Background: Dialysis patients who miss treatments are twice as likely to visit emergency departments (EDs) compared to adherent patients; however, prospective studies assessing ED use after missed treatments are limited. This interdisciplinary pilot study aimed to identify social determinants of health (SDOH) associated with missing hemodialysis (HD) and presenting to the ED, and describe resource utilization associated with such visits. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study with a convenience sample of patients presenting to the ED after missing HD (cases); patients at local dialysis centers identified as HD-compliant by their nephrologists served as matched controls. Patients were interviewed with validated instruments capturing associated risk factors, including SDOH. ED resource utilization by cases was determined by chart review. Chisquare tests and ANOVA were used to detect statistically significant group differences. Results: All cases visiting the ED had laboratory and radiographic studies; 40% needed physician-performed procedures. Mean ED length of stay (LOS) for cases was 17 h; 76% of patients were admitted with average LOS of 6 days. Comparing 25 cases and 24 controls, we found no difference in economic stability, educational attainment, health literacy, family support, or satisfaction with nephrology care. However, cases were more dependent on public transport for dialysis (p = 0.03). Despite comparable comorbidity burdens, cases were more likely to have impaired mobility, physical limitations, and higher severity of pain and depression. (p < 0.05). Conclusions: ED visits after missed HD resulted in elevated LOS and admission rates. Frequently-cited SDOH such as health literacy did not confer significant risk for missing HD. However, pain, physical limitations, and depression were higher among cases. Community-specific collaborations between EDs and dialysis centers would be valuable in identifying risk factors specific to missed HD and ED use, to develop strategies to improve treatment adherence and reduce unnecessary ED utilization.

BackgroundArrhythmia-related complications and sudden death are common in dialysis patients. However, routine cardiac monitoring has so far not been feasible. Miniaturization of implantable cardiac monitors offers a new paradigm for detection and management of arrhythmias in dialysis patients. The goal of our study was to determine the frequency of arrhythmia-related symptoms in hemodialysis patients and to assess their willingness to undergo implantation of a cardiac monitor.MethodsWe conducted a survey of in-center hemodialysis patients at a hemodialysis clinic in Baltimore, Maryland. We assessed the frequency of arrhythmia-related symptoms and willingness to undergo placement of an implantable cardiac monitor (LINQ, Medtronic Inc.).ResultsForty six patients completed the survey. The mean age of the survey respondents was 59 years and 65% were male. Symptoms were common with 74% (n = 34) of participants reporting at least one arrhythmia-related symptom and many [22% (n = 10)] had all 3 symptoms. Among the patients with symptoms, 57% (n = 26) reported “heart skipping beats, flopping in chest or beating very hard,” 61% (n = 28) reported “heart racing (palpitations),” and 37% (n = 17) reported feeling that they “passed out or almost passed out.” The majority of the patients felt that the timing of the symptoms was unrelated to dialysis treatments. The acceptability of the monitoring device implantation was high, with 59% (n = 20) of patients with symptoms and 50% (n = 6) of patients without symptoms willing to consider it. The main reason for not considering the device was not wanting to have an implanted device.ConclusionThe prevalence of arrhythmia-related symptoms is high in hemodialysis patients and the majority would consider an implantable cardiac monitor if recommended by their physicians. Routine implantation of cardiac monitoring devices to manage arrhythmias in dialysis patients may be feasible and will provide further insights on the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in dialysis patients.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12882-017-0740-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.