Purpose of review:Provision of education to inform decision making for renal replacement therapy (RRT) is a key component in the management of chronic kidney disease (CKD), yet patients report suboptimal satisfaction with the process of selecting a dialysis modality. Our purpose is to review the influencers of RRT decision making in the CKD population, which will better inform the process of shared decision making between clinicians and patients.Sources of information:PubMed and Google Scholar.Methods:A narrative review was performed using the main terms “chronic kidney disease,” “CKD,” “dialysis,” “review,” “decision-making,” “decision aids,” “education,” and “barriers.” Only articles in English were accessed. The existing literature was critically analyzed from a theoretical and contextual perspective and thematic analysis was performed.Key findings:Eight common themes were identified as influencers for decision making. “Patient-focused” themes including social influence, values and beliefs, comprehension, autonomy and sociodemographics, and “clinician-focused” themes including screening, communication, and engagement. Early predialysis education and decision aids can effectively improve decision making. Patient-valued outcomes need to be more fully integrated into clinical guidelines.Limitations:This is not a systematic review; therefore, no formal tool was utilized to evaluate the rigor and quality of studies included and findings may not be generalizable.Implications:Standardized comprehensive RRT education programs through multidisciplinary health teams can help optimize CKD patient education and shared decision making. Involving patients in the research process itself and implementing patient values and preferences into clinical guidelines can help to achieve a patient-centered model of care.

No abstract

Purpose of program: This paper will provide guidance on how to best manage patients with end-stage kidney disease who will be or are being treated with home dialysis during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sources of information: Program-specific documents, pre-existing, and related to COVID-19; documents from national and international kidney agencies; national and international webinars, including webinars that we hosted for input and feedback; with additional information from formal and informal review of published academic literature. Methods: Members of the Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN) Board of Directors solicited a team of clinicians and administrators with expertise in home dialysis. Specific COVID-19-related themes in home dialysis were determined by the Canadian senior renal leaders community of practice, a group compromising medical and administrative leaders of provincial and health authority renal programs. We then developed consensus-based recommendations virtually by the CSN work-group with input from ethicists with nephrology training. The recommendations were further reviewed by community nephrologists and over a CSN-sponsored webinar, attended by 225 kidney health care professionals, for further peer input. The final consensus recommendations also incorporated review by the editors at the Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease (CJKHD). Key findings: We identified 7 broad areas of home dialysis practice management that may be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) peritoneal dialysis catheter placement, (2) home dialysis training, (3) home dialysis management, (4) personal protective equipment, (5) product delivery, (6) minimizing direct health care provider and patient contact, and (7) assisted peritoneal dialysis in the community. We make specific suggestions and recommendations for each of these areas. Limitations: This suggestions and recommendations in this paper are expert opinion, and subject to the biases associated with this level of evidence. To expedite the publication of this work, a parallel review process was created that may not be as robust as standard arms’ length peer-review processes. Implications: These recommendations are intended to provide the best care possible during a time of altered priorities and reduced resources.

BackgroundAcute kidney injury (AKI) following imaging procedures with contrast medium in hospitalized patients is commonly attributed to contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN). This study sought to establish a benchmark of the incidence of AKI in hospitalized patients who underwent computed tomography (CT) scans, with and without intravenous contrast administration.MethodsThis was a multi-center observational cohort study. Hospitalized patients in four hospitals with CT scans during two time periods in 2012 and 2013 were included. AKI post-scan was defined as a change in serum creatinine (sCr) in absolute terms of ≥26.5 μmol/L (≥0.3 mg/dl), occurring within 7 days of the CT scan. AKI incidence was examined by study phases and CT-scan types using logistic regression models. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine the proportions of sCr availability between two study phases.ResultsThree hundred and twenty-five patients in Period 1 and 518 patients in Period 2 were included in the study. The incidence of AKI in Period 1 was similar in those who received contrast and in those who did not (11.6 % [95 % C.I.: 6.5, 18.7] vs. 10.1 % [95 % C.I.: 5.1, 17.3]; p = 0.38). The incidence of AKI remained not significantly different between the two periods in those who received contrast (11.6 % [95 % C.I.: 6.5, 18.7] vs. 10.7 % [95 % C.I.: 6.8, 15.8]; p = 0.89) and those who did not (10.1 % [95 % C.I.: 5.1, 17.3] vs. 9.1 % [95 % C.I.: 5.2, 14.6]; p = 0.54). Among those who received contrast, there was a significant increase in the availability of both pre- and post- CT scan sCr in Period 2 compared to Period 1 (73.6 % [95 % C.I.: 67.7, 80.6] vs. 79.8 % [95 % C.I.: 75.2, 84.7]; p = 0.006).LimitationsOur study was not targeted to specifically assess the impact of a prevention protocol on the incidence of AKI and was limited to settings within one health authority in the province.ConclusionIn hospitalized patients, the incidence of AKI is low, not different between those who did and did not receive contrast, and was not impacted by improvement in the monitoring of sCr in at risk patients. A better understanding of the determinants of AKI post-contrast scan is required to improve strategies to reduce the incidence of AKI.