Key result
Twice-weekly maintenance hemodialysis resulted in a comparable rate of complications compared to three-times-weekly hemodialysis over 1 year.
Why the study?
Maintenance hemodialysis frequency is linked to survival and complications, but finding the optimal balance among healthcare, quality of life, and medical costs remains challenging.
Does twice-weekly maintenance hemodialysis improve quality of life and clinical outcomes compared to three-times-weekly hemodialysis in patients requiring maintenance hemodialysis?
RCT (n=140)
Open-label
Random number table
Yes
Does twice-weekly maintenance hemodialysis improve quality of life and clinical outcomes compared to three-times-weekly hemodialysis in patients requiring maintenance hemodialysis?
Twice-weekly maintenance hemodialysis offers comparable clinical and nutritional outcomes to three-times-weekly schedules while providing superior quality of life, though baseline BUN should be considered.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Twice-weekly hemodialysis may enhance quality of life without added complications in selected patients; extends options for individualized maintenance schedules.
AIM: Maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) frequency is associated with survival and complication rates. Achieving the optimal balance between healthcare, quality of life (QOL), and medical costs is challenging. We compared complications, inflammatory status, nutritional status, and QOL between patients with different MHD frequencies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a multicenter randomized trial of patients treated between May 2011 and August 2017 at 3 tertiary hospitals in Wenzhou. Patients were grouped according to their treatment schedule over 1 year: twice-weekly or 3-times-weekly. Complications, biochemistry parameters, and QOL (KDQOL-SFTM 1.3 scale) were assessed. RESULTS: One hundred forty patients were included aged 29 to 68 years (mean age, 50.9 ± 4.3 years). There were no significant differences in infection, heart failure, or cerebral hemorrhage complications between the 2 groups (P = .664). Pre-dialysis hemoglobin, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, serum albumin, total cholesterol, triglyceride, calcium, phosphate, parathyroid hormone, and ejection fraction were similar in both groups (P > .05). After 1 year of MHD, both groups exhibited significant improvements in these parameters (all P < .05) with no significant differences between groups. Serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), and weekly standard hemodialysis treatment adequacy did not improve after treatment (all P > .05), although a difference in BUN was observed between the 2 groups (P < .001). QOL was superior in the twice-weekly group than in the 3-times-weekly group (all P < .05), except for social support, which was slightly better in the 3-times-weekly group than in the twice-weekly group. CONCLUSIONS: Twice- and 3-times-weekly MHD resulted in comparable inflammatory and nutritional clinical outcomes and adverse events. QOL was better for the twice-weekly schedule. Even for patients with economic constraints, twice- or 3-times-weekly MHD should be selected with caution after consideration of BUN levels at baseline.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in Chronic renal failure requiring maintenance hemodialysis (n=140). Twice-weekly maintenance hemodialysis vs. Three-times-weekly maintenance hemodialysis was evaluated on Occurrence of complications relating to cardiovascular events, cerebral hemorrhage, infection, and heart failure (p=0.664). Twice-weekly maintenance hemodialysis resulted in a comparable rate of complications compared to three-times-weekly hemodialysis over 1 year.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: