Search

Background In patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), home dialysis offers socio-economic and health benefits compared with in-centre dialysis but is generally underutilized. We hypothesized that the pre-dialysis course and institutional factors affect the choice of dialysis modality after dialysis initiation (DI). Methods The Peridialysis study is a multinational, multicentre prospective observational study assessing the causes and timing of DI and consequences of suboptimal DI. Clinical and biochemical data, details of the pre-dialytic course, reasons for DI and causes of the choice of dialysis modality were registered. Results Among 1587 included patients, 516 (32.5%) were judged unsuitable for home dialysis due to contraindications [384 ( 24.2%)] or no assessment [106 (6.7%); mainly due to late referral and/or suboptimal DI] or death [26 (1.6%)]. Older age, comorbidity, late referral, suboptimal DI, acute illness and rapid loss of renal function associated with unsuitability. Of the remaining 1071 patients, 700 (65.4%) chose peritoneal dialysis (61.7%) or home haemodialysis (HD; 3.6%), while 371 (34.6%) chose in-centre HD. Somatic differences between patients choosing home dialysis and in-centre dialysis were minor; factors linked to the choice of in-centre dialysis were late referral, suboptimal DI, acute illness and absence of a ‘home dialysis first’ institutional policy. Conclusions Given a personal choice with shared decision making, 65.4% of ESKD patients choose home dialysis. Our data indicate that the incidence of home dialysis potentially could be further increased to reduce the incidence of late referral and unplanned DI and, in acutely ill patients, by implementing an educational programme after improvement of their clinical condition.

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 >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 >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.

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 >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 >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.

Background Despite early referral of uraemic patients to nephrological care, suboptimal dialysis initiation (SDI) remains a common problem associated with increased morbimortality. We hypothesized that SDI is related to pre-dialysis care. Methods In the ‘Peridialysis’ study, time and reasons for dialysis initiation (DI), clinical and biochemical data and centre characteristics were registered during the pre- and peri-dialytic period for 1583 end-stage kidney disease patients starting dialysis over a 3-year period at 15 nephrology departments in the Nordic and Baltic countries to identify factors associated with SDI. Results SDI occurred in 42%. Risk factors for SDI were late referral, cachexia, comorbidity (particularly cardiovascular), hypoalbuminaemia and rapid uraemia progression. Patients with polycystic renal disease had a lower incidence of SDI. High urea and C-reactive protein levels, acidosis and other electrolyte disorders were markers of SDI, independently of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). SDI patients had higher eGFR than non-SDI patients during the pre-dialysis period, but lower eGFR at DI. eGFR as such did not predict SDI. Patients with comorbidities had higher eGFR at DI. Centre practice and policy did not associate with the incidence of SDI. Conclusions SDI occurred in 42% of all DIs. SDI was associated with hypoalbuminaemia, comorbidity and rate of eGFR loss, but not with the degree of renal failure as assessed by eGFR.