Globally, the number of patients undergoing maintenance dialysis is increasing, yet throughout the world there is significant variability in the practice of initiating dialysis. Factors such as availability of resources, reasons for starting dialysis, timing of dialysis initiation, patient education and preparedness, dialysis modality and access, as well as varied "country-specific" factors significantly affect patient experiences and outcomes. As the burden of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) has increased globally, there has also been a growing recognition of the importance of patient involvement in determining the goals of care and decisions regarding treatment. In January 2018, KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) convened a Controversies Conference focused on dialysis initiation, including modality choice, access, and prescription. Here we present a summary of the conference discussions, including identified knowledge gaps, areas of controversy, and priorities for research. A major novel theme represented during the conference was the need to move away from a "one-size-fits-all" approach to dialysis and provide more individualized care that incorporates patient goals and preferences while still maintaining best practices for quality and safety. Identifying and including patient-centered goals that can be validated as quality indicators in the context of diverse health care systems to achieve equity of outcomes will require alignment of goals and incentives between patients, providers, regulators, and payers that will vary across health care jurisdictions.

The incidence and prevalence of heart failure (HF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are increasing, and as such a better understanding of the interface between both conditions is imperative for developing optimal strategies for their detection, prevention, diagnosis, and management. To this end, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) convened an international, multidisciplinary Controversies Conference titled Heart Failure in CKD. Breakout group discussions included (i) HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and nondialysis CKD, (ii) HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and nondialysis CKD, (iii) HFpEF and dialysis-dependent CKD, (iv) HFrEF and dialysis-dependent CKD, and (v) HF in kidney transplant patients. The questions that formed the basis of discussions are available on the KDIGO website http:// kdigo.org/conferences/heart-failure-in-ckd/, and the deliberations from the conference are summarized here.

Patients undergoing conventional maintenance hemodialysis typically receive three sessions per week, each lasting 2.5-5.5 hours. Recently, the use of more intensive hemodialysis (.5.5 hours, three to seven times per week) has increased, but the effects of these regimens on survival are uncertain. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to examine whether intensive hemodialysis associates with better survival than conventional hemodialysis. We identified 420 patients in the International Quotidian Dialysis Registry who received intensive home hemodialysis in France, the United States, and Canada between January 2000 and August 2010. We matched 338 of these patients to 1388 patients in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study who received in-center conventional hemodialysis during the same time period by country, ESRD duration, and propensity score. The intensive hemodialysis group received a mean (SD) 4.8 (1.1) sessions per week with a mean treatment time of 7.4 (0.87) hours per session; the conventional group received three sessions per week with a mean treatment time of 3.9 (0.32) hours per session. During 3008 patient-years of follow-up, 45 (13%) of 338 patients receiving intensive hemodialysis died compared with 293 (21%) of 1388 patients receiving conventional hemodialysis (6.1 versus 10.5 deaths per 100 personyears; hazard ratio, 0.55 [95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.87]). The strength and direction of the observed association between intensive hemodialysis and improved survival were consistent across all prespecified subgroups and sensitivity analyses. In conclusion, there is a strong association between intensive home hemodialysis and improved survival, but whether this relationship is causal remains unknown.

Brachial FMD and PAT are independent predictors of CV events and all-cause mortality. Further research to evaluate the prognostic utility of PAT is necessary to compare it with FMD as a non-invasive endothelial function test in clinical practice.

In adults, known urinary, plasma, and serum biomarkers of AKI possess modest discrimination at best when measured within 24 hours of cardiac surgery.

No abstract

Despite the acknowledged importance of uremic pruritus to patients, with the exception of gabapentin, the current evidence for treatments is weak. Large, simple, rigorous, multiarm RCTs of promising therapies are urgently needed.

Cystatin C has some advantages over serum creatinine in estimating GFR. The use of cystatin C as a confirmatory biomarker in deciding medication dosages or as a confirmatory test in patients with an uncertain diagnosis of chronic kidney disease may be beneficial.