The future of haemodialysis in the UK RCP advanced medicine 2013 Cormac Breen Consultant...

The future of haemodialysis in the UKRCP advanced medicine 2013

Cormac BreenConsultant Nephrologist

Guy's and St Thomas' HospitalsLondon

Plan

Overview and demographics of haemodialysis

Description of technical challenges and opportunities of thrice weekly unit

dialysis

Vascular access

Self-care

Haemodialysis at home.

Extended hours high-frequency for improving clinical outcomes and quality of

life

Viewing dialysis in terms of cost and quality in relation to NHS funding

UK Renal Registry 14th Annual Report

Treatment modality in prevalent RRT patients on31/12/2010


Figure 2.2: Growth in prevalent patients, by treatment modality at the end of each year 1982-2009

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

20

08

Year

Nu

mb

er

of p

atie

nts

PDHome HDHDTransplant

The scope of Renal Replacement Treatment


Figure 2.10: Detailed dialysis modality changes in prevalent RRT patients from 1997-2009

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

Pe

rce

nta

ge

on

mo

da

lity % Hospital HD

% CAPD% Sattellite HD% APD% Home HD

The scope of Renal Replacement Treatment

Demographics of RRT

Prevalence rate RRT All UK centres 51,835

(Total UK population 62.3 million)

Prevalence rate All RRT (pmp) 832 (428-1408)

Prevalence rate HD 360

Prevalence rate PD 64

Prevalence rate dialysis 424

Prevalence rate transplant 408


Figure 1.3. UK incident RRT rates between 1980 and 2010


Figure 1.5. Number of incident patients in 2010,by age group and initial dialysis modality


Figure 1.8. RRT modality at day 90(incident cohort 1/10/2009 to 30/09/2010)

Growth in RRT numbers

• Change in RRT prevalence rates pmp 2005–2010 by modality

Year to HD PD Dialysis Tx RRT2005 6 -7.4 3.1 6 4.4

2006 3.9 -2.1 2.7 3.2 2.9

2007 5.8 -9.0 2.9 4.9 3.8

2008 3.5 -7.8 1.6 3.7 2.6

2009 1.5 -3.2 0.8 5.4 3

2010 4.1 -5.9 2.2 4.6 3.3


Figure 2.3. Ethnicity and standardised prevalence ratios for allPCT/HB areas by percentage non-White on 31/12/2010

(excluding areas with <5% ethnic minorities)


Figure 2.4: Age profile of prevalent RRT patients on 31/12/2009

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95

Age (years)

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of p

atie

nts

Transplant

Dialysis

Age range of RRT patients


Treatment modality distribution by age in prevalentRRT patients on 31/12/2010


RRT Prevalence rates (pmp) by country in 2010

Centre-based haemodialysis

The vast majority of Haemodialysis delivered in dialysis centres (hospital and satellite)

Most have standard Haemodialysis (diffusive)

Smaller proportion have Haemodiafiltration (convective with infusion)

All new dialysis centres generate ultrapure water, much lower rates of contamination

Standardised treatment with improving outcomes


Trend in 1 year after 90 day survival by first establishedmodality 2003–2009 (adjusted to age 60)

(excluding patients whose first modality was transplantation)

The quality challenges of Centre-based HD

• Travel times and Scheduling

• Treatment times

• The 3 day gap

• Inflexible approach to the therapy

• Cost

00:00

02:00

04:00

06:00

08:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00

24:00

00:00

02:00

04:00

06:00

08:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00

24:00

Key

Wait time

Travel time

Dialysis time

Pre and post dialysis activities

Arrival at RSU

5th Floor RSU Patient Journeys

A Snapshot of Patients Attending Haemodialysis on the 5th Floor Renal Satellite Unit

Centre-based HD can be of low quality

Centre based HD can contribute to poorer outcomes

How we organise dialysis is important

The ‘unphysiology’ of dialysis

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Day of the Week

0

10

20

30

40S

eru

m U

rea

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mm

ol/l)

days

peaks

mean (TAC)

fluctuations (TAD)

‘unphysiology’

3x/week

7x/week

TAD

TAC

same effect for volume!

Cost of Centre-based HD

Satellite unit Kent 80 patients (2011)

Total annual income £1,738,464

Variable costs non-pay £591,840 (transport 20%)

Fixed costs non-pay £222,005

Fixed costs pay £681,082 (91% nursing)

Opportunity to reduce costs mostly from reducing requirement on nursing staff and on transport

Simple interventions can be effective

Progress of Haemodialysis Self-Care Education Programme

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

Month

Nu

mb

er

of p

atie

nts

declined / unable to selfcarepartial independence

full indpendence

patients approached forteachingGoal of 10%

Goal of 50%

Pilot Phase

Percentage of patients achieving simple, intermediate and complex tasks

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

simple intermediate complex

Provision of Haemodialysis facilities in flat cash NHS

Originally all dialysis units in main hospital centres

Growth of satellite Haemodialysis a mix of units built from NHS capital and units run by private providers with patient cohorts contracted

Wide variation in costs, per sqm, per dialysis chair

Little if any opportunity for NHS capital investment from now on

2 options: contract capacity from private provider; make more use of home dialysis


Treatment modality in prevalent RRT patients on31/12/2010

Vascular access

All patients on haemodialysis dependent on stable circulatory access for good treatment

Options are for native arteriovenous fistula, PTFE graft, or percutaneous venous catheter

“Quality measure” AVF = AVG > catheter

Best practice tariff £159 > £128


Figure 12.1. Number of MRSA bacteraemia episodes by access type and renal centre: 1/04/2009 to 31/03/2010


Figure 12.4. Number of MRSA bacteraemia episodes by access and renal centre: 1/04/2010 to 31/3/2011


Box and whisker plot of MRSA rates by renal centre per100 prevalent HD/PD patients by reporting year


Figure 12.8. Number of MSSA bacteraemia episodes by access and renal centre: 1/01/2011 to 30/06/2011

Why is our patient still complaining?

tired

pain

can’t sleep

feel lousy

itchy

hypertension

can’t work

thirsty

25 pills

will die youngrestless CVAinfarctio

n

diet

Improved ‘modern’ approach to home HD

Address the quality gap

Improve cost efficiency

Reduce the dependence of dialysis facilities

Reduce the dependence on nurses

Move care out into the community

Improve clinical outcomes, quality of life

Standardized Kt/V

F Gotch. Seminars in Dialysis 14: 15-17, 2001

Avoid long gaps between sessions

Bleyer et al, KI, 2006Bleyer et al. KI, 1999

Getting the dialysis schedule right

When we talk about survival with patients we need to be making meaningful comparisons

BP control and cardiovascular health

Fagugli et al. AJKD, 2001 Chan et al. KI, 2002

Pill burden high

Chiu Y et al. CJASN 2009;4:1089-1096


• More dialysis vs more restrictions

• Shorter gaps vs fluid gain & BP

• Higher HD dose vs more pills

• Recovery time quicker (min vs hrs)

• More free time vs better free time

44

45


5.12

3.82

2.46

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Control Daily HD Nocturnal HD

sKt/V

+55% +108%

299415

1218

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600


Ph

osp

hat

e re

mo

val (

mg

/day

)

+39%+328%

9.03

4.884.73

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


Equ

ival

ent

B2

mic

rogl

obu

lin c

lear

ance

(m

l/min

)

+ 3%+39%

+91%

•Which clinical parameters matter most to patients? •Do our usual markers help us?•Should other blood values indicate more factors to the patient?•Keeping the patient well and free of complications matters most


• More dialysis vs more restrictions

• Shorter gaps vs fluid gain & BP

• Higher HD dose vs more pills

• Recovery time quicker (min vs hrs)

• More free time vs better free time

46

Transplantation or not

• Daily nocturnal HD compares favourably to first deceased donor Tx

• No data for older, comorbid pts

• No data for higher immunological risk pts

• Should this be part of discussion of RRT choices?

47

Pauly et al

Distribution of dialysis time & frequency

3 x weekly Alternate days

4 x weekly 5 x weekly 6 – 7 x weekly

< 3.5 hours

●●●

3.5 – 4.25 hours

●● ●●●●● ●

●●●● ● ●●●

4.25 – 5 hours

●● ● ●●●● ●●●●

5 – 6 hours

● ● ●

6 – 8 hours

●● ●●●●●● ●●

Distribution of dialysis time & frequency

3 x weekly Alternate days

4 x weekly 5 x weekly 6 – 7 x weekly

< 3.5 hours

●●●●●● ●●●●●●

3.5 – 4.25 hours

●● ●●●●● ●

●●●● ●●●● ●●●●●

4.25 – 5 hours

●● ● ●●●● ●●●●● ●●●

5 – 6 hours

● ● ●

6 – 8 hours

●●●●●●

●●●●●● ●●●●●● ●●●●●●


Figure 2.8. Percentage of prevalent haemodialysis patients treated with satellite orhome haemodialysis by centre on 31/12/2010

The future of Haemodialysis in the UK

Centre based HD - improved efficiency, continuous improvement in quality. Changing models of care to improve affordability

Self care HD - increasingly 'normal', better cost model, link to patient benefit

Home HD - best use of resources. Become the norm, measure quality differently by reducing impact on health and lifestyle.

The future of haemodialysis in the UK RCP advanced medicine 2013 Cormac Breen Consultant...

Documents

Transcript of The future of haemodialysis in the UK RCP advanced medicine 2013 Cormac Breen Consultant...