We aimed to develop a risk prediction model for first-year mortality (FYM) in incident dialysis patients with end-stage renal disease. We retrospectively examined patient comorbidities and biochemistry, prior to dialysis initiation, using a single-center, prospectively maintained database from 2005-2010, and analyzed these variables in relation to FYM. A total of 983 patients were studied. 22% had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <45%. FYM was 17%, and independent predictors included URate <500 or >600 μmol/l, LVEF <45% (higher odds ratio if <30%), Age >70 years, Arteriopathies (cerebrovascular and/or peripheral-vascular diseases), serum Albumin <30 g/l, and Alkaline phosphatase >80 U/l (p < 0.05, C-statistic 0.74), and these constitute the acronym UREA5. Using linear modeling, risk weightage/integer of 3 was assigned to LVEF <30%, 2 to age >70 years, and 1 to each remaining variable. Cumulative UREA5 scores of ≤1, 2, 3, 4, and ≥5 were associated with FYM of 6, 8, 22, 31, and 46%, respectively (p < 0.0001). Increasing UREA5 scores were strongly associated with stepwise worsening of FYM after dialysis initiation.

The objectives of hemodialysis have moved from the diffusive clearance of small molecular weight uremic toxins and achieving dialyzer urea adequacy targets to emphasis on improving clinical outcomes in end stage renal failure patients by increasing larger sized uremic toxin clearance. Clinical emphasis in the last few decades has focused on increasing middle molecule weight toxin clearance by hemodiafiltration. Although long‐term data is still lacking, short‐term outcomes appear promising. Advancements in nanotechnology have now introduction a new generation of medium cut‐off membrane dialyzers which allow diffusive clearance of similar middle molecular weight uremia toxin clearance as hemodiafiltration, without increased albumin losses. As these dialyzers have only recently been introduced into clinical practice, no long‐term outcomes are available to determine the relative benefits or advantages of this approach. As dialyzers are now designed to maximize diffusive or convective clearance, or provide a combination, then clinicians can now choose dialyzers tailored to the individual patient needs depending on clinical circumstances. We review the key important features in choosing a dialyzer for patients with end stage renal failure and acute kidney injury.

Only a minority of patients with chronic kidney disease treated by hemodialysis are currently treated at home. Until relatively recently, the only type of hemodialysis machine available for these patients was a slightly smaller version of the standard machines used for in-center dialysis treatments. Areas covered: There are now an alternative generation of dialysis machines specifically designed for home hemodialysis. The home dialysis patient wants a smaller machine, which is intuitive to use, easy to trouble shoot, robust and reliable, quick to setup and put away, requiring minimal waste disposal. The machines designed for home dialysis have some similarities in terms of touch-screen patient interfaces, and using pre-prepared cartridges to speed up setting up the machine. On the other hand, they differ in terms of whether they use slower or standard dialysate flows, prepare batches of dialysis fluid, require separate water purification equipment, or whether this is integrated, or use pre-prepared sterile bags of dialysis fluid. Expert commentary: Dialysis machine complexity is one of the hurdles reducing the number of patients opting for home hemodialysis and the introduction of the newer generation of dialysis machines designed for ease of use will hopefully increase the number of patients opting for home hemodialysis.

RESULTS 613 patients (55.1% male; 74.7% Chinese, 6.4% Indian, 11.4% Malay; 35.7% diabetes mellitus) with a mean age of 57.8 ± 14.5 years were recruited. Mean SBP was 139 ± 20 mmHg, DBP was 74 ± 11 mmHg, serum creatinine was 166 ± 115 µmol/L and GFR was 53 ± 32 mL/min/1.73 m 2 . At a lower GFR, SBP increased (p < 0.001), whereas DBP decreased (p = 0.0052). Mean SBP increased in tandem with the number of antihypertensive agents used (p < 0.001), while mean DBP decreased when ≥ 3 antihypertensive agents were used (p = 0.0020).

Introduction: Superior outcomes have been reported among hemodialysis (HD) patients who take active control over their dialysis treatment either at self-care satellite dialysis units or home compared to the regular in-center hemodialysis patient. Although the differences between the home hemodialysis (HHD) and self-care in-center HD (SCHD) are not well described, the growing literature on the superior outcomes of HHD suggests that HHD is the better option. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study in a stand-alone self-care unit to examine the differences in patients that are keen to consider HHD and those who are not. Findings: A cross-sectional sample of 44 patients completed a structured interview and the distress thermometer score used to assess psychological stress. Only 68% of patients reported to have heard about the benefits of HHD despite the long-established history and availability of the modality in the unit. One of the more critical findings in our study was that the cohort of patients who were keen to consider HHD believed that self-care and HHD would improve their quality of life (P < 0.05). Specifically, the perceived benefits stated by those willing to consider HHD were the lack of need to travel, association with better outcomes and the possibility of having the treatment in the comfort of home (P < 0.05). Discussion: We surmise that the answers expressed in this survey likely reflect a difference in perceptions of self-care and beliefs about HHD; hence, the importance of introducing HHD education earlier in the course of their chronic kidney disease journey.

Background Hemodialysis-associated anaphylactic reactions are rare and frequently complex in nature due to the sheer number of possible culprit agents. Unfortunately, dialysis is often unavoidable or strictly essential for life-saving solute clearance or fluid removal in patients with end stage kidney failure and those with severe acute kidney injury. It is of utmost importance that the culprit agent is identified and avoided to allow continuation of dialysis treatment as needed. Case presentation We present 2 cases of hemodialysis-associated anaphylactic reactions. These patients developed anaphylactic reactions peri-dialysis and were initially suspected to have dialyser reactions. They were investigated in a controlled healthcare setting and possible culprit agents were systemically identified and eliminated. They both underwent allergy testing and were diagnosed with chlorhexidine allergy. Of note, Case 1 was an incident dialysis patient at the time of presentation and Case 2 was a prevalent dialysis patient. This suggests that the time from initial sensitization to reaction may not always be helpful in determining if a particular agent is the culprit of an anaphylactic reaction. In both cases, the patients were dialysed through a tunnelled dialysis catheter. We postulate that the presence of an exit site, which represents a compromise to the integrity of the skin’s epidermal barrier, may have a significant role in the development of these reactions. As chlorhexidine is a widely used disinfectant in hemodialysis, it is imperative that we consider it as a possible culprit agent when these reactions arise. To our knowledge, there are no other reported cases of anaphylaxis secondary to chlorhexidine use in dialysis patients other than a previous report in 2017. Our report also highlights the possibility of these reactions occurring more frequently in patients with damaged epidermal barriers and in patients exposed to higher environmental concentrations of chlorhexidine. These are novel concepts that can be explored with further research. Conclusion Chlorhexidine associated anaphylactic reactions can occur in the peri-dialysis setting and a high index of suspicion is paramount to diagnosis.

Background Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with fluid retention, which increases total body water (TBW) and leads to changes in intracellular water (ICW) and extracellular water (ECW). This complicates accurate assessments of body composition. Analysis of bioelectrical impedance may improve the accuracy of evaluation in CKD patients and multiple machines and technologies are available. We compared body composition by bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) against multi-frequency bioimpedance analysis (BIA) in a multi-ethnic Asian population of stable, non-dialysis CKD patients. Methods We recruited 98 stable CKD patients comprising 54.1% men and 70.4% Chinese, 9.2% Malay, 13.3% Indian, and 8.2% other ethnicities. Stability was defined as no variation in serum creatinine > 20% over three months. Patients underwent BIS analyses using a Fresenius body composition monitor, while BIA analyses employed a Bodystat Quadscan 4000. Results Mean TBW values by BIS and BIA were 33.6 ± 7.2 L and 38.3 ± 7.4 L; mean ECW values were 15.8 ± 3.2 L and 16.9 ± 2.7 L; and mean ICW values were 17.9 ± 4.3 L and 21.0 ± 4.9 L, respectively. Mean differences for TBW were 4.6 ± 1.9 L ( P < 0.001), for ECW they were 1.2 ± 0.5 L ( P < 0.001), and for ICW they were 3.2 ±1.8 L ( P < 0.001). BIA and BIS measurements were highly correlated: TBW r = 0.970, ECW r = 0.994, and ICW r = 0.926. Compared with BIA, BIS assessments of fluid overload appeared to be more associated with biochemical and clinical indicators. Conclusion Although both BIA and BIS can be used for body water assessment, clinicians should be aware of biases that exist between bioimpedance techniques. The values of body water assessments in our study were higher in BIA than in BIS. Ethnicity, sex, body mass index, and estimated glomerular filtration rate were associated with these biases.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a major complication of critical illness. More than 70% of patients with oliguric AKI and marked azotemia receive renal replacement therapy (RRT). 1 Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is the preferred option worldwide in critical care, accounting for 80% of all modalities used. 2 However, prolonged extracorporeal circulation is associated with higher risk of filter clotting, which is worsened by the inflammatory and pro-coagulant state in critical illness. 3 Premature circuit terminations compromise the treatment efficacy of CRRT, 4 contribute to blood loss and transfusions in patients, 5 and increase nursing workload required for circuit priming. Critically ill patients also have higher bleeding risk, in whom systemic anticoagulation