Search

The popular mindset and widespread narrative, at least until not so long ago, was that in outer space affairs the fiefdom belongs, politically and economically, to governments and big businesses. An array of alliances between few states and their privileged partners from the corporate world constituted the highly exclusivist space ecosystem. Little room was supposed to be available to non-full-fledged spacefaring nations and enterprises originated from them, a configuration furthermore jammed by the fact that international agreements – i.e., the “Outer Space Treaty” (1967) an the “Moon Treaty” (1979) – seem to be rather dismissive of extensive exploitation of celestial bodies, adding to the already prohibitive costs of such endeavours if legitimized. Devoted mainly to scientific exploration paired with exploitation only of planetary proximities – viz., the large satellite population orbiting the Earth, with their support and serviced industries, all estimated at half a trillion dollars –, the space economy, in its high-tech dimension, steadily democratized itself, becoming more competitive, and collaborative too, opening up to small and medium enterprises (SMEs), many coming from emerging spacefaring nations. The literature covering SMEs contribution to the development of the space economy is on track of consolidation, as the process itself is unfolding, with data covering only the most powerful space players (e.g., US, EU). Valuable insights are added starting from the common wisdom that institutions (channelling economic information and incentives) are the main drivers in space development, rather than business size, even more in a competitive- collaborative global economy. A case study is dedicated to the Romanian experience (that of a relatively new and little player in European/global space affairs). A conclusion is that in an economy of unbounded creativity and borderless capital, visionary enterprises, big or small, fit even into the space industry value chains, if a pro-market, pro-business climate is secured.

Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is the leading cause of end-stage kidney disease. Because many genes associate with DKD, multiomics approaches were used to narrow the list of functional genes, gene products, and related pathways providing insights into the pathophysiological mechanisms of DKD. The Kidney Precision Medicine Project human kidney single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) data set and Mendeley Data on human kidney cortex biopsy proteomics were used. The R package Seurat was used to analyze scRNA-seq data and data from a subset of proximal tubule cells. PathfindR was applied for pathway analysis in cell type-specific differentially expressed genes and the R limma package was used to analyze differential protein expression in kidney cortex. A total of 790 differentially expressed genes were identified in proximal tubule cells, including 530 upregulated and 260 downregulated transcripts. Compared with differentially expressed proteins, 24 genes or proteins were in common. An integrated analysis combining protein quantitative trait loci, genome-wide association study hits (namely, estimated glomerular filtration rate), and a plasma metabolomics analysis was performed using baseline metabolites predictive of DKD progression in our longitudinal Diabetes Heart Study samples. The aldo-keto reductase family 1 member A1 gene (AKR1A1) was revealed as a potential molecular hub for DKD cellular dysfunction in several cross-linked pathways featured by deficiency of this enzyme., (© 2024 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Rationale and Objective: This study aimed to develop a cosmesis scale to evaluate the cosmetic appearance of hemodialysis (HD) arteriovenous (AV) accesses from the perspective of the patient and clinician, which could be incorporated into clinical trials., Study Design: Using a modified Delphi process, two AV access cosmesis scale (AVACS) components were developed in a four-round Delphi panel consisting of two surveys and two consensus meetings with two rounds of patient consultation., Setting and Participants: The Delphi panel consisted of 15 voting members including five interventional or general nephrologists, five vascular surgeons, three interventional radiologists, and two vascular access nurse coordinators. Four patients experienced with vascular access were involved in patient question development., Analytical Approach: For a component to be included in the AVACS, it had to meet the prespecified panel consensus agreement of ⩾70%., Results: The clinician component of the AVACS includes nine questions on the following AV access features: scarring, skin discoloration, aneurysm/pseudoaneurysms and megafistula appearance. The patient component includes six questions about future vascular access decisions, interference with work or leisure activities, clothing choices, self-consciousness or attractiveness, emotional impact, and overall appearance., Limitations: Delphi panel methods are subjective by design, but with expert clinical opinion are used to develop classification systems and outcome measures. The developed scale requires further validation testing but is available for clinical trial use., Conclusions: While safety and efficacy are the primary concerns when evaluating AV access for HD, cosmesis is an important component of the ESKD patient experience. The AVACS has been designed to assess this important domain; it can be used to facilitate patient care and education about vascular access choice and maintenance. AVACS can also be used to inform future research on developing new techniques for AV access creation and maintenance, particularly as relates to AV access cosmesis., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest regarding patents or royalties, stock/stock options, or first-degree relatives with any of these relationships related to this work. No reimbursement was received for the development of the manuscript.DR, VN, MM, CR, ED, CG, TV, SH, PB, LD and patients CS, DDR, FM, and MB (see acknowledgements) received remuneration from Becton Dickinson (BD) for their participation in the Delphi process.GW, AH, and NF are employees of CRG-EVERSANA Canada Inc., which was contracted by BD to facilitate the Delphi panel process and analyze the results.EK and DC are employees of the American Association of Kidney Patients (AAKP) which was contracted by BD to advise on patient input and recruited the Patient Ambassadors.DR is a consultant for BD and Gore Medical. VN is a consultant for the NACCME – Moderator for AV Access Webcast, supported by an educational grant from Medtronic. SH is a consultant/speaker for BD, Merit Medical, Medtronic, and Gore Medical. ED is a consultant for WL Gore, Angiodynamics, and 3M/KCI. ED is a scientific advisor for Boston Scientific. TY is a consultant for BD, WL Gore and Merit Medical and a scientific advisory board member of BD and Medtronic. CK is a consultant for BD and ACI/Humacyte and advisory board member for Boston Scientific. CL is a consultant for BD, Gore, and Medtronic.Other ConflictsED, KW, and TY are authors and ED is an editor for UpToDate.

Background: Most patients starting chronic in-center hemodialysis (HD) receive conventional hemodialysis (CHD) with three sessions per week targeting specific biochemical clearance. Observational studies suggest that patients with residual kidney function can safely be treated with incremental prescriptions of HD, starting with less frequent sessions and later adjusting to thrice-weekly HD. This trial aims to show objectively that clinically matched incremental HD (CMIHD) is non-inferior to CHD in eligible patients., Methods: An unblinded, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial will be conducted across diverse healthcare systems and dialysis organizations in the USA. Adult patients initiating chronic hemodialysis (HD) at participating centers will be screened. Eligibility criteria include receipt of fewer than 18 treatments of HD and residual kidney function defined as kidney urea clearance ≥3.5 mL/min/1.73 m 2 and urine output ≥500 mL/24 h. The 1:1 randomization, stratified by site and dialysis vascular access type, assigns patients to either CMIHD (intervention group) or CHD (control group). The CMIHD group will be treated with twice-weekly HD and adjuvant pharmacologic therapy (i.e., oral loop diuretics, sodium bicarbonate, and potassium binders). The CHD group will receive thrice-weekly HD according to usual care. Throughout the study, patients undergo timed urine collection and fill out questionnaires. CMIHD will progress to thrice-weekly HD based on clinical manifestations or changes in residual kidney function. Caregivers of enrolled patients are invited to complete semi-annual questionnaires. The primary outcome is a composite of patients' all-cause death, hospitalizations, or emergency department visits at 2 years. Secondary outcomes include patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes. We aim to enroll 350 patients, which provides ≥85% power to detect an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.9 between CMIHD and CHD with an IRR non-inferiority of 1.20 (α = 0.025, one-tailed test, 20% dropout rate, average of 2.06 years of HD per patient participant), and 150 caregiver participants (of enrolled patients)., Discussion: Our proposal challenges the status quo of HD care delivery. Our overarching hypothesis posits that CMIHD is non-inferior to CHD. If successful, the results will positively impact one of the highest-burdened patient populations and their caregivers., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05828823. Registered on 25 April 2023., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Individuals afflicted with advanced kidney dysfunction who require dialysis for medical management exhibit different degrees of native kidney function, called residual kidney function (RKF), ranging from nil to appreciable levels. The primary focus of this manuscript is to delve into the concept of RKF, a pivotal yet under-represented topic in nephrology. To begin, we unpack the definition and intrinsic nature of RKF. We then juxtapose the efficiency of RKF against that of hemodialysis in preserving homeostatic equilibrium and facilitating physiological functions. Given the complex interplay of RKF and overall patient health, we shed light on the extent of its influence on patient outcomes, particularly in those living with advanced kidney dysfunction and on dialysis. This manuscript subsequently presents methodologies and measures to assess RKF, concluding with the potential benefits of targeted interventions aimed at preserving RKF., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The views, statements, and opinions presented are solely the responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of PCORI or NIH.

Introduction: Longitudinal changes in residual kidney function have not been well-examined in patients starting chronic hemodialysis (HD)., Methods: We analyzed urine volume and kidney solute clearances from timed urine collections and corresponding plasma samples from 42 patients randomized to incremental HD ( n  = 21) and conventional HD ( n  = 21) in the TwoPlus pilot study. Samples were collected before HD initiation (baseline); and at 6, 12, 24, and 48 weeks. We assessed temporal trends in urine volume, kidney urea and creatinine clearance, and correlations between urine volume and kidney solute clearance., Results: Residual kidney function parameters in all patients declined over time; the pattern of decline differed between urine volume and kidney solute clearances. Urine volume declined at a steady rate with median (quartile 1, quartile 3) percentage change relative to baseline of -10% (-36 to 29) at week 6 and -47% (-76 to 5) by week 48. Kidney urea and creatinine clearances exhibited a larger decline than urine volume at week 6, -32% (-61 to 8) and -47% (-57 to -20), respectively. The rate of decline subsequently slowed, reaching about 61% decline for both solutes by week 48. Conventional HD demonstrated larger declines in urine volume and kidney urea clearance than incremental HD at week 6. Urine volume showed moderate correlation with urea (R = 0.47) and weaker correlation with creatinine (R = 0.34)., Conclusion: Despite gradual decrement in urine volume and kidney solute clearances, residual kidney function persists nearly 1 year after HD initiation. This knowledge could motivate increased practice of individualizing HD prescriptions by incorporating residual kidney function., (© 2024 International Society of Nephrology. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Franco Casino and Mariana Murea discuss today's knowledge about the 'incremental dialysis' concept. Franco Casino frames the problem by saying that, in the presence of substantial residual kidney function, kidney replacement therapy can begin with low doses and/or frequencies, to be gradually increased to compensate for any subsequent losses of residual kidney function, keeping the total clearance above the minimum levels of adequacy. He remarks that studies so far have documented that this approach is safe. He recognizes that adequate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are necessary to confirm the safety and simplify and standardize the practical aspects of this approach. Mariana Murea objects that most of the evidence gathered so far primarily derives from retrospective and observational studies, which can be influenced by socioeconomic constraints. She argues for the need for RCTs to provide compelling empirical evidence on the efficacy of incremental dialysis. Nephrologists are still reluctant to adopt this approach for various reasons, including unfamiliarity with the method, lack of practical guidance and financial disincentives. Several countries have ongoing or planned RCTs comparing incremental dialysis with conventional dialysis. These trials can shift the haemodialysis paradigm if they validate the safety and effectiveness of this approach. The moderators believe that the results of ongoing trials must be carefully interpreted, and further validation may be needed across different patient populations or healthcare settings. The ultimate goal is to gather robust evidence that could lead to widespread adoption of incremental haemodialysis, optimizing treatment, reducing overtreatment, preserving resources and improving patients' quality of life., Competing Interests: J.F. is the Editor-in-Chief of CKJ. C.Z. is member of the Editorial Board of CKJ., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the ERA.)

Clinicians and patients are guided by observational studies to make one of the most consequential decisions for patients with advanced kidney disease: the selection of the "right" hemodialysis vascular access. More than a decade ago, a call for randomized clinical trials was made to equitably compare clinical outcomes between arteriovenous (AV) fistulas (AVFs) and AV grafts (AVGs). Mounting evidence suggests that trade-offs between AVF- and AVGrelated outcomes are context dependent. In this article, we summarize four streams of evidence that collectively underpin the burden of equipoise between the two types of AV access in older adults with comorbidities who are on hemodialysis with a central venous catheter.

Background: Treatment of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) with hemodialysis requires surgical creation of an arteriovenous (AV) vascular access-fistula (AVF) or graft (AVG)-to avoid (or limit) the use of a central venous catheter (CVC). AVFs have long been considered the first-line vascular access option, with AVGs as second best. Recent studies have suggested that, in older adults, AVGs may be a better strategy than AVFs. Lacking evidence from well-powered randomized clinical trials, integration of these results into clinical decision making is challenging. The main objective of the AV Access Study is to compare, between the two types of AV access, clinical outcomes that are important to patients, physicians, and policy makers., Methods: This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial in adults ≥ 60 years old receiving chronic hemodialysis via a CVC. Eligible participants must have co-existing cardiovascular disease, peripheral arterial disease, and/or diabetes mellitus; and vascular anatomy suitable for placement of either type of AV access. Participants are randomized, in a 1:1 ratio, to a strategy of AVG or AVF creation. An estimated 262 participants will be recruited across 7 healthcare systems, with average follow-up of 2 years. Questionnaires will be administered at baseline and semi-annually. The primary outcome is the rate of CVC-free days per 100 patient-days. The primary safety outcome is the cumulative incidence of vascular access (CVC or AV access)-related severe infections-defined as access infections that lead to hospitalization or death. Secondary outcomes include access-related healthcare costs and patients' experiences with vascular access care between the two treatment groups., Discussion: In the absence of studies using robust and unbiased research methodology to address vascular access care for hemodialysis patients, clinical decisions are limited to inferences from observational studies. The goal of the AV Access Study is to generate evidence to optimize vascular access care, based on objective, age-specific criteria, while incorporating goals of care and patient preference for vascular access type in clinical decision-making., Trial Registration: This study is being conducted in accordance with the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration, and has been approved by the central institutional review board (IRB) of Wake Forest University Health Sciences (approval number: 00069593) and local IRB of each participating clinical center; and was registered on Nov 27, 2020, at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04646226)., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Autogenous arteriovenous fistula (AVF) remains the standard of hemodialysis (HD) access; however, it cannot be reasonably obtained in all patients. For patients with contraindications to AVFs, prosthetic arteriovenous graft (AVG) remains an alternative. AVGs are plagued by high failure rates; however, there is a paucity of literature examining this. This study aims to examine a single-center review of outcomes of forearm loop AVGs in patients requiring HD access., Methods: A single institution, retrospective chart review was completed from 2012 to 2019, including demographics, end-stage renal disease etiology, brachial vessel diameters, and comorbidities. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were evaluated. Outcomes were defined as primary patency (time elapsed from graft creation until it was utilized as the patient's primary access), primary-assisted patency (time from primary access to intervention to maintain patency), and functional patency (time from graft placement until graft failure). Additionally, multinomial regression models were used to evaluate associations with categorical number of required interventions., Results: Ninety-eight patients [mean age 61.8 (13.9) years, 42.9% female] were identified as having brachial artery to brachial vein AVG creation during the study period, of which 75% achieved primary patency. Primary-assisted patency was 0.36 [standard error (SE) 0.07] at 6 months and 0.12 (SE 0.05) at 1 year. Functional patency was 0.75 (SE 0.07) at 6 months and 0.43 (SE 0.09) at 1 year. No association between preoperative vessel diameters and primary-assisted or functional patency was observed. Interestingly, there was a significant negative association between previous ipsilateral access and achievement of primary patency with a 60% decrease in odds of achieving primary patency in patients with previous ipsilateral access [odds ratio 0.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1-0.9, P = 0.03]. There was also noted to be a significant association between the presence of an ipsilateral catheter and increased risk of subsequent abandonment of the AVG (hazard ratio 2.6, 95% CI 1.1-5.8, P = 0.02)., Conclusions: Prosthetic forearm loop AVGs remain hindered in their utility as they show high rates of graft failure within a year of creation. A significant patient-specific factor leading to this was not clearly demonstrated. As guidelines change regarding the nature of dialysis access for patients on HD, these results draw into question the utility of prosthetic forearm loop grafts in patients requiring long-term HD access., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Physical and emotional symptoms are prevalent in patients with kidney-dysfunction requiring dialysis (KDRD) and the rigors of thrice-weekly hemodialysis (HD) may contribute to deteriorated health-related quality of life. Less intensive HD schedules might be associated with lower symptom and/or emotional burden., Methods: The TWOPLUS Pilot study was an individually-randomized trial conducted at 14 dialysis units, with the primary goal to assess feasibility and safety. Patients with incident KDRD and residual kidney function were assigned to incremental HD start (twice-weekly HD for 6 weeks followed by thrice-weekly HD) vs conventional HD (thrice-weekly HD). In exploratory analyses, we compared the two treatment groups with respect to three patient-reported outcomes measures. We analyzed the change from baseline in the score on Dialysis Symptom Index (DSI, range 0-150), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7, range 0-21), and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9, range 0-27) at 6 (n = 20 in each treatment group) and 12 weeks (n = 21); with lower scores denoting lower symptom burden. Analyses were adjusted for age, race, gender, baseline urine volume, diabetes mellitus, and malignancy. Participants' views on the intervention were sought using a Patient Feedback Questionnaire (n = 14 in incremental and n = 15 in conventional group)., Results: The change from baseline to week 6 in estimated mean score (standard error; P value) in the incremental and conventional group was - 9.7 (4.8; P = 0.05) and - 13.8 (5.0; P = 0.009) for DSI; - 1.9 (1.0; P = 0.07) and - 1.5 (1.4; P = 0.31) for GAD-7; and - 2.5 (1.1; P = 0.03) and - 3.5 (1.5; P = 0.02) for PHQ-9, respectively. Corresponding changes from week 6 to week 12 were - 3.1 (3.2; P = 0.34) and - 2.4 (5.5; P = 0.67) in DSI score; 0.5 (0.6; P = 0.46) and 0.1 (0.6; P = 0.87) in GAD-7 score; and - 0.3 (0.6; P = 0.70) and - 0.5 (0.6; P = 0.47) in PHQ-9 score, respectively. Majority of respondents felt their healthcare was not jeopardized and expressed their motivation for study participation was to help advance the care of patients with KDRD., Conclusions: This study suggests a possible mitigating effect of twice-weekly HD start on symptoms of anxiety and depression at transition from pre-dialysis to KDRD. Larger clinical trials are required to rigorously test clinically-matched incrementally-prescribed HD across diverse organizations and patient populations., Trial Registration: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study identifier NCT03740048, registration date 14/11/2018., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Rationale & Objective: Thrice-weekly hemodialysis (HD) is the most common treatment modality for kidney failure in the United States. We conducted a pilot study to assess the feasibility and safety of incremental-start HD in patients beginning maintenance HD., Study Design: Pilot study., Setting & Participants: Adults with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥5 mL/min/1.73 m 2 and urine volume ≥500 mL/d beginning maintenance HD at 14 outpatient dialysis units., Exposure: Randomized allocation (1:1 ratio) to twice-weekly HD and adjuvant pharmacologic therapy for 6 weeks followed by thrice-weekly HD (incremental HD group) or thrice-weekly HD (conventional HD group)., Outcome: The primary outcome was feasibility. Secondary outcomes included changes in urine volume and solute clearance., Results: Of 77 patients invited to participate, 51 consented to do so, representing 66% of eligible patients. We randomized 23 patients to the incremental HD group and 25 patients to the conventional HD group. Protocol-based loop diuretics, sodium bicarbonate, and patiromer were prescribed to 100%, 39%, and 17% of patients on twice-weekly HD, respectively. At a mean follow-up of 281.9 days, participant adherence was 96% to the HD schedule (22 of 23 and 24 of 25 in the incremental and conventional groups, respectively) and 100% in both groups to serial timed urine collection. The incidence rate ratio for all-cause hospitalization was 0.31 (95% CI, 0.08-1.17); and 7 deaths were recorded (1 in the incremental and 6 in the conventional group). At week 24, the incremental HD group had lower declines in urine volume (a difference of 51.0 [95% CI, -0.7 to 102.8] percentage points) and in the averaged urea and creatinine clearances (a difference of 57.9 [95% CI, -22.6 to 138.4] percentage points)., Limitations: Small sample size, time-limited twice-weekly HD., Conclusions: It is feasible to enroll patients beginning maintenance HD into a randomized study of incremental-start HD with adjuvant pharmacotherapy who adhere to the study protocol during follow-up. Larger multicenter clinical trials are indicated to determine the efficacy and safety of incremental HD with longer twice-weekly HD periods., Funding: Funding was provided by Vifor Inc., Trial Registration: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03740048., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) confers a high burden of uremic symptoms that may be underrecognized, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. Unpleasant symptoms, such as CKD-associated pruritus and emotional/psychological distress, often occur within symptom clusters, and treating 1 symptom may potentially alleviate other symptoms in that cluster. The Living Well with Kidney Disease and Effective Symptom Management Consensus Conference convened health experts and leaders of kidney advocacy groups and kidney networks worldwide to discuss the effects of unpleasant symptoms related to CKD on the health and well-being of those affected, and to consider strategies for optimal symptom management. Optimizing symptom management is a cornerstone of conservative and preservative management which aim to prevent or delay dialysis initiation. In persons with kidney dysfunction requiring dialysis (KDRD), incremental transition to dialysis and home dialysis modalities offer personalized approaches. KDRD is proposed as the preferred term given the negative connotations of "failure" as a kidney descriptor, and the success stories in CKD journeys. Engaging persons with CKD to identify and prioritize their personal values and individual needs must be central to ensure their active participation in CKD management, including KDRD. Person-centered communication and care are required to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion; education/awareness that considers the health literacy of persons with CKD; and shared decision-making among the person with CKD, care partners, and providers. By putting the needs of people with CKD, including effective symptom management, at the center of their treatment, CKD can be optimally treated in a way that aligns with their goals., (© 2022 Published by Elsevier, Inc., on behalf of the International Society of Nephrology.)

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., (© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Italian Society of Nephrology.)

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., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

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., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process of collaborative deliberation in the dyadic patient-physician interaction whereby physicians inform the patients about the pros and cons of all available treatment options and reach an agreement with the patients on their preferred treatment plan. In hemodialysis vascular access practice, SDM advocates a deliberative approach based on the existence of reasonable alternatives-that is, arteriovenous fistula, arteriovenous graft, and central venous catheter-so that patients are able to form and share preferences about access options. In spite of its ethical imperative, SDM is not broadly applied in hemodialysis vascular access planning. Physicians and surgeons commonly deliver prescriptive fistula-centered recommendations concerning the approach to vascular access care. This paternalistic approach has been shaped by directions from long-held clinical practice guidelines and is reinforced by financial payment models linked with the prevalence of arteriovenous fistula in patients on hemodialysis. Awareness is growing that what may have initially seemed a medically and surgically appropriate approach might not always be focused on each individual's goals of care. Clinician's recommendations for vascular access often do not sufficiently consider the uncertainty surrounding the potential benefits of the decision or the cumulative impact of the decision on patient's quality of life. In the evolving health care landscape, it is time for the practice of hemodialysis vascular access to shift from a hierarchical doctor-patient approach to patient-centered care. In this article we review the current state of vascular access practice, present arguments why SDM is necessary in vascular access planning, review barriers and potential solutions to SDM implementation, and discuss future research contingent on an effective system of physician-patient participative decision-making in hemodialysis vascular access practice., (Copyright © 2021 International Society of Nephrology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)