Despite superior outcomes and lower associated costs, relatively few patients with end-stage renal disease undergo self-care or home hemodialysis. Few studies have examined patient- and physician-specific barriers to self-care and home hemodialysis in the modern era. The degree to which innovative technology might facilitate the adoption of these modalities is unknown. We surveyed 250 patients receiving in-center hemodialysis and 51 board-certified nephrologists to identify key barriers to adoption of self-care and home hemodialysis. Overall, 172 (69%) patients reported that they were "likely" or "very likely" to consider self-care hemodialysis if they were properly trained on a new hemodialysis system designed for self-care or home use. Nephrologists believed that patients were capable of performing many dialysis-relevant tasks, including: weighing themselves (98%), wiping down the chair and machine (84%), clearing alarms during treatment (53%), taking vital signs (46%), and cannulating vascular access (41%), but thought that patients would be willing to do the same in only 69%, 34%, 31%, 29%, and 16%, respectively. Reasons that nephrologists believe patients are hesitant to pursue self-care or home hemodialysis do not correspond in parallel or by priority to reasons reported by patients. Self-care and home hemodialysis offer several advantages to patients and dialysis providers. Overcoming real and perceived barriers with new technology, education and coordinated care will be required for these modalities to gain traction in the coming years.

Rationale & Objective Patients experience various symptoms during hemodialysis. We aimed to assess the frequency and severity of symptoms during hemodialysis and whether intradialytic symptoms are associated with recovery time postdialysis. Study Design An online questionnaire was sent to 10,000 patients in a National Kidney Foundation database. Setting & Participants Adult patients receiving in-center hemodialysis 3 times weekly for 3 or more months. Exposure Online questionnaire. Analytic Approach Tabulation of frequency and severity of events and recovery time as percent of respondents, construction of a total symptom score, followed by rank correlation analysis of symptom characteristics with total recovery time. Outcomes Patient-reported intradialytic symptoms and recovery time postdialysis. Results 359 patients met screening criteria and completed the questionnaire. Mean age was 62.5 ± 13.8 years, 207 (58%) were men, 74 (21%) were black/African American, 132 (37%) had diabetes, 252 (70%) had hypertension, and 102 (28%) had a history of myocardial infarction, heart surgery, or stent placement. 311 (87%) patients had symptoms during dialysis in the previous week, with mean severity of 2.7 (range for each symptom, 1-5). The most common symptoms were fatigue/feeling washed out (62%), cramps (44%), and symptoms of low blood pressure (42%). Median time to recovery was 3 (range, 0-24) hours, and this correlated with the incidence and severity of intradialytic symptoms ( P < 0.0001). 40% of patients had time to recovery times of 4 hours or longer. 1 in 3 patients reported having stopped dialysis early for intradialytic symptoms and 6% reported skipping dialysis at least once because of intradialytic symptoms. Limitations Recall-based self-reported data with a relatively low response rate. Conclusions A majority of patients receiving in-center hemodialysis experience symptoms such as feeling washed out, fatigue, and cramping; these may be severe and are correlated with longer recovery time following hemodialysis, as well as shortened and skipped hemodialysis sessions.

Introduction: Home hemodialysis remains underutilized despite observational data indicating more favorable outcomes with home compared with in-center hemodialysis. The Tablo Hemodialysis system is designed to be easy to learn and use and to facilitate adoption of home hemodialysis. The objective of the current investigational device exemption (IDE) study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Tablo managed in-center by health care professionals and in-home by patients and/or caregivers.Methods: A prospective, multicenter, open-label, crossover trial comparing in-center and in-home hemodialysis using Tablo. There were 4 treatment periods during which hemodialysis was prescribed 4 times per week: 1-week Run-In, 8-week In-Center, 4-week Transition, and 8-week In-Home. The primary efficacy endpoint was weekly standard Kt/V urea ≥ 2.1. The secondary efficacy endpoint was delivery of ultrafiltration (UF) within 10% of prescribed UF. We collected safety and usability data.Findings: Thirty participants enrolled and 28 completed all trial periods. Adherence to the protocol requirement of 4 treatments per week was 96% in-center and 99% in-home. The average prescribed and delivered session lengths were 3.4 hours for both the In-Center and the In-Home periods. The primary efficacy endpoint for the intention-to-treat cohort was achieved in 199/200 (99.5%) of measurements during the In-Center period and 168/171 (98.3%) In-Home. The average weekly standard Kt/V urea was 2.8 in both periods. The secondary efficacy UF endpoint was achieved in the ITT cohort in 94% in both in-center and in-home.

Introduction Home hemodialysis has not been widely adopted despite superior outcomes relative to conventional in-center hemodialysis. Patients receiving home hemodialysis experience high rates of technique failure owing to machine complexity, training burden, and the inability to master treatments independently. Methods We conducted human factors testing on 15 health care professionals (HCPs) and 15 patients upon release of the defined training program on the Tablo™ Hemodialysis System. Each participant completed one training and one testing session conducted in a simulated clinical environment. Training sessions lasted <3 hours for HCPs and <4 hours for patients, with an hour break between sessions for knowledge decay. During the testing session, we recorded participant behavior and data according to standard performance and safety-based criteria. Findings Of 15 HCPs, 10 were registered nurses and five patient care technicians, with a broad range of dialysis work experience and no limitations other than visual correction. Of 15 patients (average age 48 years), 13 reported no limitations and two reported modest limitations-partial deafness and blindness in one eye, respectively. The average error rate was 4.4 per session for HCPs and 2.9 per session for patients out of a total possible 1,710 opportunities for errors. Despite having received minimal training, neither HCPs nor patients committed safety-related errors that required mitigation; rather, we noted only minor errors and operational difficulties. Discussion The Tablo™ Hemodialysis System is easy to use, and may help to enable self-care and home hemodialysis in settings heretofore associated with high rates of technique failure.

Background: High dialysate flow rates (Q_D) of 500–800 mL/min are used to maximize urea removal during conventional hemodialysis. There are few data describing hemodialysis with use of mid-rate Q_D (300 mL/min). Methods: We constructed uremic solute (urea, beta₂-microglobulin and phosphate) kinetic models at varying volumes of distribution and blood flow rates to predict solute clearances at Q_D of 300 and 500 mL/min. Results: Across a range of volumes of distribution a Q_D of 300 mL/min generally yields a predicted urea spKt/V greater than 1.2 during typical treatment times with a small difference in urea spKt/V between a Q_D of 300 and 500 mL/min. A larger urea KoA dialyzer and 15 min of additional time narrows the urea spKt/V difference. No substantial differences were observed regarding the kinetics of beta₂-microglobulin and phosphate for Q_D of 300 vs. 500 mL/min. Conclusion: A Q_D of 300 mL/min can achieve urea clearance targets. Hemodialysis systems using mid-rate Q_D can be expected to provide adequate hemodialysis, as currently defined.