METHODS: Incident HD patients without permanent vascular access encountered from January to December 2014 were included in this study. Patients were divided into 2 groups: Group 1 were encountered within 6 months prior to introduction of in-patient IPD bridging therapy in substitution of noncuffed catheter (NCC) insertion while awaiting maturation of permanent vascular access. Group 2 were encountered within 6 months after the introduction of this policy. The number of NCC and peritoneal dialysiscatheter insertion, along with catheter-related infections were evaluated during this period.
RESULTS: Approximately 450 patients were distributed in each group. We achieved 45% reduction in internal jugular catheter insertion from 322 to 180 catheters after policy change. This led to a significant drop in catheter-related blood stream infection (53%, P <0.001). On the other hand, 30% more peritoneal dialysiscatheter were inserted to accommodate our IPD bridging therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of IPD as bridging therapy while awaiting maturation of permanent vascular access significantly reduced the utilization of NCC in incident HD patients and catherter-related blodstream infection. With this, it is our hope that it will contribute to the preservation of central vein patency.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review.
SETTING & POPULATION: Adults requiring maintenance hemodialysis.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials and trial protocols reporting vascular access outcomes identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialized Register from January 2011 to June 2016.
INTERVENTIONS: Any hemodialysis-related intervention.
OUTCOMES: The frequency and characteristics of vascular access outcome measures were analyzed and classified.
RESULTS: From 168 relevant trials, 1,426 access-related outcome measures were extracted and classified into 23 different outcomes. The 3 most common outcomes were function (136 [81%] trials), infection (63 [38%]), and maturation (31 [18%]). Function was measured in 489 different ways, but most frequently reported as "mean access blood flow (mL/min)" (37 [27%] trials) and "number of thromboses" (30 [22%]). Infection was assessed in 136 different ways, with "number of access-related infections" being the most common measure. Maturation was assessed in 44 different ways at 15 different time points and most commonly characterized by vein diameter and blood flow. Patient-reported outcomes, including pain (19 [11%]) and quality of life (5 [3%]), were reported infrequently. Only a minority of trials used previously standardized outcome definitions.
LIMITATIONS: Restricted sampling frame for feasibility and focus on contemporary trials.
CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of access outcomes in hemodialysis trials is very heterogeneous, with limited patient-reported outcomes and infrequent use of standardized outcome measures. Efforts to standardize outcome reporting for vascular access are critical to optimizing the comparability, reliability, and value of trial evidence to improve outcomes for patients requiring hemodialysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross sectional descriptive study was conducted on 72 ESRD patients at a Dialysis Centre in Malaysia. The modified KDQOL-SF™ subscales, kidney disease-targeted scale and 36 item health survey scale questionnaires were used.
RESULTS: The overall health rating was 66.73 ± 11.670 indicating good quality of life. There was no significant difference between quality of life for the different domains according to gender (p >0.05). However, there were significant differences between quality of life in the domain of burden of kidney disease. Physical functioning deteriorated significantly with age (p=0.012) while social functioning was lowest in the 50-65 years age group (p=0.037). Those who had no morbidities had significantly better scores on the effects of kidney (p=0.036), burden of kidney disease (p=0.011) and physical functioning (p=0.025).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing haemodialysis have been found to have good quality of life despite having ESRD. It is therefore of paramount importance to constantly monitor the standard of care for these patients to enable them to live their life to the fullest.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We utilize cross sectional data on 350 family members of dialysis patients collected through self-administered survey from June to October 2013. The factors affecting willingness to become deceased and living organ donors among respondents were identified by running logistic regressions.
RESULTS: The findings reveal that ethnicity, education and role in family are significant factors explaining willingness for living donation, while ethnicity, knowledge of organ donation and donor age drive willingness for deceased donation. We also find that the reasons of respondents being unwilling to donate center on the lack of information and family objections for deceased donation, while being medically unfit, scared of surgery and family objections are the reasons for unwillingness to donate living organs.
CONCLUSION: In light of our findings, educational efforts are suggested to decrease the reluctance to become involved in living and deceased donation.