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.