these retested individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and there was no deterioration in median biomarker values between initial and retests. Collectively, none of the negative individuals developed COVID-19 symptoms during the period “potential high infectivity.”Conclusion: A SARS-CoV-2 outbreak may necessitate additional proactive steps to counteract spread of infection. This includes early universal RT-PCR testing and creating further awareness of the risk of transmission and modifying preventative strategies. Abnormal biomarkers may be poorly predictive of SARS-CoV-2 infection in ESRF patients due to underlying illnesses. Observing dynamic changes in biomarkers in RT-PCR positive and negative-patients may provide insights into general state of health.