The ratio of measured to estimated glomerular filtration rate may be a marker of early mortality and dialysis requirement

Background It has been suggested that, in patients with CKD stage 5, measured GFR (mGFR), defined as the mean of urea and creatinine clearance, as measured by a 24-h urine collection, is a better measure of renal function than estimated GFR (eGFR), based on the CKD-EPI formula. This could be due to reduced muscle mass in this group. Its use is recommended in the ERBP guidelines. Unplanned dialysis initiation (DI) is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and reduced modality choice and is generally considered undesirable. We hypothesized that the ratio mGFR/eGFR (M/E) aids prediction of death and DI. Methods All 24-h measurements of urea and creatinine excretion were extracted from the clinical biochemistry databases in Zealand. Data concerning renal diagnosis, comorbidity, biochemistry, medical treatment, mortality and date of DI, were extracted from patient notes, the National Patient Registry and the Danish Nephrology Registry. Patients were included if their eGFR was < 30 ml/min/1.73m2. The last available value for each patient was included. Follow-up was 12 months. Results One thousand two hundred sixty-five patients were included. M/E was median 0.91 ± 0.43. It was highly correlated to previous determinations. It was negatively correlated to eGFR, comorbidity, high age and female sex. It was positively related to albumin and negatively to C-reactive protein. M/E was higher in patients treated with ACE inhibitors and diuretics but no other treatment groups. On a multivariate analysis, M/E was negatively correlated with mortality and combined mortality/DI, but not DI. A post hoc analysis showed a negative correlation to DI at 3 months. For patients with an eGFR 10–15 ml/min/1.73m2, combined mortality and DI at 3 months was for low M/E (< 0.75) 36%, medium (0.75–1.25) 20%, high (> 1.25) 8%. A low M/E predicted increased need for unplanned DI. A supplementary analysis in 519 patients where body surface area values were available, allowing BSA-corrected M/E to be analyzed, revealed similar results. Conclusion A low mGFR/eGFR ratio is associated with comorbidity, malnutrition, and inflammation. It is a marker of early DI, mortality, and unplanned dialysis initiation, independently of eGFR, age and comorbidity. Particular attention paid to patients with a low M/E may lower the incidence of unplanned dialysis requirement.

FC 053RATIO OF MEASURED GFR TO ESTIMATED GFR MAY PREDICT EARLY DEATH AND REQUIREMENT FOR DIALYSIS

Background and Aims It has been suggested that, in patients with CKD stage 5, measured GFR (mGFR), defined as the mean of urea and creatinine clearance as measured by a 24-hour urine collection, is a better measure of renal function than estimated GFR (eGFR), based on the CKD-EPI formula. This could be due to reduced muscle mass in this group. Its use is recommended in the ERBP guidelines. Unplanned dialysis initiation (UDI) is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and reduced modality choice. It is generally considered undesirable. We hypothesized that the ratio mGFR/eGFR (R) aids prediction of death and end stage kidney disease (ESKD), as defined by permanent dialysis requirement or transplantation. Method All 24-hour measurements of urea and creatinine excretion were extracted from the clinical biochemistry databases in Zealand. Data concerning renal diagnosis, comorbidity, biochemistry, medical treatment, mortality and date of ESKD, were extracted from patient notes, the National Patient Registry and the Danish Nephrology Registry. Patients were included if their eGFR was &lt;30 ml/min/1.73m2. The last available value for each patient was included. Results 1265 patients were included. In 519, body surface area (BSA) was available, and the corrected ratio (RBSA) could be calculated. The urea clearance was 49 ±24% of creatinine clearance. R was median 0.88 (IQR 0.63-1.15), RBSA 0.87 (0.68-1.06). R was not related to eGFR. Comorbidity was associated with lower R, e.g. atherosclerosis (0.90 ±0.41 vs. 0.97 ±0.49*), heart failure (0.80 ±0.37 vs. 0.95 ±0.44*), pulmonary disease (0.80 ±0.37 vs. 0.94 ±0.44***), hepatic disease (0.67 ±0.41 vs. 0.92 ±0.43***), but not diabetes mellitus. It was related to albumin (r=0.24***), C-reactive protein (-0.22***) and biochemical markers of uraemia, e.g. bicarbonate (-0.19***). Medical treatment data was available in 137 patients. R was higher in patients treated with ACE inhibitors (1.20 ±0.50 vs. 1.01 ±0.36*) and diuretics (1.09 ±0.40 vs. 0.94 ±0.35*), but no other treatment groups. Patients were grouped as high R (H, &gt;1.25), medium (M, 0.75-1.25) or low (L, &lt;0.75). R was not associated with prognosis at one year, but L patients had a significantly higher ESKD and mortality incidence at 3 months. For patients with eGFR 10-15 ml/min/1.73m2, ESKD incidence was L 22%, M 15%, H 5%, mortality 19, 5, and 2% respectively. Similar findings were seen in other groups, e.g. eGFR 15-20 ml/min/1.73m2: ESKD 11, 2, and 0%; death 11, 5, and 1%. UDI was higher for L patients. For patients with eGFR 10-15 ml/min/1.73m2, UDI occurred in L: 47%, M:27%, H:25%. For patients with eGFR 10-15 ml/min/1.73m2 the figures were 51, 38 and 12% respectively. Findings for the subgroup of patients with RBSA measurements were similar. *:p&lt;0.05; **:p&lt;001;***:p&lt;0.001 Conclusion A low mGFR/eGFR ratio is associated with comorbidity, malnutrition, inflammation and biochemical uraemia. It a marker of early ESKD, death and unplanned dialysis initiation, independently of eGFR. Particular attention paid to patients with a low R may lower the incidence of unplanned dialysis requirement.

The Impact of Clinical Presentation on Survival in Patients Requiring Hemodialysis Catheters for Acute and Unplanned Dialysis: A Prospective Observational Study

Background: Most studies addressing hemodialysis initiation with a dialysis catheter focus on patients entering maintenance dialysis programs and exclude other patients, such as those with acute kidney injury (AKI), making interpretation and application of the results difficult for clinicians managing patients at the time of dialysis commencement. Objective: To compare the survival of all patients requiring a catheter for hemodialysis access according to the nature of clinical presentation. Design: Prospective observational. Setting: An Australian tertiary renal unit. Patients: All patients requiring a central venous catheter (CVC) for hemodialysis access between 2005 and 2015. Measurements: Baseline comorbidities, demographics, and nature of clinical presentation. Data regarding each episode of dialysis access insufficiency and each CVC were collected. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Methods: Patients were classified into 1 of 3 groups based on physician assessment at the time of presentation: patients believed to have AKI with expected renal recovery (AKI), patients considered to be entering the maintenance dialysis program without a functioning dialysis access (Maintenance Dialysis), patients unable to perform peritoneal dialysis, or use their existing hemodialysis access (Access Failure). Time-split multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to compare survival between groups. Results: A total of 557 eligible patients had complete prospective data regarding CVC use and were included in the analyses. The majority of patients were in the AKI (246/557, 44%) and Maintenance Dialysis groups (182/557, 33%) compared with the Access Failure group (129/557, 23%). During a median follow-up of 3 years, 302 (54%) of the 557 patients died. Following adjustment, risk of all-cause mortality was higher in the AKI group (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.31-3.60, P = .001) during the first 2 years after catheter insertion and lower in years 2 to 4 (HR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.88, P = .02) than in the reference Maintenance Dialysis group. No difference in mortality risk between the Access Failure and reference group was found. Limitations: Single-center study. Possible residual confounding owing to the observational study design. Conclusions: Patients requiring acute or unplanned hemodialysis experience high mortality, and the nature of clinical presentation does influence outcomes. Most notable is the greater early mortality experienced by patients with AKI compared to other patient groups. Prospective definition of the nature of unplanned dialysis initiation is important to accurately measure and improve outcomes in this high-risk patient population. Human Research Ethics Committee Approval Number CH62/6/2017-042.

How To Build a Successful Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis Program

In-center hemodialysis (HD) remains the predominant dialysis therapy in patients with ESKD. Many patients with ESKD present in late stage, requiring urgent dialysis initiation, and the majority start HD with central venous catheters (CVCs), which are associated with poor outcomes and high cost of care. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters can be safely placed in such patients with late-presenting ESKD, obviating the need for CVCs. PD can begin almost immediately in the recumbent position, using low fill volumes. Such PD initiations, commencing within 2 weeks of the catheter placement, are termed urgent-start PD (USPD). Most patients with an intact peritoneal cavity and stable home situation are eligible for USPD. Although there is a small risk of PD catheter–related mechanical complications, most can be managed conservatively. Moreover, overall outcomes of USPD are comparable to those with planned PD initiations, in contrast to the high rate of catheter-related infections and bacteremia associated with urgent-start HD. The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has further exposed the vulnerability of patients with ESKD getting in-center HD. PD can mitigate the risk of infection by reducing environmental exposure to the virus. Thus, USPD is a safe and cost-effective option for unplanned dialysis initiation in patients with late-presenting ESKD. To develop a successful USPD program, a strong infrastructure with clear pathways is essential. Coordination of care between nephrologists, surgeons or interventionalists, and hospital and PD center staff is imperative so that patient education, home visits, PD catheter placements, and urgent PD initiations are accomplished expeditiously. Implementation of urgent-start PD will help to increase PD use, reduce cost, and improve patient outcomes, and will be a step forward in fostering the goal set by the Advancing American Kidney Health initiative.

P1137FACTORS DETERMINING CHOICE OF DIALYSISI MODALITY AMONG PATIENTS INITIATING DIALYSIS. RESULTS OF THE PERIDIALYSIS STUDY

Background and Aims Home dialysis with peritoneal dialysis (PD) or home hemodialysis (HD) has medical and socioeconomic benefits but home dialysis is generally underutilized. While many factors determine choice of initial dialysis modality, starting patients on home dialysis requires timely planning, educational activities and an active program to promote home dialysis. Here we investigated factors including patient suitability, pre-dialysis preparations and institutional factors determining choice of dialysis modality among patients initiating dialysis. Method Choice of dialysis modality was investigated in 1588 consecutive patients (age 63.8 ±15.3 years. 35.8% female; diabetic nephropathy 24.4%) participating in the Peridialysis study, a multinational multi-centre prospective study of causes and timing of planned and unplanned dialysis initiation (DI) over a 3-year period in 15 Nordic and Baltic nephrology departments. All dialysis modalities were available and free of charge to patients. All centres offered pre-dialysis education programs to patients with timely referral. Clinical and biochemical data during the pre-dialytic period, centre data, and reasons for DI and choice of dialysis modality were registered. Results: 516 (32.4%) patients were not offered home dialysis because they were judged to be unsuitable (384; 24%): PD was contraindicated in 338 (21.2%) patients - for physical (142; 8.9%), mental (80, 5.0%) or abdominal (116; 7.3%) reasons and HD was contraindicated in 46 (2.9%) patients. In addition, 106 (6.7%) were not offered home dialysis for various reasons; and deaths before modality choice occurred in 26 (1.6%) patients. Factors associated with unsuitability were high age, comorbidity, late referral (risk ratio, RR, 1.9), inflammation (C-reactive protein &gt;50 mg/L (RR 2.6) and rapid loss of renal function (RR 2.0). Patients who were not assessed for home dialysis comprised mainly patients with late referral (RR 5.8) and/or unplanned DI (RR 9.6). Of the remaining 1072 (67.6%) patients, who had a free choice of modality, 700 (65.3%) chose home dialysis, either PD (661; 61.7%) or home HD ( 39 3.6%) while 372 (34.7%) patients chose centre HD. Factors associated with choice of centre dialysis were late referral (RR 1.8), suboptimal DI (RR 2.0), symptomatic uraemia (RR 1.6) and p-urea &gt;30 mM (2.6). Somatic differences between patients choosing home dialysis and centre dialysis were minor. Independent institutional factors reducing information about home dialysis were treatment at a university hospital (RR 4.3) and absence of an active preference for home dialysis, “home dialysis first” policy (RR 3.0). Conclusion The results of the Peridialysis study indicate that the incidence of home dialysis could be increased by a “home dialysis first” department policy and by efforts to reduce the incidence of late referrals and unplanned DI. Acutely ill patients and patients with unplanned DI may be candidates for home dialysis if assessment of home dialysis suitability and dialysis educational program are performed after their clinical condition has improved. Given a free choice, most patients (65%) choose home dialysis.

Implementation of Urgent Start Peritoneal Dialysis Reduces Hemodialysis Catheter Use and Hospital Stay in Patients with Unplanned Dialysis Start

Background: Unplanned start of renal replacement therapy is common in patients with end-stage renal disease and often accomplished by hemodialysis (HD) using a central venous catheter (CVC). Urgent start using peritoneal dialysis (PD) could be an alternative for some of the patients; however, this requires a hospital-based PD center that offers a structured urgent start PD (usPD) program. Methods: In this prospective study, we describe the implementation of an usPD program at our university hospital by structuring the process from presentation to PD catheter implantation and start of PD within a few days. For clinical validation, we compared the patient flow before (2013–2015) and after (2016–2018) availability of usPD. Results: In the 3 years before the availability of usPD, 14% (n = 12) of incident PD patients (n = 87) presented in an unplanned situation and were initially treated with HD using a CVC. In the 3 years after implementation of the usPD program, 18% (n = 18) of all incident PD patients (n = 103) presented in an unplanned situation of whom n = 12 (12%) were treated with usPD and n = 6 (6%) with initial HD. usPD significantly reduced the use of HD by 57% (p = 0.0005). Hospital stay was similar in patients treated with usPD (median 9 days) compared to those with elective PD (8 days), and significantly lower than in patients with initial HD (26 days, p = 0.0056). Conclusions: Implementation of an usPD program reduces HD catheter use and hospital stay in the unplanned situation.