Background Studies have shown increased anxiety, depression, and stress levels among different populations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of dialysis patients remains unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the mental health of dialysis patients during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the period preceding the pandemic. Methods Data originate from the ongoing multicentre observational Dutch nOcturnal and hoME dialysis Study To Improve Clinical Outcomes (DOMESTICO). Patients who filled in a health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaire during the pandemic and six to three months prior were included. The mean difference in Mental Component Summary (MCS) score of the Short Form 12 (SF-12) was analysed with multilevel linear regression. A McNemar test was used to compare presence of mental health-related symptoms during and prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Results A total of 177 patients were included. The mean MCS score prior to COVID-19 was 48.08 ± 10.15, and 49.00 ± 10.04 during the COVID-19 pandemic. The adjusted mean MCS score was 0.93 point (95% CI − 0.57 to 2.42) higher during the COVID-19 pandemic than during the period prior to the pandemic. Furthermore, no difference in the presence of the following mental health-related symptoms was found during the COVID-19 pandemic: feeling anxious, feeling sad, worrying, feeling nervous, trouble falling asleep, and trouble staying asleep. Conclusions The mental health of dialysis patients appears to be unaffected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Dialysis patients may be better able to cope with the pandemic, since they have high resilience and are less impacted by social distancing measures. Trial registration number Netherlands Trial Register NL6519, date of registration: 22 August 2017. Graphic abstract

Rationale & Objective Dialysis patients judge health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as an essential outcome. Remarkably, little is known about HRQoL differences between home dialysis and in-center hemodialysis (HD) patients worldwide. Study Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting & Study Populations Search strategies were performed on the Cochrane Library, Pubmed, and EMBASE databases between 2007 and 2019. Home dialysis was defined as both peritoneal dialysis and home HD. Selection Criteria for Studies Randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared HRQoL in home dialysis patients versus in-center HD patients. Data Extraction The data extracted by 2 authors included HRQoL scores of different questionnaires, dialysis modality, and subcontinent. Analytical Approach Data were pooled using a random-effects model and results were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was explored using subgroup analyses. Results Forty-six articles reporting on 41 study populations were identified. Most studies were cross-sectional in design (90%), conducted on peritoneal dialysis patients (95%), and used the 12-item or 36-item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaires (83%). More than half the studies showed moderate or high risk of bias. Pooled analysis of 4,158 home dialysis patients and 7,854 in-center HD patients showed marginally better physical HRQoL scores in home dialysis patients compared with in-center HD patients (SMD, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.24), although heterogeneity was high ( I 2 >80%). In a subgroup analysis, Western European home dialysis patients had higher physical HRQoL scores (SMD, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.61), while home dialysis patients from Latin America had lower physical scores (SMD, −0.20; 95% CI, −0.28 to −0.12). Mental HRQoL showed no difference in all analyses. Limitations No randomized controlled trials were found and high heterogeneity among studies existed. Conclusions Although pooled data showed marginally better physical HRQoL for home dialysis patients, the quality of design of the included studies was poor. Large prospective studies with adequate adjustments for confounders are necessary to establish whether home dialysis results in better HRQoL. Trial Registration PROSPERO 95985.

Background More than 6200 End Stage Renal Disease patients in the Netherlands are dependent on dialysis, either performed at home or in a dialysis centre. Visiting a dialysis centre three times a week is considered a large burden by many patients. However, recent data regarding the effects of dialysis at home on quality of life, clinical outcomes, and costs compared with in-centre haemodialysis are lacking. Methods The Dutch nOcturnal and hoME dialysis Study To Improve Clinical Outcomes (DOMESTICO) is a nationwide, prospective, observational cohort study that will include adult patients starting with a form of dialysis. Health-related quality of life, as the primary outcome, clinical outcomes and costs, as secondary outcomes, will be measured every 3–6 months in patients on home dialysis, and compared with a control group consisting of in-centre haemodialysis patients. During a 3-year period 800 home dialysis patients (600 peritoneal dialysis and 200 home haemodialysis patients) and a comparison group of 800 in-centre haemodialysis patients will be included from 53 Dutch dialysis centres (covering 96% of Dutch centres) and 1 Belgian dialysis centre (covering 4% of Flemish centres). Discussion DOMESTICO will prospectively investigate the effect of home dialysis therapies on health-related quality of life, clinical outcomes and costs, in comparison with in-centre haemodialysis. The findings of this study are expected to ameliorate the shared decision-making process and give more guidance to healthcare professionals, in particular to assess which type of patients may benefit most from home dialysis. Trial registration The DOMESTICO study is registered with the National Trial Register on (number: NL6519, date of registration: 22 August 2017) and the Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (CCMO) (number: NL63277.029.17).

Background Dialysis patients have an increased bleeding risk as compared with the general population. However, there is limited information whether bleeding risks are different for patients treated with haemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD). From a clinical point of view, this information could influence therapy choice. Therefore the aim of this study was to investigate the association between dialysis modality and bleeding risk. Methods Incident dialysis patients from the Netherlands Cooperative Study on the Adequacy of Dialysis were prospectively followed for major bleeding events over 3 years. Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for HD compared with PD using a time-dependent Cox regression analysis, with updates on dialysis modality. Results In total, 1745 patients started dialysis, of whom 1211 (69.4%) received HD and 534 (30.6%) PD. The bleeding rate was 60.8/1000 person-years for HD patients and 34.6/1000 person-years for PD patients. The time-dependent Cox regression analysis showed that after adjustment for age, sex, primary kidney disease, prior bleeding, cardiovascular disease, antiplatelet drug use, vitamin K antagonist use, erythropoietin use, arterial hypertension, residual glomerular filtratin rate, haemoglobin and albumin levels, bleeding risk for HD patients compared with PD increased 1.5-fold (95% CI 1.0–2.2). Conclusions In this large prospective cohort of incident dialysis patients, HD patients had an increased bleeding risk compared with PD patients. In particular, HD patients with a history of prior bleeding had an increased bleeding risk.

Background: Technique survival is a core outcome for peritoneal dialysis (PD), according to Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Peritoneal Dialysis. This study aimed to identify modifiable causes and risk factors of technique failure in a large Dutch cohort using standardised definitions. Methods: Patients who participated in the retrospective Dutch nOcturnal and hoME dialysis Study To Improve Clinical Outcomes cohort study and started PD between 2012 and 2016 were included and followed until 1 January 2017. The primary outcome was technique failure, defined as transfer to in-centre haemodialysis for ≥ 30 days or death. Death-censored technique failure was analysed as secondary outcome. Cox regression models and competing risk models were used to assess the association between potential risk factors and technique failure. Results: A total of 695 patients were included, of whom 318 experienced technique failure during follow-up. Technique failure rate in the first year was 29%, while the death-censored technique failure rate was 23%. Infections were the most common modifiable cause for technique failure, accounting for 20% of all causes during the entire follow-up. Leakage and catheter problems were important causes within the first 6 months of PD treatment (both accounting for 15%). APD use was associated with a lower risk of technique failure (hazard ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.53–0.83). Conclusion: Infections, leakage and catheter problems were important modifiable causes for technique failure. As the first-year death-censored technique failure rate remains high, future studies should focus on infection prevention and catheter access to improve technique survival.

Background: In Europe, the number of elderly end-stage kidney disease patients is increasing. Few of those patients receive peritoneal dialysis (PD), as many cannot perform PD autonomously. Assisted PD programmes are available in most European countries, but the percentage of patients receiving assisted PD varies considerably. Hence, we assessed which factors are associated with the availability of an assisted PD programme at a centre level and whether the availability of this programme is associated with proportion of home dialysis patients. Methods: An online survey was sent to healthcare professionals of European nephrology units. After selecting one respondent per centre, the associations were explored by χ 2 tests and (ordinal) logistic regression. Results: In total, 609 respondents completed the survey. Subsequently, 288 respondents from individual centres were identified; 58% worked in a centre with an assisted PD programme. Factors associated with availability of an assisted PD programme were Western European and Scandinavian countries (OR: 5.73; 95% CI: 3.07–10.68), non-academic centres (OR: 2.01; 95% CI: 1.09–3.72) and centres with a dedicated team for education (OR: 2.87; 95% CI: 1.35–6.11). Most Eastern & Central European respondents reported that the proportion of incident and prevalent home dialysis patients was <10% (72% and 63%), while 27% of Scandinavian respondents reported a proportion of >30% for both incident and prevalent home dialysis patients. Availability of an assisted PD programme was associated with a higher incidence (cumulative OR: 1.91; 95% CI: 1.21–3.01) and prevalence (cumulative OR: 2.81; 95% CI: 1.76–4.47) of patients on home dialysis. Conclusions: Assisted PD was more commonly offered among non-academic centres with a dedicated team for education across Europe, especially among Western European and Scandinavian countries where higher incidence and prevalence of home dialysis patients was reported.[Formula: see text]

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Dialysis patients are often prescribed a large number of medications to improve metabolic control and manage coexisting comorbidities. However, some studies suggest that a large number of medications could also detrimentally affect patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Therefore, this study aims to provide insight in the association between the number of types of medications and HRQoL in dialysis patients. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A multicentre cohort study was conducted among dialysis patients from Dutch dialysis centres 3 months after initiation of dialysis as part of the ongoing prospective DOMESTICO study. The number of types of medications, defined as the number of concomitantly prescribed types of drugs, was obtained from electronic patient records. Primary outcome was HRQoL measured with the Physical Component Summary (PCS) score and Mental Component Summary (MCS) score (range 0–100) of the Short Form 12. Secondary outcomes were number of symptoms (range 0–30) measured with the Dialysis Symptoms Index and self-rated health (range 0–100) measured with the EuroQol-5D-5L. Data were analysed using linear regression and adjusted for possible confounders, including comorbidity. Analyses for MCS and number of symptoms were performed after categorizing patients in tertiles according to their number of medications because assumptions of linearity were violated for these outcomes. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 162 patients were included. Mean age of patients was 58 ± 17 years, 35% were female, and 80% underwent haemodialysis. The mean number of medications was 12.2 ± 4.5. Mean PCS and MCS were 36.6 ± 10.2 and 46.8 ± 10.0, respectively. The mean number of symptoms was 12.3 ± 6.9 and the mean self-rated health 60.1 ± 20.6. In adjusted analyses, PCS was 0.6 point lower for each additional medication (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: −0.9 to –0.2; <i>p</i> = 0.002). MCS was 4.9 point lower (95% CI: −8.8 to –1.0; <i>p</i> = 0.01) and 1.0 point lower (95% CI: −5.1–3.1; <i>p</i> = 0.63) for the highest and middle tertiles of medications, respectively, than for the lowest tertile. Patients in the highest tertile of medications reported 4.1 more symptoms than in the lowest tertile (95% CI: 1.5–6.6; <i>p</i> = 0.002), but no significant difference in the number of symptoms was observed between the middle and lowest tertiles. Self-rated health was 1.5 point lower for each medication (95% CI: −2.2 to –0.7; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001). <b><i>Discussion/Conclusion:</i></b> After adjustment for comorbidity and other confounders, a higher number of medications were associated with a lower PCS, MCS, and self-rated health in dialysis patients and with more symptoms.

Background Recommendations regarding dialysis education and treatment are provided in various (inter)national guidelines, which should ensure that these are applied uniformly in nephrology and dialysis centers. However, there is much practice variation which could be explained by good practices: practices developed by local health care professionals, which are not evidence-based. Because an overview of good practices is lacking, we performed a scoping review to identify and summarize the available good practices for dialysis education, treatment, and eHealth. Methods Embase, Pubmed, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL databases and Web of Science were searched for relevant articles using all synonyms for the words ‘kidney failure’, ‘dialysis’, and ‘good practice’. Relevant articles were structured according to the categories dialysis education, dialysis treatment or eHealth, and assessed for content and results. Results Nineteen articles (12 for dialysis education, 3 for dialysis treatment, 4 for eHealth) are identified. The good practices for education endorse the importance of providing complete and objective predialysis education, assisting peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients in adequately performing PD, educating hemodialysis (HD) patients on self-management, and talking with dialysis patients about their prognosis. The good practices for dialysis treatment focus mainly on dialysis access devices and general quality improvement of dialysis care. Finally, eHealth is useful for HD and PD and affects both quality of care and health-related quality of life. Conclusion Our scoping review identifies 19 articles describing good practices and their results for dialysis education, dialysis treatment, and eHealth. These good practices could be valuable in addition to guidelines for increasing shared-decision making in predialysis education, using patients’ contribution in the implementation of their dialysis treatment, and advanced care planning.