Jennifer E Flythe1, Magdalene M Assimon2, Julia B Wenger3, Lily Wang4. 1. University of North Carolina Kidney Center, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; and jflythe@med.unc.edu. 2. University of North Carolina Kidney Center, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 3. University of North Carolina Kidney Center, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; 4. Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; and Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Rapid ultrafiltration rates are associated with adverse outcomes among patients on hemodialysis. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is considering an ultrafiltration rate quality measure for the ESRD Quality Incentive Program. Two measure developers proposed ultrafiltration rate measures with different selection criteria and specifications. We aimed to compare the proposed ultrafiltration rate measures and quantify dialysis facility operational burden if treatment times were extended to lower ultrafiltration rates. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Data were taken from the 2012 database of a large dialysis organization. Analyses of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services measure considered 148,950 patients on hemodialysis, and analyses of the Kidney Care Quality Alliance measure considered 151,937 patients. We described monthly patient and facility ultrafiltration rates and examined differences in patient characteristics across ultrafiltration rate thresholds and differences in facilities across ultrafiltration rate measure scores. We computed the additional treatment time required to lower ultrafiltration rates <13 ml/h per kilogram. RESULTS: Ultrafiltration rates peaked in winter and nadired in summer. Patients with higher ultrafiltration rates were younger; more likely to be women, nonblack, Hispanic, and lighter in weight; and more likely to have histories of heart failure compared with patients with lower ultrafiltration rates. Facilities had, on average, 20.8%±10.3% (July) to 22.8%±10.6% (February) of patients with ultrafiltration rates >13 ml/h per kilogram by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services monthly measure. Facilities had, on average, 15.8%±8.2% of patients with ultrafiltration rates ≥13 ml/h per kilogram by the Kidney Care Quality Alliance annual measure. Larger facilities (>100 patients) would require, on average, 33 additional treatment hours per week to lower all facility ultrafiltration rates <13 ml/h per kilogram when total treatment time is capped at 4 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrafiltration rates vary seasonally and across clinical subgroups. Extension of treatment time as a strategy to lower ultrafiltration rates may pose facility operational challenges. Prospective studies of ultrafiltration rate threshold implementation are needed.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Rapid ultrafiltration rates are associated with adverse outcomes among patients on hemodialysis. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is considering an ultrafiltration rate quality measure for the ESRD Quality Incentive Program. Two measure developers proposed ultrafiltration rate measures with different selection criteria and specifications. We aimed to compare the proposed ultrafiltration rate measures and quantify dialysis facility operational burden if treatment times were extended to lower ultrafiltration rates. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Data were taken from the 2012 database of a large dialysis organization. Analyses of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services measure considered 148,950 patients on hemodialysis, and analyses of the Kidney Care Quality Alliance measure considered 151,937 patients. We described monthly patient and facility ultrafiltration rates and examined differences in patient characteristics across ultrafiltration rate thresholds and differences in facilities across ultrafiltration rate measure scores. We computed the additional treatment time required to lower ultrafiltration rates <13 ml/h per kilogram. RESULTS: Ultrafiltration rates peaked in winter and nadired in summer. Patients with higher ultrafiltration rates were younger; more likely to be women, nonblack, Hispanic, and lighter in weight; and more likely to have histories of heart failure compared with patients with lower ultrafiltration rates. Facilities had, on average, 20.8%±10.3% (July) to 22.8%±10.6% (February) of patients with ultrafiltration rates >13 ml/h per kilogram by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services monthly measure. Facilities had, on average, 15.8%±8.2% of patients with ultrafiltration rates ≥13 ml/h per kilogram by the Kidney Care Quality Alliance annual measure. Larger facilities (>100 patients) would require, on average, 33 additional treatment hours per week to lower all facility ultrafiltration rates <13 ml/h per kilogram when total treatment time is capped at 4 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrafiltration rates vary seasonally and across clinical subgroups. Extension of treatment time as a strategy to lower ultrafiltration rates may pose facility operational challenges. Prospective studies of ultrafiltration rate threshold implementation are needed.
Authors: Daniel E Weiner; Steven M Brunelli; Abigail Hunt; Brigitte Schiller; Richard Glassock; Frank W Maddux; Douglas Johnson; Tom Parker; Allen Nissenson Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2014-08-22 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Bergur V Stefánsson; Steven M Brunelli; Claudia Cabrera; David Rosenbaum; Emmanuel Anum; Karthik Ramakrishnan; Donna E Jensen; Nils-Olov Stålhammar Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: James O Burton; Helen J Jefferies; Nicholas M Selby; Christopher W McIntyre Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2009-04-08 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Claudia Cabrera; Steven M Brunelli; David Rosenbaum; Emmanuel Anum; Karthik Ramakrishnan; Donna E Jensen; Nils-Olov Stålhammar; Bergur V Stefánsson Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Rammah Abohtyra; Yossi Chait; Michael J Germain; Christopher V Hollot; Joseph Horowitz Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Jeffrey Perl; Laura M Dember; Joanne M Bargman; Teri Browne; David M Charytan; Jennifer E Flythe; LaTonya J Hickson; Adriana M Hung; Michel Jadoul; Timmy Chang Lee; Klemens B Meyer; Hamid Moradi; Tariq Shafi; Isaac Teitelbaum; Leslie P Wong; Christopher T Chan Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-03-17 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Laura C Plantinga; Raymond J Lynch; Rachel E Patzer; Stephen O Pastan; C Barrett Bowling Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Zachary Terner; Andrew Long; Marta Reviriego-Mendoza; John W Larkin; Len A Usvyat; Peter Kotanko; Franklin W Maddux; Yuedong Wang Journal: Kidney360 Date: 2020-01-23
Authors: Laura C Plantinga; Tahsin Masud; Janice P Lea; John M Burkart; Christopher M O'Donnell; Bernard G Jaar Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 2.388