Background/Aim: Home hemodialysis (HHD) has been associated with improved clinical outcomes vs. in-center HD (ICHD). The prevalence of HHD in the United States is still very low at 1.8%. This critical review compares HHD and ICHD outcomes for survival, hospitalization, cardiovascular (CV), nutrition, and quality of life (QoL). Methods: Of 545 publications identified, 44 were not selected after applying exclusion criteria. A systematic review of the identified publications was conducted to compare HHD to ICHD outcomes for survival, hospitalization, CV outcomes, nutrition, and QoL. Results: Regarding mortality, 10 of 13 trials reported 13–52% reduction; three trials found no differences. According to 6 studies, blood pressure and left ventricular size measurements were generally lower in HHD patients compared to similar measurements in ICHD patients. Regarding nutritional status, conflicting results were reported (8 studies); some found improved muscle mass, total protein, and body mass index in HHD vs. ICHD patients, while others found no significant differences. There were no significant differences in the rate of hospitalization between HHD and ICHD in the 6 articles reviewed. Seven studies on QoL demonstrated positive trends in HHD vs. ICHD populations. Conclusions: Despite limitations in the current data, 66% of the publications reviewed (29/44) demonstrated improved clinical outcomes in patients who chose HHD. These include improved survival, CV, nutritional, and QoL parameters. Even though HHD may not be preferred in all patients, a review of the literature suggests that HHD should be provided as a modality choice for substantially more than the current 1.8% of HHD patients in the United States.

BackgroundConventional peritoneal dialysis fluids (PDFs) consist of ready-to-use solutions with an acidic pH. Sterilization of these fluids is known to generate high levels of glucose degradation products (GDPs). Although several neutral-pH, low-GDP PD solutions have been developed, none are commercially available in the United States. We analyzed pH and GDPs in Delflex Neutral pH (Fresenius Medical Care North America, Waltham, MA, USA), the first neutral-pH PDF to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.MethodsWe evaluated whether patients (n = 26; age range: 18 - 78 years) could properly mix the Delflex Neutral pH PDF after standardized initial training. We further analyzed the concentrations of 10 different glucose degradation products in Delflex Neutral pH PDF and compared the results with similar analyses in other commercially available biocompatible PDFs.ResultsAll pH measurements (n = 288) in the delivered Delflex Neutral pH solution consistently fell within the labeled range of 7.0 ± 0.4. Analysis of mixing errors showed no significant impact on the pH results. Delflex Neutral pH, Balance (Fresenius Medical Care, Bad Homburg, Germany), BicaVera (Fresenius Medical Care), and Gambrosol Trio (Gambro Lundia AB, Lund, Sweden) exhibited similar low total GDP concentrations, with maximums in the 4.25% solutions of 88 μmol/L, 74 μmol/L, 74 μmol/L, and 79 μmol/L respectively; the concentration in Physioneal (Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Deerfield, IL, USA) was considerably higher at 263.26 μmol/L The total GDP concentration in Extraneal (Baxter Healthcare Corporation) was 63 μmol/L, being thus slightly lower than the concentrations in the 4.25% glucose solutions, but higher than the concentrations in the 1.5% and 2.5% glucose solutions.ConclusionsThe new Delflex Neutral pH PDF consistently delivers neutral pH with minimal GDPs.

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) solutions have evolved since Boen described the appropriate composition of a suitable fluid comprising an osmotic agent, electrolytes, and buffer substance in 1969. New solutions introducing alternative osmotic agents and bicarbonate as an alternative to lactate‐buffered solutions have been developed. These so‐called biocompatible solutions belong to a very heterogeneous group of PD fluids that share some features but are distinct in other aspects. All biocompatible solutions have a substantially reduced level of toxic glucose degradation products (GDPs). However, the new solutions differ in their absolute GDP content, osmotic agent, buffer substance, and pH. The differences from the conventional solutions and the characteristics of the distinct new solutions are presented in this review together with a discussion of their potential clinical benefits and implications. Dial. Transplant. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

During this year-long fluid management quality improvement project, decreases in post-dialysis SBP and increases in adequacy and treatment time were observed. Patients with hypertension at Month 1 experienced reductions in pre-dialysis SBP and antihypertensive medications.

Maintaining phosphorus balance in in-center hemodialysis (ICHD) patients is problematic despite recommended dietary restriction, dialysis, and phosphate binder use. Rarely is P content in prescribed medications considered, but this source should raise concern. Data was obtained from the Fresenius Kidney Care (FKC) electronic data warehouse Knowledge Center and MedReview-eRx accessed Surescripts, housing > 80% of US-filled prescriptions. Adult FKC ICHD patients prescribed ≥ 1 medication in the MedReview-eRx database were analyzed (695,759 prescriptions). Information collected included medication dose, dose unit, dose timing, strength, start and stop dates, refills, demographic information, admission history, and modality type. Numbers of patients, prescriptions by individual medication, and drug class were then analyzed. Medications prescribed > 100 times were reported. Median doses/ day (number of tablets) were calculated for each medication (open order on randomly selected day). Phosphate content of medications taken in FKC clinics was assessed using routinely used pharmacology references, and potential resulting phosphate and pill burden were also calculated. The top five prescribed drug classes in FKC dialysis patients were calcium-channel blockers (22%), proton pump inhibitors (PPIs; 18%), acetaminophen-opioid (AO; 13%), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi; 10%), and α2-agonists (9%). The maximum phosphate added for different medications varied by manufacturer. For instance, at median daily doses, phosphate contributions from the top five medications prescribed were 112 mg for amlodipine, 116.2 mg from lisinopril, 6.7 mg from clonidine, 0 mg from acetaminophen, and 200 mg for omeprazole. Prescribing these together could increase the daily phosphate load by 428 mg, forcing the patient to exceed the recommended daily intake (RDI) with food and drink. Phosphate content in medications prescribed to HD patients can substantially contribute to the daily phosphate load and, in combination, may even exceed the daily recommended dietary phosphate intake. Healthcare providers should monitor all medications containing phosphate prescribed in order to minimize risk of uncontrolled hyperphosphatemia and poor adherence.