2007 JASN IMPACT FACTOR 7.111	HOME   AUTHOR INFO   EDITORIAL BOARD   SUBSCRIBE   FEEDBACK   ALERTS   HELP
advanced	CURRENT ISSUE	ARCHIVES	JASN Express	ONLINE SUBMISSION

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jindal, K. Articles by Culleton, B. F. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Jindal, K. Articles by Culleton, B. F.

CHAPTER 1: Hemodialysis Adequacy in Adults

	I. Hemodialysis Adequacy

Top I. Hemodialysis Adequacy II. Managing Suboptimal Dialysis... III. Quality of Care Recommendations for Research Appendix A References

 
Recommendations

1. All hemodialysis patients should have regular global assessments of dialysis adequacy. (Grade D, opinion) Assessment of hemodialysis adequacy should include urea clearance, volume control, blood pressure, mineral metabolism, and clinical symptoms. (Grade C)
   
2. The minimum acceptable target for urea clearance during hemodialysis is a single-pool Kt/V of 1.2 or percent reduction of urea (PRU) of 65% three times per week. (Grade C)
   
3. Hemodialysis centers should consider offering a range of options, including more frequent or sustained treatment times, for those patients with dialysis inadequacy. (Grade D, opinion)
   

Background
Urea clearance as assessed by Kt/V or PRU is a surrogate for dialysis dose. Although practice guidelines have traditionally emphasized the role of urea clearance, this parameter is only one component of dialysis adequacy.

The National Cooperative Dialysis Study (NCDS) established that higher dialysis dose resulted in reduced morbidity (1), although the intensity of dialysis in both treatment groups was considerably lower than in current practice. More recently, observational studies have suggested that urea clearance below a single-pool Kt/V of 1.2 or PRU of 65% three times per week is associated with increased mortality (2–6). Although observational data from patients treated with thrice-weekly and quotidian hemodialysis suggest that even higher levels of urea clearance are associated with better clinical outcomes (7–12), a well-designed, randomized study found no benefit of a single-pool Kt/V target of 1.65 compared with 1.25 (13). Although this study cannot exclude a mortality benefit <25%, there is no evidence to support increasing the target Kt/V above currently recommended levels. Since no grade A evidence (apart from the NCDS) indicates that increasing hemodialysis dose will reduce morbidity or mortality, it is possible that reducing the target Kt/V to levels <1.2 might not compromise clinical outcomes. However, in the absence of an adequately powered randomized study to confirm this hypothesis, the Committee continues to recommend a target single-pool Kt/V of >1.2.

Higher levels of urea clearance might be a marker for longer dialysis times, better control of blood pressure (BP) and extracellular fluid volume, or higher clearance of larger molecular weight substances. However, the use of high-flux dialyzers, which remove higher molecular weight toxins more efficiently, does not appear to reduce mortality, making the latter possibility less likely (13). Although the hypothesis that improved volume control will reduce mortality is attractive, it remains untested in hemodialysis patients. Nonetheless, optimal control of extracellular fluid volume and BP are rational goals given the large body of evidence linking these characteristics to better health outcomes. Longer dialysis duration or more frequent dialysis treatments may aid in achieving these clinical objectives.

To ensure that patients are receiving the prescribed urea clearance, the clinician must regularly monitor and measure the dose delivered. Urea clearance should be measured at least every 8 wk. Examples of acceptable techniques for estimating delivered dose are formal single-pool urea kinetics, PRU or urea reduction ratio (URR), and Kt/V natural logarithm formulae.

Of the three suggested techniques, single-pool urea kinetics predicts the dose delivered most accurately. However, the goal of monitoring urea clearance is to ensure that patients receive at least a minimum dose of therapy. Although PRU does not take into account urea removal by ultrafiltration, measurements using this technique will underestimate the dialysis dose, which would not compromise patient care. Similarly, the contribution of residual renal function can be ignored. Because all three parameters correlate with mortality, there is no strong reason to recommend one in particular. Clinicians should consider reproducibility, ease of use, and familiarity when selecting a measure of urea clearance for use in their hemodialysis programs. To facilitate comparisons between units, the index of urea clearance used should be consistent within a hemodialysis program. Methods for measuring urea clearance appear in Appendix A.

Clinicians should recognize that staff and patients may conduct themselves differently on the day when the dose of therapy is being measured. Therefore, clinicians are encouraged to use some additional techniques, which may be less precise but permit the measurement of the dose of hemodialysis delivered on a daily basis (e.g., volume of blood processed, average pump speed, and duration of treatment), and to correlate them with the more formal dosage measurement.

In addition to considering urea clearance and volume status, the clinician must consider many other measures and indicators in assessing a patient’s health and prescribing treatment, including control of extracellular volume and BP, uremic symptoms, quality of life, control of hyperphosphatemia, adequate nutritional status, and treatment of anemia. (See the guidelines on Mineral Metabolism and Management of Blood Pressure in Hemodialysis Patients for details).

Hemodialysis centers should have a continuous quality improvement/patient review system in place that recognizes patients who are receiving suboptimal dialysis adequacy, identifies the cause, and corrects it. This process may be facilitated by the use of multidisciplinary sit-down rounds in addition to regular contact between patients and nephrologists (14).

Although there are no randomized studies demonstrating that nocturnal, daily, or sustained hemodialysis treatments improve clinical outcome compared with standard care (12), multiple observational studies indicate that such treatments may improve surrogate outcomes in select patients at a reasonable cost (7–9,15–20). Recognizing that this evidence base is inconclusive, hemodialysis centers should consider offering a range of options for hemodialysis including more frequent or sustained treatment times, especially for patients in whom standard dialysis appears inadequate. (See the guideline on Frequent and Sustained Hemodialysis). On the other hand, less frequent dialysis may be acceptable for brief periods in patients with greater levels of residual kidney function, or those in whom the primary indication for dialysis is control of extracellular fluid volume rather than solute clearance (i.e., those with renal insufficiency due to severe heart failure).

	II. Managing Suboptimal Dialysis Adequacy

Top I. Hemodialysis Adequacy II. Managing Suboptimal Dialysis... III. Quality of Care Recommendations for Research Appendix A References

 
Recommendations

1. Confirm dialysis inadequacy by assessing procedural issues and vascular access function. (Grade D)
   
2. Once dialysis inadequacy is confirmed, increase one or more of the following treatment parameters: dialysis time, needle diameter, dialyzer KoA, or dialysis frequency. (Grade D)
   

Background
When the patient fails to receive the minimum target dose of dialysis or when there is a significant drop in the dose of dialysis being delivered, the clinician should consider procedural issues (prescription, anticoagulation, appropriate measurement of dialysis dose, optimization of needle placement) and inadequate access function Table 1

• blood flow rate (21,22)
  
• dialyzer KoA (21)
  
• dialysis time (23)
  
• dialysis frequency (23)
  
• dialysate flow (24–26)
  
• needle size (27)
  
• ensuring adequate anticoagulation (28)
  

Consideration could also be given to use of a newer dialytic modality such as more frequent or sustained hemodialysis.

	III. Quality of Care

Top I. Hemodialysis Adequacy II. Managing Suboptimal Dialysis... III. Quality of Care Recommendations for Research Appendix A References

 
Recommendations

1. A single person or a multi-professional team should be responsible for the quality of the medical care and have the authority to establish universal standards of care for the unit. (Grade D, opinion)
   
2. Validated clinical protocols or algorithms should be considered to reduce inappropriate variability in quality of dialysis care. (Grade D)
   

Background
To ensure the quality of medical care for all patients, all those involved in providing care must be accountable. In a multi-professional setting, the combination of a number of different professionals with different priorities dealing with complex situations may lead to variations in standards of practice and care. To ensure that the guidelines are applied uniformly to all patients in the unit, the individual or management team accountable for the quality of medical care must be clearly identified. The multidisciplinary team/dialysis program should evaluate its practice via Continuous Quality Improvement.

Maximizing patient adherence is critical to the long-term success of therapy. An environment that encourages optimal care may include the patient’s primary care physician and appropriate specialists (e.g., gynecologists, endocrinologists) in the patient’s care. There is evidence that an individualized, patient-centered approach improves clinical performance compared with standard care (29).

Nonadherence may be the result of a number of factors (e.g., socioeconomic, educational, emotional) that are beyond the patient’s control and may require specific attention from physicians or allied health personnel. The clinician should provide appropriate information about renal failure and its treatment, and encourage patients to have continuing contact with their primary care physicians. The information provided to patients should account for educational level and language differences.

The increasing number of hemodialysis patients may potentially compromise the ability of clinicians to provide optimal care. Although management of hemodialysis patients is complex and multifactorial, many of the individual components of care (management of metabolic bone disease or anemia, control of extracellular fluid volume) are amenable to protocolization. Although no studies indicate that such protocols improve clinical outcomes, they appear to improve process of care in patients with and without end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (30,31). Protocolization of these facets of care would be expected to free more of clinicians’ time to devote to other aspects that require more individualized attention.

	Recommendations for Research

Top I. Hemodialysis Adequacy II. Managing Suboptimal Dialysis... III. Quality of Care Recommendations for Research Appendix A References

 

1. An adequately powered, randomized study to determine the impact of aggressive control of BP and extracellular fluid volume (versus standard care) on mortality, morbidity and hospitalization should be a high priority.
   
2. Since available evidence focuses on process-based outcomes, additional randomized trials evaluating the impact of bedside decision support systems, clinical protocols, or multidisciplinary care teams on clinical outcomes such as morbidity or hospitalization would be useful for formulating policy.
   

	Appendix A

Top I. Hemodialysis Adequacy II. Managing Suboptimal Dialysis... III. Quality of Care Recommendations for Research Appendix A References

 
Drawing Samples for Measuring Urea Clearance

1. Predialysis and postdialysis samples must be drawn at the same dialysis session.
   
2. Draw predialysis blood from the arterial needle before administering any saline or heparin.
   
3. When central lines are used and if heparin and/or saline is used, withdraw at least 10 cc of blood before drawing the blood sample. The blood withdrawn may then be returned to the patient.
   
4. The postdialysis [urea] blood sample must not be diluted by either recirculation or saline.
   
5. For formal urea kinetic modeling, the sample must be drawn before any rebound; therefore, the slow flow/stop pump technique must be used. For other techniques (PRU and log prediction of Kt/V), the blood sample may be taken postdialysis when the possibility of access and cardiopulmonary recirculation is eliminated. To eliminate the possibility of cardiopulmonary recirculation, draw the sample at least 2 to 3 min postdialysis. To facilitate longitudinal comparisons, the sampling technique for the unit should be clearly stated, documented, and consistent from treatment to treatment and between patients.
   

Background
Because the goal is to ensure at least a minimum standard, a postdialysis sample is preferable and easier to obtain than a stop flow sample. Although the postdialysis sample may be more variable (due to rebound), it will tend to underestimate rather than overestimate delivered dialysis.

	References

Top I. Hemodialysis Adequacy II. Managing Suboptimal Dialysis... III. Quality of Care Recommendations for Research Appendix A References

 

1. Lowrie EG, Laird NM, Parker TF, Sargent JA: Effect of the hemodialysis prescription of patient morbidity: Report from the National Cooperative Dialysis Study. N Engl J Med 305 : 1176 –1181, 1981[Abstract]
2. Collins AJ, Ma JZ, Umen A, Keshaviah P: Urea index and other predictors of hemodialysis patient survival. Am J Kidney Dis 23 : 272 –282, 1994[Medline]
3. Hakim RM, Breyer J, Ismail N, Schulman G: Effects of dose of dialysis on morbidity and mortality. Am J Kidney Dis 23 : 661 –669, 1994[Medline]
4. Owen WF Jr, Lew NL, Liu Y, Lowrie EG, Lazarus JM: The urea reduction ratio and serum albumin concentration as predictors of mortality in patients undergoing hemodialysis. N Engl J Med 329 : 1001 –1006, 1993[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Parker TF 3rd, Husni L, Huang W, Lew N, Lowrie EG: Survival of hemodialysis patients in the United States is improved with a greater quantity of dialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 23 : 670 –680, 1994[Medline]
6. Held PJ, Port FK, Wolfe RA, Stannard DC, Carroll CE, Daugirdas JT, Bloembergen WE, Greer JW, Hakim RM: The dose of hemodialysis and patient mortality. Kidney Int 50 : 550 –556, 1996[Medline]
7. Chan C, Floras JS, Miller JA, Pierratos A: Improvement in ejection fraction by nocturnal haemodialysis in end-stage renal failure patients with coexisting heart failure. Nephrol Dial Transplant 17 : 1518 –1521, 2002[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Chan CT: Cardiovascular effects of frequent intensive hemodialysis. Semin Dial 17 : 99 –103, 2004[CrossRef][Medline]
9. Chan CT, Floras JS, Miller JA, Richardson RM, Pierratos A: Regression of left ventricular hypertrophy after conversion to nocturnal hemodialysis. Kidney Int 61 : 2235 –2239, 2002[CrossRef][Medline]
10. Chan CT, Hanly P, Gabor J, Picton P, Pierratos A, Floras JS: Impact of nocturnal hemodialysis on the variability of heart rate and duration of hypoxemia during sleep. Kidney Int 65 : 661 –665, 2004[CrossRef][Medline]
11. Chan CT, Harvey PJ, Picton P, Pierratos A, Miller JA, Floras JS: Short-term blood pressure, noradrenergic, and vascular effects of nocturnal home hemodialysis. Hypertension 42 : 925 –931, 2003[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Walsh M, Culleton B, Tonelli M, Manns B: A systematic review of the effect of nocturnal hemodialysis on blood pressure, left ventricular hypertrophy, anemia, mineral metabolism, and health-related quality of life. Kidney Int 67 : 1500 –1508, 2005[CrossRef][Medline]
13. Eknoyan G, Beck GJ, Cheung AK, Daugirdas JT, Greene T, Kusek JW, Allon M, Bailey J, Delmez JA, Depner TA, Dwyer JT, Levey AS, Levin NW, Milford E, Ornt DB, Rocco MV, Schulman G, Schwab SJ, Teehan BP, Toto R: Effect of dialysis dose and membrane flux in maintenance hemodialysis. N Engl J Med 19 347 : 2010 –2019, 2002[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. Plantinga LC, Fink NE, Jaar BG, Sadler JH, Coresh J, Klag MJ, Levey AS, Powe NR: Frequency of sit-down patient care rounds, attainment of clinical performance targets, hospitalization, and mortality in hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 15 : 3144 –3153, 2004[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. McFarlane PA, Bayoumi AM, Pierratos A, Redelmeier DA: The quality of life and cost utility of home nocturnal and conventional in-center hemodialysis. Kidney Int 64 : 1004 –1011, 2003[CrossRef][Medline]
16. Hanly PJ, Pierratos A: Improvement of sleep apnea in patients with chronic renal failure who undergo nocturnal hemodialysis. N Engl J Med 344 : 102 –107, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text]
17. Williams AW, Chebrolu SB, Ing TS, Ting G, Blagg CR, Twardowski ZJ, Woredekal Y, Delano B, Gandhi VC, Kjellstrand CM: Early clinical, quality-of-life, and biochemical changes of "daily hemodialysis" (6 dialyses per week). Am J Kidney Dis 43 : 90 –102, 2004[CrossRef][Medline]
18. Ting GO, Kjellstrand C, Freitas T, Carrie BJ, Zarghamee S: Long-term study of high-comorbidity ESRD patients converted from conventional to short daily hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 42 : 1020 –1035, 2003[Medline]
19. Charra B, Terrat JC, Vanel T, Chazot C, Jean G, Hurot JM, Lorriaux C: Long thrice weekly hemodialysis: The Tassin experience. Int J Artif Organs 27 : 265 –283, 2004[Medline]
20. Luik AJ, Sande FM, Weideman P, Cheriex E, Kooman JP, Leunissen KM: The influence of increasing dialysis treatment time and reducing dry weight on blood pressure control in hemodialysis patients: A prospective study. Am J Nephrol 21 : 471 –478, 2001[CrossRef][Medline]
21. Mandolfo S, Malberti F, Imbasciati E, Cogliati P, Gauly A: Impact of blood and dialysate flow and surface on performance of new polysulfone hemodialysis dialyzers. Int J Artif Organs 26 : 113 –120, 2003[Medline]
22. Hassell DR, van der Sande FM, Kooman JP, Tordoir JP, Leunissen KM: Optimizing dialysis dose by increasing blood flow rate in patients with reduced vascular-access flow rate. Am J Kidney Dis 38 : 948 –955, 2001[Medline]
23. Clark WR, Leypoldt JK, Henderson LW, Mueller BA, Scott MK, Vonesh EF: Quantifying the effect of changes in the hemodialysis prescription on effective solute removal with a mathematical model. J Am Soc Nephrol 10 : 601 –609, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text]
24. Ouseph R, Ward RA: Increasing dialysate flow rate increases dialyzer urea mass transfer-area coefficients during clinical use. Am J Kidney Dis 37 : 316 –320, 2001[Medline]
25. Hauk M, Kuhlmann MK, Riegel W, Kohler H: In vivo effects of dialysate flow rate on Kt/V in maintenance hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 35 : 105 –111, 2000[Medline]
26. Leypoldt JK, Cheung AK: Increases in mass transfer-area coefficients and urea Kt/V with increasing dialysate flow rate are greater for high-flux dialyzers. Am J Kidney Dis 38 : 575 –579, 2001[Medline]
27. Mehta HK, Deabreu D, McDougall JG, Goldstein MB: Correction of discrepancy between prescribed and actual blood flow rates in chronic hemodialysis patients with use of larger gauge needles. Am J Kidney Dis 39 : 1231 –1235, 2002[CrossRef][Medline]
28. Wei SS, Ellis PW, Magnusson MO, Paganini EP: Effect of heparin modeling on delivered hemodialysis therapy. Am J Kidney Dis 23 : 389 –393, 1994[Medline]
29. Sehgal AR, Leon JB, Siminoff LA, Singer ME, Bunosky LM, Cebul RD: Improving the quality of hemodialysis treatment: A community-based randomized controlled trial to overcome patient-specific barriers. JAMA 287 : 1961 –1967, 2002[Abstract/Free Full Text]
30. Chertow GM, Lee J, Kuperman GJ, Burdick E, Horsky J, Seger DL, Lee R, Mekala A, Song J, Komaroff AL, Bates DW: Guided medication dosing for inpatients with renal insufficiency. JAMA 286 : 2839 –2844, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text]
31. Brimble KS, Rabbat CG, McKenna P, Lambert K, Carlisle EJ: Protocolized anemia management with erythropoietin in hemodialysis patients: A randomized controlled trial. J Am Soc Nephrol 14 : 2654 –2661, 2003[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jindal, K. Articles by Culleton, B. F. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Jindal, K. Articles by Culleton, B. F.