HemoDoc, From Doctor to Patient

Is Daily Dialysis Dangerous?

By Peter Laird, MD

Kidney International recently published a study on daily dialysis alleging worse outcomes for patients on daily in-center dialysis as compared to conventional in-center thrice weekly dialysis. The authors noted that this was a different outcome than prior observational dialysis studies on more frequent and longer duration strategies.

A multinational cohort study of in-center daily hemodialysis and patient survival

Those receiving daily hemodialysis had a significantly higher mortality rate than those receiving conventional hemodialysis (15.6 and 10.9 deaths per 100 patient-years, respectively: hazard ratio 1.6). Similar results were found in prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Unlike previous studies, we found that in-center daily hemodialysis was not associated with any mortality benefit. Thus, decisions to undertake daily hemodialysis should be based on quality-of-life improvements, rather than on claims of improved survival.

The researchers conclude that their study is the most conclusive and best evidence on mortality of daily dialysis in-center. However, simply reviewing their methods and results brings into question several areas of concern with this latest publication.

First, the most obvious data needed to compare the patients in this cohort is the clinical indication for why they were on daily dialysis in the first place. While daily dialysis at home is a utilized in the United States and more widely in Europe and Australia, even in those nations, daily dialysis in-center is not ordinarily utilized without specific clinical reasons. In America, many patients who are failing on conventional thrice week therapy often advance to four times a week treatments or more as a rescue strategy. Incredibly, this study failed to gather any data on why patients were on daily dialysis in-center and they indicated informally that rescue may have been an operative indication:

A multinational cohort study of in-center daily hemodialysis and patient survival

Most importantly, we do not have any information as to why daily hemodialysis was prescribed to individual patients in this study. If daily hemodialysis was prescribed as a ‘rescue’ option, patients selected for this therapy may have been sicker than those maintained on conventional dialysis. Some French patients may have been selected in this way (personal communication, CC and RG).

In addition, the short daily group had twice as many grafts compared to the conventional group and 30% of the short daily patients had no access data at all. Given the significant risk of death from AV grafts compared to fistulas, this could lead to significant confounding bias. Other data lacking in this study included no documentation of residual renal function, severity of co-morbid disease or socioeconomic factors, all of which are known predictors of survival. 

In addition, a secondary analysis of the FHN short daily and nocturnal studies by the same lead author focused on access issues speaks negatively of daily dialysis in yet another study:

Risk of Vascular Access Complications with Frequent Hemodialysis

In conclusion, frequent hemodialysis increases the risk of vascular access complications. The nature of the AV access repairs suggests that this risk likely results from increased hemodialysis frequency rather than heightened surveillance.

Many are already discouraged from recent studies and negative commentaries on daily dialysis. Others that know and understand the benefits of daily dialysis and will simply ignore this latest study:

Despite the risks of more frequent dialysis, I will continue, thank you

Studies like this, in my humble opinion, do more harm than good. Some doctors would potentially be put off by this risk of access problems and not recommend more frequent dialysis for their patients. The benefits of the modality are mentioned only in passing and the entire focus of the paper is access problems. This may be all right when you look at it purely from a statistical perspective. But I am really worried that the paper might have just taken daily dialysis off the menu for some people about to get onto dialysis.

That is sad, indeed.

I agree with Kamal Shaw except in one regard. I don't believe that this author in two separate studies has truly proven that more frequent hemodialysis has higher complications and higher mortality. Yes, indeed, that is the conclusions of her two articles, yet can we discount all of the positive articles that have come before? A noted deficiency of the FHN articles is that they did not report whether they used constant site cannulation, better known as buttonhole cannulation which has a lower risk of stenosis and aneurysm, but may increase infections in an in-center setting.

Blood flow rates were not noted in either of these studies as well. Unfortunately, a common practice of many dialysis nurses with short daily dialysis is to significantly increase the blood flow rate to the maximum allowable levels. This is a known cause of access complications that is entirely preventable, but many nurses and patients increase the blood flow rate to improve solute clearances and reduce the time of dialysis. Unfortunately, this data is lacking as well.

I have now completed six full years of hemodialysis and by God's grace and mercy, I have yet to have any access complications. I am now completing nearly 4 years on continuous home hemodialysis with 5-6 cannulations each week. More than once, dialysis professionals have commented that my fistula is the "prettiest" fistula that they have seen.

It is clear when you evaluate the causes of access failure and complications that technique is paramount to assuring reduced adverse events. Taking care of an access requires time that most dialysis technicians simply do not have. It takes me about 20 minutes to remove my scabs, control any bleeding and place betadine, let it dry and remove the excess with alcohol pads prior to inserting my own needles. Most techs simply apply the disinfectant, wipe off any excess and stick a needle into the fistula in less than a minute for both, perhaps two minutes in some cases.

Buttonhole cannulation does not lend itself to that type of rapid access cannulation. What puzzles me the most is the number of nephrologists who actively seek to prove daily dialysis inferior. Is it not time that we enter the rest of the realm of medical practice where we seek to avoid complications, improve procedures and improve outcomes? Sadly, in my opinion, much more effort is generated to discouraging patients from seeking home daily hemodialysis than promoting this wonderful modality.

In my opinion, having God's blessing of no complications from my dialysis to date, frequent daily hemodialysis is easy and safe to administer. I have no doubt that the technical difficulties that in-center patients suffer causing many of these complications are easily correctable but they must have time to do so. It never ceases to amaze me how little the so called dialysis professionals in-center understand about home hemodialysis and commonly used home dialysis techniques.

The better question to answer and promote is why is it that some patients can secure their access without any significant complications for decades, yet some in-center patients suffer frequent episodes of these "common" complications. It is with great regret that I have come to understand that a large majority of "common" dialysis complications are in reality iatrogenic in nature. Access complications appear to be no different.

I would hope that the story of dialysis will one day include a marvelous period of reawakening of how to do things better. The intensive care central line infection rates ravaged patients throughout America until a wise doctor in Johns Hopkins realized that we could improve the technique of inserting and caring for central lines. (here and here) Today, using a simple protocol for all of these procedures, infetions of a central line is now consider a "never" event since it should never occur. This is a prime example of improving the technique of a procedure to eliminate "common" infections which in the end analysis were iatrogenic in nature.

The dialysis industry has yet to embark on the same quest of excellence that our colleagues in other specialities have embraced decades ago. I understand that my risk of infection and complications is quite low even with daily dialysis due to adherence to strict techniques to eliminate potential complications. I am not alone in that many home hemodialysis patients have never had any major complications for years either. Is it not time to start looking at how to prevent complications instead of spending so much time and energy trying to denigrate optimal dialysis?

Perhaps I am simply asking too much but I don't believe so. With my understanding of the benefits of daily dialysis, I wonder when will the American nephrology community learn how to best apply simple techniques to routine dialysis practice that in the end is not costly at all and will save patients suffering, death and pain while reducing secondary treatment costs substantially.

Yes, daily dialysis in the hands of current technicians may indeed be dangerous. Daily dialysis in my hands is easy, safe and effective by strict protocols much in the same fashion as the central line bundle. I wish I could be there for every single patient to apply my own tried and true hygiene and cannulation techniques I have learned from many wise people such as Stuart Mott, but alas, I can't nor can Stuart. Why is it that select individuals can perform these procedures with minimal complications, yet the industry in general cannot? I believe I know the answers to that question, but the industry is not even asking that question. Perhaps that is the biggest problem of all.

Optimal Dialysis: Forty Years of Hope and Despair

By Peter Laird, MD

Shortly after the onset of hemodialysis coming to the forefront as a viable life saving procedure in the 1960's, researchers hypothesized that daily dialysis would be the optimal treatment modality for artificial renal replacement therapy. Later, Dr. Carl Kjellstrand provided the theoretical physiologic justification for more frequent and longer duration hemodialysis with the "Unphysiology Hypothesis" in 1975. 

The Rationale for More Frequent Hemodialysis – ‘Unphysiology’ 

In the early 1970s, Kjellstrand et al. [12, 13] investigated factors related the untoward effects of dialysis. They showed that large fluctuations in body weight, electrolytes, osmolality, and urea concentration were more important with respect to morbidity than concentrations of small uremic toxins or middle molecules. This led them to formulate the ‘unphysiology’ hypothesis which suggested that wide swings of solutes and fluids in the body were significant causes of morbidity in dialysis patients. Daily or continuous dialysis would more closely mimic the function of the native kidney by reducing the magnitude of solute and fluid oscillations and so would be expected to be superior to the usual intermittent dialysis regimens.

Interestingly, despite the long standing skepticism of quotidian dialysis protocols by the American nephrology community, researchers developing new dialysis technology such as the implantable artificial kidney, Victor Gura's WAK and other renal replacement devices in development all are in agreement with Dr. Kjellstrand's Unphysiology theory of more frequent and longer duration therapies. (here) Interestingly, even Wikipedia understands the underlying physiologic basis for developing these new renal replacement devices:

Need for a bioartificial kidney

Over 300,000 Americans are dependent on hemodialysis as treatment for renal failure, but according to data from the 2005 USRDS 452,000 Americans have end-stage renal disease (ESRD).^[2] Intriguing investigations from groups in London, Ontario and Toronto, Ontario have suggested that dialysis treatments lasting two to three times as long as, and delivered more frequently than, conventional thrice weekly treatments may be associated with improved clinical outcomes^[3] Implementing six-times weekly, all-night dialysis would overwhelm existing resources in most countries. This, as well as scarcity of donor organs for kidney transplantation has prompted research in developing alternative therapies, including the development of a wearable or implantable device.^[4]

The fiscal reality of lack of available resources to implement universal access to quotidian dialysis has in my opinion greatly influenced not only government policy on hemodialysis funding and modality in the United States (here), I believe it has also over shadowed and influenced research on quotidian dialysis as well. Anyone that attends the Annual Dialysis Conference expects the lively debates between nephrologists who passionately support more frequent and daily hemodialysis as opposed to those who equally voice opposition to quotidian dialysis.

The Frequent Hemodialysis Network study group findings on short daily hemodialysis and nocturnal dialysis dialysis demonstrates this paradox clearly. The short daily hemodialysis arm of the FHN study showed positive outcomes for daily dialysis but it appears that only the negative findings of the nocturnal arm matter to the nephrology community despite the excellent methodology of the FHN short arm vs. the deficiencies of the FHN nocturnal arm. (here and here) 

In March of this year, the nephrology community will gather once again at the Annual Dialysis Conference and debate the efficacy of more frequent hemodialysis vs conventional in-center treatment. An important part of those debates will involve the nocturnal FHN study:

Debate: More Frequent HD should be Recommended to Thrice Weekly HD Patients

• 8:00
  There Is Enough Evidence to Support this Recommendation - Madhukar Misra, MD
• 8:10
  The Frequent Nocturnal Hemodialysis Randomized Controlled Trial Does Not Support this Recommendation
  Alan Kliger, MD

Dr. Kliger will apparently sing a different tune speaking against more frequent HD than he did when he was appointed to the NxStage scientific advisory panel in 2011:

NxStage appoints Alan Kliger, MD to scientific advisory board

"The improved outcomes we saw in the FHN randomized controlled trial of daily dialysis should encourage patients and their physicians to consider daily hemodialysis as a serious option," said Kliger. "I''m excited to be involved with the team at NxStage, which is pioneering daily home dialysis with the System One in the U.S. and internationally."

More frequent hemodialysis is the hope of many patients today facing ESRD, but all too many nephrologists oppose the application of this simple therapy to their patients based largely on poor reimbursement from CMS. The despair of patients subjected to conventional in-center hemodialysis is evident with every single treatment where patients suffer from intradialytic hypotension followed by cramps, vomiting and passing out in centers that maximize profits at the expense of patient's outcomes. For over forty years we could have done better here in the United States and saved countless lives and further spared pain and suffering of patients yet we did not.

It is time for nephrologists to evaluate dialysis studies with a more rigourous eye towards poorly enacted methodology leading to questionable results. The FHN Nocturnal study is in my opinion a shameful publication that is fraught with such botched execution of its protocols that no one should uphold this as a reason to not engage more patients in daily dialysis. It is time to publicly admit the failure of the FHN nocturnal arm and declare this study null and void. Instead, just as nephrology dismissed the "insignificant" results of TIME in the NDCS (here) in 1981 leading to short dialysis duration and patient suffering and death, the FHN nocturnal study has the potential of setting daily dialysis to the back burner once again.

The NCDS dominated the optimal dialysis debate for decades until those that know and understand the power of more frequent and longer duration dialysis could produce the studies needed to bring the NCDS results into question. How many decades will the FHN nocturnal study dominate the debate on quotidian dialysis? Hopefully it won't given how flawed it is. However, the unjustifiable bias against daily dialysis continues today perhaps even more determined than it was before the short daily dialysis FHN study showed positive outcomes  for more frequent dialysis. Observing this highly respected researcher using the FHN nocturnal study as a basis for opposing more frequent dialysis sadly leads me to despair the number of people who will not have access to the benefits of daily dialysis because of this. 

The government support of research for new renal replacement therapy based on Dr. Kjellstrands "Unphysiology" theory is a source of hope but their hypocritical opposition to daily dialysis serves only to further despair. Dr. Kjellstrand was correct in 1975 and he remains correct today that more frequent and longer duration dialysis is the optimal dialysis strategy. Perhaps our only hope will be when these new technologies prove as cost effective as renal transplant. In that scenario, those that now vigorously oppose daily dialysis will likely become some of their most passionate supporters. We are left only with hope since it seems those that could make a difference today remain blind to our despair.

CMS and Home Hemodialysis: The Story of 40 Years of Neglect

By Peter Laird, MD

The 1973 ESRD Program began with an aura of hope and expectation of ending the suffering of countless renal patients ravaged by a disease that had only recently been a certain death sentence by slow and protracted suffering.  The "nobel experiment" which came to life by the serendipitous invention of a simple shunt became a Federally funded entitlement program literally by the stroke of a pen.

End Stage Renal Disease Program

In 1972 the United States Congress passed legislation authorizing the End Stage Renal Disease Program (ESRD) under Medicare. Section 299I of Public Law 92-603, passed on October 30, 1972, extended Medicare coverage to Americans if they had stage five chronic kidney disease (CKD) and were otherwise qualified under Medicare's work history requirements. The program's launch was July 1, 1973. 

At the start of the ESRD Program, the National Dialysis Registry data shows that on January 1, 1972 40.2% (2,001) of 4,981 patients were on home dialysis - HHD + PD - there were only 25 PD patients at home. 

On January 1, 1974 the figure was 33.0% (3,402) of 10,306 patients  were on home dialysis including 59 PD patients at home.

The politics of home hemodialysis then sadly began in earnest. The pioneers of dialysis developed home treatments to augment the few available hospital based dialysis machines to expand the number of patients that they could treat effectively. Home hemodialysis treatments were significantly cheaper than the in-center treatments by nearly a third in the early days of the ESRD program. 

NBC Commentator Dr. Arthur Caplan Calls Dialysis Cruel and Lousy Care

Data supplied by Richard Rettig,(page 3) a Rand Corporation scholar, shows that in 1972, in-center dialysis costs were between $27,600 - $30,500 while at the same time home dialysis costs were only $14,900 for the first year of therapy and only $7000 for each year there after.

The true tipping point between acceptance of home hemodialysis vs. in-center treatments came in the 1978 congressional hearings prompted by escalating costs of the ESRD Program. At that time, Edmund G. Lowrie, Vice President of National Medical Care, Inc., promoted a false understanding of the costs and effectiveness of home hemodialysis that Dr. Chris Blagg was unable to overcome in his testimony which fell on the deaf ears of those who refused to hear the true story.

The politics of health cost containment: end-stage renal disease

R.A. Rettig (pages 132-133)

Dr. Edmund Lowrie of Peter Brent Brigham Hospital attacked the Seattle experience directly on two points: "our analysis indicates that the cost of self-care dialysis is not significatly less than limited care dialysis, and that the the indiscriminate use of home dialysis may lead to unacceptable patient mortality." . . . "After careful analysis," Lowrie claimed, "the only obvious reason for this inferior patient survival that we can think of is the indiscriminate use of home dialysis therapy." Lowrie's testimony created the impression that three-year survival of home patients in Seattle was unacceptably low. But as Blagg later pointed out, the 58% applied to all Seattle patients, center and home, and inclued elderly and diabetics insignificant numbers."When we look at patient survival on home dialysis," Blagg wrote, "and exlude the center dialysis patients, the 3-year survival in our program is 74 percent including diabetics; if we exlude diabetics, the 3-year survival rate in pateints aged 55 of less is 81 percent on home dialysis. . .

But the political damage had been done. 

Today, after nearly forty years of neglect, home hemodialysis is only a shadow of its humble beginnings mainly due to adverse funding ratios from the hands of congress and CMS. Despite an abundance of evidence of its cost effectiveness, despite widespread acceptance in the rest of the developed world, home hemodialysis remains underutilized and underfunded today despite promises to the contrary.

NxStage internal data presented to CMS in recent public comments on the Renal Bundle and the QIP reveals significant discrepencies between reimbursement for peritoneal dialysis vs. home hemodialysis despite significantly longer training requirements for home hemodialysis (HHD) and and higher associated training costs. Total hours training, PD  - 32, HHD - 103. Reimbursement: PD $1,238, HHD - $408. Estimated HHD costs in a 2007 NxStage survey showed the burden of training for one HHD  patient was at least $4000.

The lack of adequate compensation for necessary training presents an undue disincentive to further acceptance of HHD as the modality of choice for selected patients. According to the same NxStage public comments, only 24% of current dialysis centers are certified for HHD and even fewer enroll patients into their programs despite extensive clinical data of improved outcomes with HHD. Adding to the financial disincentives, few nephrologists or units ever counsel patients on the benefits of home hemodialysis with as few as 12% of patients receiving informed consent on this underutilized modality. (here) Further studies reveal increased requests for home hemodialysis when patients are informed of this option showing the effectiveness of patient education on HHD. (here)

Despite substantial benefit, reduced long-term costs, and proven efficacy of informed consent for HHD, CMS continues to neglect this much unfairly maligned therapy. For those fortunate enough to participate in home hemodialysis training and treatment, the benefits are immediate and longstanding as noted by frequent testimonies on various dialysis advocacy web pages. Only congress and CMS fully appreciate their own reasons for why the continue to withhold appropriate funding of HHD after nearly forty years.

This puzzling story continues to defy any reason and logic. Perhaps one day, enough dialysis patients will know and understand why it should often be their first choice and a shout will go forth that no one can ignore any longer at CMS. But until that day, the voice of despair and discontent with conventional in-center hemodialysis will apparently continue to fall on deaf ears. Perhaps one day, we can only hope that someone, somewhere  and at some time one who can make a difference inside our government will.

The Dialysis Dilemma: What Would Scrib Do?

By Peter Laird, MD

Despite the demonstrable progress in recent years delivering the message of optimal dialysis, from time to time, a very negative portrayal of dialysis emerges in the popular press that paints a shaded picture of the true miracle of hemodialysis that today sustains two to three million people around the world.

I was quite disappointed to read  a recent article that ended on just such a sour note of despair with dialysis despite celebrating the stories of both Bill Peckham and Nancy Spaeth who have graced the world with lives well lived despite ESRD. After all, both Bill and Nancy are still working and contributing greatly to their families, friends and community. It appears that the author of this article failed to capture the true miracle of saved lives with hemodialysis with their example she noted, but does not appear to truly understand.

The dialysis dilemma: urgent need vs. overtaxed system

A HALF CENTURY ago, nobody predicted so many people would have end-stage kidney disease. Or that treating it, per patient, would be one of government's most expensive entitlements.

Now, nephrologist Kelly says, the problem isn't picking which patients should get dialysis; it's that doctors, patients and families seem unable to pick which patients shouldn't.

A few months ago, at a NKC celebration, he called for reconstituting "The Committee" — albeit with a 180-degree change in its mission. It was a moment to pause.

Kelly fervently believes that health care is a right. But he also thinks dialysis has gone too far.

Unfortunately, the story of dialysis today is not that it has gone too far, but that it has not gone far enough. Hemodialysis machines operate in much the same fashion as they did when the doors to renal replacement therapy swung open with the ESRD program in 1973. Since that time, despite the technological revolution that we have seen throughout modern medicine with improved survival from technological advance, the basic components of hemodialysis remain remarkably the same. Although even here there are indeed improvements in buffers, hollow fiber tubing, software, and other aspects of delivering the provision of dialysis, one aspect that has not seen any improvement in hemodialysis is improved outcomes.

The for-profit dominated dialysis industry has focussed their efforts on improving the bottom line of corporate profits but as an industry they have not advanced the technology to improve outcomes in any sensible fashion. In this regard, dialysis has not gone too far at all. Nevertheless, Dr. Kelly is speaking of the ethical dilemmas of open access to this expensive care and not the need for further technological advances.

The dialysis dilemma: urgent need vs. overtaxed system

 Today, with the door to dialysis swung wide open, Kelly argues, doctors, families and patients need a committee because someone, somehow, has to say no.

He battles with himself out loud. "I think, 'Am I some kinda Hitlerian guy, that I want to stop all these treatments?' "

Then he recalls "Scrib," Scribner himself, fearlessly insisting that uncomfortable, tough issues be aired. "I frequently say, when I'm dealing with a case, 'What would Scrib do?' " Kelly says.

"I'm trying to do the right thing — what I think is the right thing."

The study of medical ethics can be summed up simply enough as doing the right thing in difficult circumstances. I am pleased that Dr. Kelly seeks the wisdom and knowledge that "Scrib" would advise America in these trying times. However, seeking to return to "God committees" more properly called death panels from his description is not the avenue that I believe Scrib would venture with the so called "dialysis dilemma" we face today.  Dr. Christopher Blagg wrote a touching and informative tribute to his lifelong friend and colleague shortly after Dr. Scibner's untimely death in 2003. One short paragraph in this tribute speaks loudly on where I believe Scrib would want us to go:

Belding Hibbbard Scribner - Better Known as Scrib

Scrib always said he had been lucky all his life, but he was successful because of his perseverance in problem solving and his delight in tinkering with devices. He was a great teacher and leader and a generous person. His first concern was always for patients, and his other major concerns included for-profit dialysis, the future of U.S. medicine, and the future of the world.

I believe Dr. Blagg characterized best "what would Scrib do?" by noting his devotion to patients first and foremost coupled with his ability for problem solving. The great tragedy of dialysis is not that we have too many patients in need of this life saving technology,  but instead that we have spent too little time problem solving and tinkering with  any new technology. Modern technology seems to have side-stepped the dialysis industry as it ground the constant drumbeat of profiteering above and beyond the love of the patients they serve truly giving a new definition to blood money.

What would Scrib do? I believe he would tinker and problem solve with newer and improved technology and freely give that technology to medicine for no profit of his own as he did with the Scribner Shunt. Instead of profiting millions of dollars personally by his new invention, Dr. Scribner freely gave this life saving device to the entire medical community which is an ethic sadly missing today.

I don't believe that Nancy Spaeth and Bill Peckham wish to be known for an article essentially calling for death panels in the current world of re-engineering dialysis. Instead, they are filled with courage and devotion to this modern medical miracle made possible by a humble man. Where is our present day teacher and leader who shall advance the provision of dialysis in the same spirit of saving lives as both Bill and Nancy testify daily? Both knew and loved Dr. Scribner who served not only as a mentor, encourager and teacher, but as their lifelong friend. Dr. Scribner did not heed the modern admonition of doctors not getting attached to their patients, he instead embraced them with all of his heart and mind and soul.

How many nephrologists today have patients that will outlive them? Even Dr. Scribner's very first patient, Clyde Shields,  lived for over eleven years before cardiovascular disease claimed his rejuvinated life. The amazing panel of Dr. Scribner's patients have lived lives testifying of this truly remarkable invention. (here, and here)

I believe he would approach all patients with severe renal impairment with a courageous strength to save lives above all other concerns. Has dialysis gone too far? No, not at all. It has instead failed to advance far enough that the provision of dialysis is still far too excessively expensive and strangled by an industry that cares first and foremost about reaping ever enlarging corporate profits. What would Scrib do? I believe Dr. Blagg told us quite clearly in his loving tribute that he would focus on the patient tinkering with new technology and giving it all freely away to save lives. Yes, that is what Scribner would not only do, but that is what he did. 

The FHN Raises it's Ugly Head One More Time

By Peter Laird, MD

The FHN daily and nocturnal studies were conducted by researchers who have exhibited contempt and disdain in earlier writings against frequent hemodialysis protocols. Certainly the writings of the lead investigator, Glen Chertow, give one pause. His key note address at the Annual Dialysis Conference shortly after the publication of the daily FHN results could hardly be called heartfelt endorsement of more frequent hemodialysis even though his study did show significant benefits.

Since the publication of the failed FHN nocturnal study that only recruited approximately one third of the expected patients, the continued negative rhetoric from the FHN trial group authors is baseless and lacks intellectual evaluation of their own study. This provides further evidence of their innate bias against this technology that does have a proven clinical track record for improving lives, focusing benefits of cardiovascular preservation and significantly improved patients activities of daily living. Any patient that has endured conventional in-center hemodialysis and then converted to daily nocturnal hemodialysis will so attest.

The latest assault against frequent hemodialysis sadly comes once again from one of the principle authors of the FHN nocturnal study, Yoshio Hall, MD.

Value of Frequent Dialysis for Physical Health Questioned: An Interview With Yoshio Hall, MD

The Frequent Hemodialysis Network Trial Group recently found that compared with conventional in-center hemodialysis (HD) that is performed three times a week, frequent in-center HD (6 times a week) improved self-reported physical health and functioning for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) but had no significant effect on objective physical performance, according to a report in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 2012;7:782-794).

Frequent nocturnal dialysis, for its part, showed no significant effects on any of these physical metrics. Nephrologist and study coauthor Yoshio Hall, MD, Assistant Professor of Medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, discusses his team's findings with Renal & Urology News.

Were you Surprised and/or diasppointed by these findings?

Dr. Hall:  We hypothesized that increasing the frequency of hemodialysis might further improve overall physical capacity through perhaps better control of uremia, preservation of nutritional status and muscle mass, correction of acid-base imbalances, and reduction of interdialytic weight gain and volume overload.

If the above description of why the investigators hypothesized frequent hemodialysis, especially noctural daily hemodialysis would improve physical function was the operative theory leading to the flawed design of the FHN nocturnal study, then I must question their understanding of the proposed benefits of nocturnal dialysis from the confluence of observational studies over several decades. The greatest detriment to chronic hemodialysis patients physical function is from cardiovascular disease, especially LVH leading to poor fluid control and CHF. What Dr. Hall did not mention in his negative diatribe against frequent dialysis is that reduction in LVH was an important finding of the short daily FHN trial.

In-Center Hemodialysis Six Times per Week versus Three Times per Week

Frequent hemodialysis, as compared with conventional hemodialysis, was associated with favorable results with respect to the composite outcomes of death or change in left ventricular mass and death or change in a physical-health composite score but prompted more frequent interventions related to vascular access.

The FHN nocturnal study is a failed study that should not be the basis for questioning the value of daily nocturnal hemodialysis. The FHN nocturnal study unexpectedly failed to show any benefit in the composite outcomes measured. When evaluating this surprising finding, one must keep in mind that the FHN nocturnal study has several disabling flaws, not the least of which was their well-publicized difficulty in recruiting patients.  Recruitment only improved when patients were offered two different forms of home hemodialysis instead of baseline comparison to conventional in-center hemodialysis.

Despite the fact that many American dialysis researcher’s believe that there is still a need to carry out a randomized control trial of nocturnal dialysis vs. conventional in-center dialysis, the majority of patients offered participation in the FHN nocturnal trial declined because they desired nocturnal home hemodialysis (NHHD) and refused randomization.  In addition, we have over forty years of well done observational studies which are all in agreement of the benefits of NHHD.  Nevertheless, researchers noted that failing to eliminate selection bias could explain the positive outcomes, thus justifying the call for further study.

Aside from recruiting only 87 of the needed 275 patients randomized to this trial, several other factors limit the ability to utilize any meaningful results. Of those randomized, nearly 50% of these patients were "incident" patients without LVH, limiting the possibility of "regression" of left ventricular mass by nocturnal hemodialysis in such a short study period. In addition, of those randomized to the nocturnal arm only 87% completed the 12 months study period and nearly 25% of those that did participate in the nocturnal arm failed to adhere to the five times a week nocturnal schedule demonstrating a surprising degree of noncompliance.

Studying subjects who were much younger and healthier at baseline looking for LVH regression is an exercise in absurdity. Unfortunately, many may use this failed study as a basis for excluding nocturnal dialysis treatment availability by calling it negative when it is null and void because it is underpowered, over selected and seriously flawed.

There is no reason to doubt the benefits of NHHD even with this publication. Despite the lack of a significant finding in this trial, the result is not because of a treatment failure, but instead due to severe flaws within the study itself, some of which I have noted above.  There truly is no need for further studies before offering NHHD to more American patients.  The biggest failure of the FHN nocturnal study is that they called for it in the first place. We have wasted nearly ten years waiting for this study to only find disappointment in its serious shortcomings. Many opposed this study from the outset, they were right then, they are right today. It is time to proceed with our best evidence, even if much of it is observational.

I am greatly sadened that such a respected researcher from of all places, the University of Washington in Seattle where Scribner lead the charge promoting longer and more frequent hemodialysis would venture such an unsupported opinion from such a failed RCT. It appears that any result that comes from a randomized and controlled trial must be accepted as gospel truth even though there are fatal errors in execution and design of this study. 

I believe the lack of a cogent hypothesis may be the root cause of researchers such as Dr. Hall making absurd recommendations against more frequent hemodialysis. We know and understand that short, infrequent hemodialysis results in serious cardiovascular decline and poor fluid management over a period of years on convention in-center hemodialysis. How can a researcher expect to find differences among 87 patients who have a significantly lower mortality to start than the standard USRDS population, higher residual urine function than the original FHN nocturnal protocol specified, higher levels of incident dialysis and less vintage patients who would have had the opportunity to develop LVH and cardiovascular compromise in the first place.

Understanding the demographics of the study population of the FHN nocturnal study, it is not surprising at all that there were no significant differences in LVH and physical activity scores in the study subjects. After all, these were healthier than normal patients at the onset of the study without enough time on dialysis to develop the types of cardiovascular morbidity and pathology that nocturnal dialysis best prevents. Perhaps one day, a major medical journal will publish a McMaster type review of the FHN nocturnal study so that the nephrology community can place this study in it's proper place as a failed and poorly executed randomized and controlled trial that did not meet its set goals or standards. Until that time, it appears that we will be subject to more and more negative diatribes from the FHN authors. I find that a sad use of millions of dollars and patients lives.

Should America Measure Dialysis Outcomes Based on Employment Rates?

By Peter Laird, MD

The American dialysis experience especially in the last three decades is at great variance to the outcomes of all of the other industrialized nations with large dialysis programs.  Many inside the US dialysis industry squarely place the blame on the patients themselves citing higher levels of diabetes, HTN and elderly patients than other nations. However, extensive studies over the last two decades by DOPPS and other organizations came to a different conclusion. While there are differences in patient demographics, these alone do not entirely explain the differences in outcomes and higher mortality rates. DOPPS concluded that practice variations of vascular access, treatment times and ultrafiltration rates better explained many of these differences in outcomes.

International Hemodialysis Patient Outcomes Comparisons Revisted: The Role of Practice Patterns and Other Factors

Survival among HD patients in Japan, Europe, and the United States: Data from DOPPS I (1997 through 2001). *Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, male gender, black race, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, other cardiac disease, left ventricular hypertrophy, cardiomegaly by x-ray, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, lung disease, dyspnea, smoking, cancer, HIV/AIDS, gastrointestinal bleed, peptic ulcer disease, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, neurologic disorder, psychiatric disease, recurrent cellulitis or gangrene, and vision problems. **P < 0.001.

Saran et al found a direct correlation between increased treatment time and a 7% reduction in mortality with every thirty minutes of addition dialysis per session:

Longer treatment time and slower ultrafiltration in hemodialysis: associations with reduced mortality in the DOPPS.

Figure 2.

Longer treatment time (TT) and slower ultrafiltration rate (UFR) are considered advantageous for hemodialysis (HD) patients. The study included 22,000 HD patients from seven countries in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Logistic regression was used to study predictors of TT > 240 min and UFR > 10 ml/h/kg bodyweight. Cox regression was used for survival analyses. Statistical adjustments were made for patient demographics, comorbidities, dose of dialysis (Kt/V), and body size. Europe and Japan had significantly longer (P < 0.0001) average TT than the US (232 and 244 min vs 211 in DOPPS I; 235 and 240 min vs 221 in DOPPS II). Kt/V increased concomitantly with TT in all three regions with the largest absolute difference observed in Japan. TT > 240 min was independently associated with significantly lower relative risk (RR) of mortality (RR = 0.81; P = 0.0005). Every 30 min longer on HD was associated with a 7% lower RR of mortality (RR = 0.93; P < 0.0001). The RR reduction with longer TT was greatest in Japan. A synergistic interaction occurred between Kt/V and TT (P = 0.007) toward mortality reduction. UFR > 10 ml/h/kg was associated with higher odds of intradialytic hypotension (odds ratio = 1.30; P = 0.045) and a higher risk of mortality (RR = 1.09; P = 0.02). Longer TT and higher Kt/V were independently as well as synergistically associated with lower mortality. Rapid UFR during HD was also associated with higher mortality risk. These results warrant a randomized clinical trial of longer dialysis sessions in thrice-weekly HD.

For over forty years, Belding Scribner and many of the pioneers of dialysis in America advocated changing  our practice patterns as the central focus of change in the US dialysis industry. While I applaud the efforts of Gary Peterson, Rich Berkowitz and Denise Eilers in their lobbying efforts to educate congress on the dysfunctional US renal system, focusing on employment as the most important measure of dialysis outcomes may have unintended consequences that could paradoxically damage the ESRD program and its funding.

On the other hand, the ESRD demographics are important indicators of the total rehabilitation potential in this population. In the 1960's and early 1970's, with limited resources, diabetic patients and elderly patients were excluded from treatment. In addition, those that were granted access to dialysis treatment were expected to learn and preform self care dialysis at home much more so than in-center treatments once again due to limited resources. This highly selected ESRD population had a very high rehabilitation potential and most were able to continue working. Many such as Nancy Spaeth raised a family and worked as a nurse and continue to remain very active in dialysis education and advocacy today after being diagnosed with CKD in 1959. 

Today, approximately 44% of the incident and prevalent US dialysis patients suffer from diabetes.
Diabetes affects the cardiovascular system from the small to large blood vessels and this is the primary mechanism of disabling conditions leading to strokes, heart attacks, blindness, amputations, chronic skin ulcers and infections as well as numbness and tingling from peripheral neuropathies. It is a systemic disease where early measures of damage to the kidney correlate with a higher risk of stroke and heart attack. Many consider microalbuminuria a direct marker of cardiovascular disease risk in diabetic patients. For diabetic patients with ESRD, many if not most of these patients have serious comorbid conditions that unfortunately are irreversible and difficult to treat. (here)

In addition, the median age of the incident ESRD population is 64.2 and the median age of the prevalent ESRD population is 59.4 .  For those considering emplyment as the main focus of lobbying congress to change dialysis outcomes,  the fact that we have at least half of the ESRD patients in the US above the working ages limits its application except to a fraction of the current population. The demographics at the time of the origins of the ESRD program in 1973 no longer exist. I believe we have rightly extended coverage to all patients who wish to be treated and should continue to do so. There are certainly renal replacement candidates that will not benefit from dialysis due to excessive burdens of disease but that is an individual question for each patient and their families to decide. I do believe we have a societal duty to prevent death and suffering when we have that ability.

Currently, there are only ~18% of the working age dialysis patients that continue to engage in active employment. (here) One aspect that has not yet been completely elicidated is what are the modifiable factors that could improve employment rates among dialysis patients. Patient characteristics such as educational status and occupation prior to iniating dialysis are fixed. Evaluating employment based on facility characteristics is an area in need of further study. Two variables found by Kutner et al in 2008 were access to evening dialysis sessions as well as facilities that have a home dialysis program. Both factors significantly correlate to higher levels of employment. There are likely many other factors that should be explored. 

Taking into consideration the burden of comorbid diseases, we must ask what goal of employment is reasonable? We are currently employing 35-40% of working age dialysis patients. If the goal is set too high in such a system of evaluating dialysis units according to employment rates of eligible patients, those truly that are disabled with irreversible conditions could be forced into a situation where their safety net is removed. Even if we increased employment rates by a factor of 100% (70-80% of working age patients) from current levels which I doubt anyone believes is achievable, the total unemployment rate among dialysis patients would still be near 65%. Focussing on employment alone does not achieve the desired results since the majority of dialysis patients by age or severe disability are not candidates to continue or return to work.

I do believe that we can and should improve all quality of life indicators but do so the same way that Dr. Scribner advocated over forty years ago, by applying physiologic renal replacement strategies best deliniated by Dr. Carl Kjellstrand in his "Unphysiology Hypothesis" in 1975. More frequent and longer duration dialysis improves mortality, reduces hospitalizations, significantly reduces the costs of treatment and conversely also raises the number of patients who are able to return to work. (here)  Employment in the end analysis is one indicator of optimal dialysis. Lower mortality, reduced depression, improved sexual function and many other indicators likewise optimize when patients obtain longer duration and more frequent dialysis. 

I would hope that we continue in Dr. Scribner's tradition of calling for incentives for home hemodialysis, avoidance of high ultrafiltration rates and longer and more frequent dialysis sessions as all other nations around the world have already practiced for decades. Setting employment quotas gains nothing at all if you don't first fix the underlying problem, our unique American dialysis practices. That has and should continue to remain our focus as dialysis advocates seeking reform. Under employment is the symptom, not the disease.

Designing an entire medical program around one symptom alone is not prudent in my opinion. Designing the system as Dr. Scribner advocated for decades remains our one and true course we should all join together to support. Indeed, there are many indicators that Dr. Scribners life long advocacy was not and is not in vain.  His message matters today more than ever as we begin a dialogue among all involved in the care of dialysis patients. Simply breaking down the wall between part A and Part B would drive the financial incentives to avoidance of hospitalizations and complications. In the end, the best medicine once again turns out to be the cheapest medicine.

Utilizing our current resources with improved financial incentives offers much more hope of true dialysis reform than any other method. Interestingly, that is the message that the large dialysis organizations are also lobbying for with CMS/Congress at the present time. I believe that a convergence of the LDO's, CMS/Congress and patient organizations is not only possible, but it will happen. Putting that system together should be the dominant goal of our outreach and advocacy.

LDO's and for-profit medicine are a reality of American medicine whether people are satisfied with that answer or not. Unleashing the properly incentivised goals of dialysis care will bring about the corporate response we wish to see with better outcomes for all patients, not just a select few who are capable of employment. Recent CMS demonstration projects show that this is not only feasible, it is desirable. (here) Interestingly, FMC already demonstrated these same types of outcomes with their joint Kaiser/FMC dialysis partnership in Southern California. I can readily assert that I have personally witnessed the results at my own dialysis unit as both a physician and a patient where my nephrologist was able to reduce annual mortality from over 20% down to only 7% in 2009.  

We already have the tools available today to more efficiently utilize our current resources in a better fashion for all patients. Applying these simple concepts to dialysis care was the basis for Dr. Scribner's visionary recommendations. It remains my central core strategy and goal as well. 

FDA Announces Renal Disease Device Pilot Programs

By Peter Laird, MD

The first projects of the new FDA Innovation Pathway went into effect today with the announcement of three pilot programs for ESRD.

FDA announces plans to pilot end-stage kidney disease technology in new program

Innovation Pathway aims to reduce time and cost of bringing safe and effective, breakthrough technologies to patients

Three products for patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) have been chosen to participate in the FDA’s Innovation Pathway, an evolving system designed to help medical devices reach patients in a safe, timely and collaborative manner.

The FDA selected three from 32 product applications ranging from an artificial kidney to devices that assist kidney function that were submitted in response to a January 2012 request from FDA’s device center.

The three products are:

• An implantable Renal Assist Device (iRAD) being developed by the University of California, San Francisco.
• A Wearable Artificial Kidney (WAK) in development by Blood Purification Technologies Inc. of Beverly Hills, Calif.
• A Hemoaccess Valve System (HVS) that has been designed by Greenville, S.C.-based CreatiVasc Medical.

The majority of the 32 applications came from small, start-up business or academic institutions. 

Dr. Victor Gura invented the Wearable Artificial Kidney (WAK) and has already successfully tested this device prototype in Italy and London. (here and here) With 168 hours of total dialysis per week, it achieved creatinine clearances of 40 ml/min. The importance of a creatinine clearance this high is this is the level that is predicted to allow children with ESRD to grow normally, which was one of Dr. Gura's goals in developing this device. 

The FDA Innovation Pathway is a welcome addition to the renal community and adds a new layer of market place developments that will push the entire industry to a new level never seen before.  With current weekly Kt/V goals of 2.0, this device will push the limits to over 7.0, equivalent and at times exceeding the creatinine clearances of patients with renal transplants. I look forward to the brave new world of renal disease medical devices now coming to the forefront of renal replacement technology that has stagnated for several decades.

The FDA Innovation Pathway promises reduce the death and suffering associated with the standard in-center treatments.  The large dialysis organizations (LDO's) will need to reply in kind as renal replacement therapies now enters a new generation of device innovations. The promise of living independently and unshackled from the burdens of renal disease may soon become the standard treatments for those unfortunate to have irreversible loss of renal function. The news from Washington D.C. today begins a new era of dialysis therapies that the renal community shall surely welcome.

Is American Nephrology Falling Behind Asia?

By Peter Laird, MD

Renal and Urology News recently had an opinion article on dialysis practices in Asia and America where the American nephrology practices for dialysis are no longer cutting edge. America appears to be in a state of limbo as far as dialysis practices compared to other nations, even those that we would ordinarily consider "third world" countries.

Is U.S. Nephrology Laggin Behind?

On the dialysis front, too, other countries appear to be ahead of us. In this country most of us have no clear idea what so-called “on-line hemofiltration” is, whereas in many other countries it has been practiced routinely in outpatient dialysis clinics for years. Our dialysis machines are outdated compared with those of some other nations. We do not allow our patients to eat during dialysis treatment, whereas meals are served routinely in many outpatient dialysis centers in other countries.

We appear to be disconnected from the rest of the world and uninterested in knowing why other nephrology communities are moving forward faster than we are. In terms of income, we feel that we are paid relatively well in this country, yet we do not realize that even Canadian nephrologists, on average, earn 20% to 40% higher income than their counterparts here.

There is no doubt that when it comes to dialysis practices, America has adopted stagnation as their motto. Since the advent of high flux artificial kidneys, the actual technology for dialysis in America has remained essentially unchanged for decades. If we didn't have the highest mortality and cost per capita for dialysis patients, the status quo could be justified. But since our outcomes are so far out of variance from other nations, our intransigence is as noticeable as Rudolf's red nose on Christmas Eve. Sadly, it appears that some American nephrologists think that our system of deterence to new technology is the best in the world.

Brief Comment: Is U.S. Nephrology Lagging Behind

My response to Kam is that the US taking a more measured approach compared to Asian countries represents a strength not a weakness. After all, we have evolved from an era of norstrum and other so-called "magic cures" (e.g., see Warner's Kidney and Liver Cure ad) to a more organized marketplace of treatments that are backed by evidence. We should seek data from randomized trials wherever possible to support treatment recommendations rather than simply using interventions based on limited data and whims.

It is interesting that one of the great difference of American dialysis practices compared to Europe and Asia-Pacific is that thirty years ago, America embraced the NCDS as the champion of evidence based medicine while Europe and Asia-Pacific nations uniformly rejected this flawed RCT and it's illogical conclusions that TIME is not an important determinant of outcomes.  In fact, you could readily conclude that the adherence of American nephrology to these flawed RCT's and blatant diregard of excellent observational dialysis studies is at the center of our failed dialysis practices which are motivated more by profit and greed than any so called evidence based medicine.

Interestingly, the NCDS had a non-significant effect from time on dialysis and the HEMO study did not test time as one of the variables. The FHN short daily study focussed more on differences in frequency and the failed FHN nocturnal study failed to recruit enough patients, it failed to separate the treatment group parameters far enough and it had too highly selected patients with only one third the mortality of the USRDS dialysis population to be able to be generalized to a sicker population.

Time and duriation of dialysis treatments has never yet been properly tested in an RCT to date, nor do I believe it is necessary. In fact, you could argue very determinedly that adherence to RCT's in America is the cause of our stubborn refusal to advance treatment options since many of the questions can never be sufficiently answered with a large enough and powerful enough study. The optimal dialysis RCT is simply a castle in the sky that the academic American nephrology will never realize since it would involve thousands of patients who refuse randomization as seen in the FHN studies.

In such a case, the call for further RCT's suceeds in only inducing further treading of water and maintaining the current status without improving outcomes whatsoever.  It should be immediately obvious that Rudolf's nose which shines so bright is there for all to see, except it appears, the American nephrologist who glorifies in our mediocrity. I appreciate Dr. Kalantar-Zadeh having the courage to speak truthfully. Unfortunately, it was predictable that many in the American nephrology community would take umbrage to his observations and rest on their laurels. After all, nothing is improving despite the serious deficiencies in dialysis practices that DOPPS has documented over the last two decades between America, Japan and Europe. Yes, Rudolf does have a red nose and America is lagging behind in its dialysis practices. Both are implicitly obvious.

Do You Know Your Ultrafiltration Rate (UFR)?

By Peter Laird, MD

Dialysis patients know their monthly hemoglobin levels, albumen, phosphorus, potassium and Kt/V but today, ultrafiltration rates are not published for the patients to review and understand. Sadly, excessive ultrafiltration rates are one of the major sources of morbidity and mortality for dialysis patients, yet CMS does not require dialysis units to report these figures to patients. Many recent studies articulate the risks of taking off too much fluid too rapidly leading to myocardial ischemia and stunning.

Fluid Removal During Dialysis and Cardiovascular Mortality: Results

 

Associations between UFR and All-cause and CV Mortality

Overall, 871 deaths occurred during 5,233 patient-years of at-risk time; 343 of these deaths were due to CV causes. The median survival time was 2.5 years. Compared with UFR ≤10 ml/h/kg, UFR >13 ml/h/kg was significantly associated with all-cause mortality: unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval (CI)) 1.20 (1.03–1.41) (Figure 1). When multivariable adjustment was used to account for baseline differences between groups, this association was greatly potentiated: HR (95% CI) 1.59 (1.29–1.96). UFR 10–13 ml/h/kg bore an intermediate association with CV mortality that was not statistically significant: adjusted HR (95% CI) 1.06 (0.87–1.28). Results were similar when UFRs following the long interdialytic break were excluded from consideration, when the referent group was restricted to participants with UFR 8–10 ml/h/kg (data not shown), and when flux and Kt/V treatment group assignments were included as covariates in the statistical model (Supplementary Table SA online).

The effect on mortality of ultrafiltration rates increase dramatically once it is above 10 ml/hour/kg. The calculation is quite easy to do. Using an example of a dialysis patient who weighs 70 kg, dialysis for 4 hours and takes off 2 liters of fluid, we have: 2000 ml/4hr/70 kg = 7.14 ml/hr/kg. However, if we look at a 70 kg patient who dialysis for 3 hours taking off 3 L of fluid, the calculation changes drastically: 3000 ml/3hr/70 kg = 14.3 ml/hr/kg. Shortening the dialysis time and increasing the amount of fluid taken off with ultrafiltration now places the patient in a higher risk of cardiac and all cause mortality.

Secondary Analysis

In order to more fully examine the threshold(s) at which UFR may become harmful, we
conducted analyses in which we examined the association of UFR, represented as a cubic spline, with CV and all-cause mortality. As demonstrated in Figure 3, the HRs for both CV and all-cause mortality rose sharply at values between 10 and 14 ml/h/kg, and to a less pronounced degree at higher values. Consistent with results of the primary analysis, the HR for CV mortality was greater than that for all-cause mortality at all values of UFR.

Just as all dialysis patients receive a monthly report showing URR, Kt/V, Alb, Potassium, Phosphorus and Hemoglobin levels, I believe that the UFR should be a monthly reported matrix as well that should also be tied into the QIP measures. After all, having normal labs and an "adequate" Kt/V and normal URR are meaningless if the patient undergoes concurrent dialysis sessions with excessive ultrafiltration rates that patients can easily calculate for themselves in the comfort of their own homes. I was speaking with Rich Berkowitz earlier today about this issue and he decided to develop a UFR calculator which he has posted on Home Dialyzors United:

 UFR and CV and ALL Cause Mortality Adjusted Hazard Ratio Calculator

Research has proven there is a definite relationship between how much fluid is removed per hour per kilogram of weight.  This simple calculation will allow you to easily see how you compare to the Adjusted Hazard Ratio per the graph below.  You can link to the specific Kidney International research paper HERE.

If your ultrafiltration rates exceed 10 ml/hr/kg, then please discuss these issues with your medical team on how you can avoid excessive risk of cardiovascular and all cause mortality. In addition, if you have an excessively high untrafiltration rate, you are most likely also at risk of feeling nauseous, vomiting, experiencing severe leg cramps and at risk of passing out during dialysis. In addition, if your ultrafiltration rate is high, many nephrologists will place you on a "sodium modeling program" where they add salt to your cleansing fluids that most patients retain after dialysis leading to severe thirst and headaches. In many ways, excessive ultrafiltration rates not only increase your risk of death, they also add greatly to the burden of symptoms associated with dialysis. 

There is a better way to do dialysis and it all starts with longer, slower and gentler dialysis regimens. Short, fast and violent dialysis sessions leave patients feeling drained and at increased risk of heart attacks, chronic damage to the heart and severe discomfort during dialysis. The simple answer is to reduce ultrafiltration rates so that they don't exceed 10 ml/hr/kg. This simple calculation could save your life and make your dialysis sessions easier to tolerate. If your UFR is elevated, you may want to discuss the issues in the Medscape article and consider modifying your dialysis prescription or consider home hemodialysis where daily treatments or nocturnal almost completely eliminate this problem.

Dialyzing at Home Alone: Is There Not a Cause?

By Peter Laird, MD

Dialysis in America is different than the other developed nations. The focus in America is very much industry centric instead of patient centric. One of the most profound examples of the differences between dialysis in the United States and other developed nations is the nearly universal prohibition against patients dialyzing at home alone. Canada, England and Australia not only allow patients to dialyze at home alone, the entire focus in those nations is on self care as a responsibility of the patient and not the care takers.  There are many barriers to dialyzing at home alone including companies such as NxStage which included the provision of a care partner in their FDA approval as well as dialysis providers. Some States also prohibit dialyzing at home alone.

Physicians bear the brunt of the responsibility in ensuring safe dialysis practice. From my own experience, the overwhelming impression among my colleagues in internal medicine is that dialysis is a dangerous procedure. Certainly, it is an invasive procedure but I believe the instinctive reaction of most physicians including nephrologists comes from the iatrogenic complications seen daily in dialysis units where patients routinely collapse from rapid volume depletion due to excessive ultrafiltration rates. The stable dialysis patient is a foreign consideration in most dialysis units. The reaction of most providers when discussing dialyzing home alone is as astonishing as Macaulay Culkin's iconic realization he was home alone.

When I first started dialysis, I was surprised that I survived each treatment when I considered my own professional bias against dialysis learned in the intensive care units where more than one dialysis patient "crashed." As I learned more about optimal dialysis and applied that knowledge to my own treatments, I slowly realized that the philosophical approach and application of treatment is the most important stabilizing factor. In five years of dialysis, I have never once vomited, passed out or even become lightheaded except for the one time that my dialysis technician set my ultrafiltration for 5000 ml instead of 500 ml. After 2.3 liters, I began to be nauseous and lightheaded. Two liters of normal saline reversed that medical error.

Bill Peckham recently celebrated ten years of home hemodialysis, nine of which have been self dialyzing home alone. The benefits of home dialysis far outweigh any associated risks especially when compared to the risks of standard care. In the time Bill has been dialyzing self sufficiently, he has accomplished more than many people accomplish with intact kidneys. This is a picture of Bill dialyzing on board his boat that he captained north of Seattle.  For the average nephrologist practicing in America, Bill would be a nightmare of medical legal risk in their skewed views of the usual dialysis patient. Living a life well is a goal all of us have.  Adding the burden of renal disease makes this endeavor a daily struggle, but the example that Bill has set for the entire renal community should not go unnoticed. I must confess that the idea of strapping a generator and a dialysis machine to an inflatable white water raft going down the Rogue River is not my idea of a self care dialysis unit. But the truth is that this is not only possible, but it is safe. In fact, dialyzing on terra firma with a generator in many ways is much safer than floating down a wild river on a piece of rubberized plastic. (here)

 

With the resurgence of home hemodialysis after decades of suboptimal dialysis care languishing in for-profit dialysis units, the plight of those who are capable of self care yet are hindered by arbitrary standards requiring a care partner is a cause worth fighting. It is time to evaluate the stable dialysis patient and note that life itself is not risk free, but it is worth living well. For patients on dialysis, living well in many ways means taking charge of your own care at home. As the market place opens the door to thousands of new home hemodialysis patients, the American dialysis industry needs to grow with their patients as they overcome their own fears and anxiety inherent in doing self care. The last issue a patient needs in this circumstance is physicians and providers more concerned about their own anxiety over dialysis. The reality is that dialysis can be safe and stable even when dialyzing home alone not only in Canada, England or Australia, but right here in the United States as well.