Background Exercise preconditioning provides immediate protection against cardiac ischemia in clinical/preclinical studies in subjects without chronic kidney disease. In individuals requiring renal replacement therapy, hemodialysis (HD) results in significant circulatory stress, causing acute ischemia with resultant recurrent and cumulative cardiac injury (myocardial stunning). Intradialytic exercise (IDE) has been utilized to improve functional status in individuals receiving HD. The objective of this study was to explore the role of IDE as a preconditioning intervention and assess its effect on HD-induced myocardial stunning. Methods We performed a single-center cross-sectional exploratory study in adults on chronic HD participating in a clinical IDE program. HD-induced cardiac stunning was evaluated over two HD sessions within the same week: a control visit (no exercise) and an exposure visit (usual intradialytic cycling). Echocardiography was performed at the same three time points for each visit. Longitudinal strain values for 12 left ventricular segments were generated using speckle-tracking software to assess the presence of HD-induced regional wall motion abnormalities (RWMAs), defined as a ≥20% reduction in strain; two or more RWMAs represent myocardial stunning. Results A total of 19 patients were analyzed (mean age 57.2 ± 11.8 years, median dialysis vintage 3.8 years). The mean number of RWMAs during the control visit was 4.5 ± 2.6, falling to 3.6 ± 2.7 when incorporating IDE (a reduction of −0.95 ± 2.9; P = 0.17). At peak HD stress, the mean number of RWMAs was 5.8 ± 2.7 in the control visit versus 4.0 ± 1.8 during the exposure visit (a reduction of −1.8 ± 2.8; P = 0.01). Conclusion We demonstrated for the first time that IDE is associated with a significant reduction in HD-induced acute cardiac injury.

Background: Current health systems do not effectively address all aspects of chronic care. For better self-management of disease, kidney patients have identified the need for improved health care information, interaction with health care providers, and individualization of care. Objective: The Triple I study examined challenges to exchange of information, interaction between patients and health care providers and individualization of care in in-center hemodialysis with the aim of identifying the top 10 challenges that individuals on in-center hemodialysis face in these 3 areas. Design: We employed a sequential mixed methods approach with 3 phases: 1. A qualitative study with focus groups and interviews (Apr 2017 to Aug 2018); 2. A cross-sectional national ranking survey (Jan 2019 to May 2019); 3. A prioritization workshop using a modified James Lind Alliance process (June 2019) Setting: In-center hemodialysis units in 7 academic centers across Canada: Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Montreal, and Halifax. Participants: Individuals receiving in-center hemodialysis, their caregivers, and health care providers working in in-center hemodialysis participated in each of the 3 phases. Methods: In Phase 1, we collected qualitative data through (1) focus groups and interviews with hemodialysis patients and their caregivers and (2) individual interviews with health care providers and decision makers. Participants identified challenges to in-center hemodialysis care and potential solutions to these challenges. In Phase 2, we administered a pan-Canadian cross-sectional ranking survey. The survey asked respondents to prioritize the challenges to in-center hemodialysis care identified in Phase 1 by ranking their top 5 topics/challenges in each of the 3 “I” categories. In Phase 3, we undertook a face-to-face priority setting workshop which followed a modified version of the James Lind Alliance priority setting workshop process. The workshop employed an iterative process incorporating small and large group sessions during which participants identified, ranked, and voted on the top challenges and innovations to hemodialysis care. Four patient partners contributed to study design, implementation, analysis, and interpretation. Results: Across the 5 participating centers, we conducted 8 focus groups and 44 interviews, in which 113 participants identified 45 distinct challenges to in-center hemodialysis care. Subsequently, completion of a national ranking survey (n = 323) of these challenges resulted in a short-list of the top 30 challenges. Finally, using small and large group sessions to develop consensus during the prioritizing workshop, 38 stakeholders used this short-list to identify the top 10 challenges to in-center hemodialysis care. These included individualization of dialysis-related education; improved information in specific topic areas (transplant status, dialysis modalities, dialysis-related complications, and other health risks); more flexibility in hemodialysis scheduling; better communication and continuity of care within the health care team; and increased availability of transportation, financial, and social support programs. Limitations: Participants were from urban centers and were predominately English-speaking. Survey response rate of 31.5% in Phase 2 may have led to selection bias. We collected limited information on social determinants of health, which could confound our results. Conclusion: Overall, the challenges we identified demonstrate that individualized care and information that improves interaction with health care providers is important to patients receiving in-center hemodialysis. In future stages of this project, we will aim to address these challenges by trialing innovative patient-centered solutions. Trial Registration: Not applicable.

Background: Clinical settings often make it challenging for patients with kidney failure to receive individualized hemodialysis (HD) care. Individualization refers to care that reflects an individual’s specific circumstances, values, and preferences. Objective: This study aimed to describe patient, caregiver, and health care professional perspectives regarding challenges and solutions to individualization of care in people receiving in-center HD. Design: In this multicentre qualitative study, we conducted focus groups with individuals receiving in-center HD and their caregivers and semi-structured interviews with health care providers from May 2017 to August 2018. Setting: Hemodialysis programs in 5 cities: Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, and Halifax. Participants: Individuals receiving in-center HD for more than 6 months, aged 18 years or older, and able to communicate in English were eligible to participate, as well as their caregivers. Health care providers with HD experience were recruited using a purposive approach and snowball sampling. Methods: Two sequential methods of qualitative data collection were undertaken: (1) focus groups and interviews with HD patients and caregivers, which informed (2) individual interviews with health care providers. A qualitative descriptive methodology guided focus groups and interviews. Data from all focus groups and interviews were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Results: Among 82 patients/caregivers and 31 health care providers, we identified 4 main themes: session set-up, transportation and parking, socioeconomic and emotional well-being, and HD treatment location and scheduling. Particular challenges faced were as follows: (1) session set-up: lack of preferred supplies, machine and HD access set-up, call buttons, bed/chair discomfort, needling options, privacy in the unit, and self-care; (2) transportation and parking: lack of reliable/punctual service, and high costs; (3) socioeconomic and emotional well-being: employment aid, finances, nutrition, lack of support programs, and individualization of treatment goals; and (4) HD treatment location and scheduling: patient displacement from their usual spot, short notice of changes to dialysis time and location, lack of flexibility, and shortages of HD spots. Limitations: Uncertain applicability to non-English speaking individuals, those receiving HD outside large urban centers, and those residing outside of Canada. Conclusions: Participants identified challenges to individualization of in-center HD care, primarily regarding patient comfort and safety during HD sessions, affordable and reliable transportation to and from HD sessions, increased financial burden as a result of changes in functional and employment status with HD, individualization of treatment goals, and flexibility in treatment schedule and self-care. These findings will inform future studies aimed at improving patient-centered HD care.

Background: Patients with kidney failure are exposed to a surfeit of new information about their disease and treatment, often resulting in ineffective communication between patients and providers. Improving the amount, timing, and individualization of information received has been identified as a priority in in-center hemodialysis care. Objective: To describe and explicate patient, caregiver, and health care provider perspectives regarding challenges and solutions to information transfer in clinical hemodialysis care. Design: In this multicenter qualitative study, we gathered perspectives of patients, their caregivers, and health care providers conducted through focus groups and interviews. Setting: Five Canadian hemodialysis centers: Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, and Halifax. Participants: English-speaking adults receiving in-center hemodialysis for longer than 6 months, their caregivers, and hemodialysis health care providers. Methods: Between May 24, 2017, and August 16, 2018, data collected through focus groups and interviews with hemodialysis patients and their caregivers subsequently informed semi-structured interviews with health care providers. For this secondary analysis, data were analyzed through an inductive thematic analysis using grounded theory, to examine the data more deeply for overarching themes. Results: Among 82 patients/caregivers and 31 healthcare providers, 6 main themes emerged. Themes identified from patients/caregivers were (1) overwhelmed at initiation of hemodialysis care, (2) need for peer support, and (3) improving comprehension of hemodialysis processes. Themes identified from providers were (1) time constraints with patients, (2) relevance of information provided, and (3) technological innovations to improve patient engagement. Limitations: Findings were limited to Canadian context, English speakers, and individuals receiving hemodialysis in urban centers. Conclusions: Participants identified challenges and potential solutions to improve the amount, timing, and individualization of information provided regarding in-center hemodialysis care, which included peer support, technological innovations, and improved knowledge translation activities. Findings may inform the development of interventions and strategies aimed at improving information delivery to facilitate patient-centered hemodialysis care.

No abstract