BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in home hemodialysis because of its clinical benefits. However, given that patients are responsible for performing a complex medical procedure at home, adverse-event reporting is important to ensure patient safety. The purpose of this study was to describe adverse technical events in a large cohort of home hemodialysis patients. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: All consecutive patients undergoing home hemodialysis at a large tertiary-care center from 1999 through 2011 (last follow-up, July 2012). OUTCOMES: Overall rate of adverse technical events and number/rate of severe adverse events (defined as those requiring intervention). RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 202 patients with total follow-up of 757 patient-years. The cohort underwent a median of 5 dialysis treatments per week and 8 hours per session. 22 first adverse events and 7 recurrent events were identified. Adverse event rates were 0.049 per arteriovenous fistula access-year, 0.015 per arteriovenous graft access-year, and 0.022 per dialysis catheter access-year. Event rates per 1,000 dialysis treatments were 0.208, 0.068, and 0.087 for arteriovenous fistula, arteriovenous graft, and dialysis catheter access, respectively. Most adverse events were related to needle dislodgement (n=18) or air embolism (n=6). 8 adverse events resulted in emergency department visits and 5 required hospital admission. The rate of severe adverse events was 0.009 per patient-year of home hemodialysis and 0.038 per 1,000 dialysis treatments. Interventions included 3 blood transfusions, 2 catheter changes, 1 use of intravenous fluids, and 1 need for urgent dialysis. Attempts were made to retrain or review the technique in all patients with a first adverse event. LIMITATIONS: Events that were not severe may have been under-reported by patients. CONCLUSIONS: Serious adverse technical events in home hemodialysis are relatively rare. Strategies to further prevent these events may include patient retraining and periodic vascular access technique audit.
BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in home hemodialysis because of its clinical benefits. However, given that patients are responsible for performing a complex medical procedure at home, adverse-event reporting is important to ensure patient safety. The purpose of this study was to describe adverse technical events in a large cohort of home hemodialysis patients. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: All consecutive patients undergoing home hemodialysis at a large tertiary-care center from 1999 through 2011 (last follow-up, July 2012). OUTCOMES: Overall rate of adverse technical events and number/rate of severe adverse events (defined as those requiring intervention). RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 202 patients with total follow-up of 757 patient-years. The cohort underwent a median of 5 dialysis treatments per week and 8 hours per session. 22 first adverse events and 7 recurrent events were identified. Adverse event rates were 0.049 per arteriovenous fistula access-year, 0.015 per arteriovenous graft access-year, and 0.022 per dialysis catheter access-year. Event rates per 1,000 dialysis treatments were 0.208, 0.068, and 0.087 for arteriovenous fistula, arteriovenous graft, and dialysis catheter access, respectively. Most adverse events were related to needle dislodgement (n=18) or air embolism (n=6). 8 adverse events resulted in emergency department visits and 5 required hospital admission. The rate of severe adverse events was 0.009 per patient-year of home hemodialysis and 0.038 per 1,000 dialysis treatments. Interventions included 3 blood transfusions, 2 catheter changes, 1 use of intravenous fluids, and 1 need for urgent dialysis. Attempts were made to retrain or review the technique in all patients with a first adverse event. LIMITATIONS: Events that were not severe may have been under-reported by patients. CONCLUSIONS: Serious adverse technical events in home hemodialysis are relatively rare. Strategies to further prevent these events may include patient retraining and periodic vascular access technique audit.
Authors: Damien Ashby; Natalie Borman; James Burton; Richard Corbett; Andrew Davenport; Ken Farrington; Katey Flowers; James Fotheringham; R N Andrea Fox; Gail Franklin; Claire Gardiner; R N Martin Gerrish; Sharlene Greenwood; Daljit Hothi; Abdul Khares; Pelagia Koufaki; Jeremy Levy; Elizabeth Lindley; Jamie Macdonald; Bruno Mafrici; Andrew Mooney; James Tattersall; Kay Tyerman; Enric Villar; Martin Wilkie Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Matthew B Rivara; Melissa Soohoo; Elani Streja; Miklos Z Molnar; Connie M Rhee; Alfred K Cheung; Ronit Katz; Onyebuchi A Arah; Allen R Nissenson; Jonathan Himmelfarb; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh; Rajnish Mehrotra Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-01-04 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Marc Ghannoum; Darren M Roberts; David S Goldfarb; Jesper Heldrup; Kurt Anseeuw; Tais F Galvao; Thomas D Nolin; Robert S Hoffman; Valery Lavergne; Paul Meyers; Sophie Gosselin; Tudor Botnaru; Karine Mardini; David M Wood Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 10.614
Authors: Josée Bouchard; Greene Shepherd; Robert S Hoffman; Sophie Gosselin; Darren M Roberts; Yi Li; Thomas D Nolin; Valéry Lavergne; Marc Ghannoum Journal: Crit Care Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Bailey Paterson; Danielle E Fox; Chel Hee Lee; Victoria Riehl-Tonn; Elena Qirzaji; Rob Quinn; David Ward; Jennifer M MacRae Journal: Can J Kidney Health Dis Date: 2021-06-13
Authors: Bourne Lewis Auguste; Michael Girsberger; Claire Kennedy; Thatsaphan Srithongkul; Margaret McGrath-Chong; Joanne Bargman; Christopher T Chan Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-01-20 Impact factor: 2.692