Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author Reply
Book Review
Brief Communication
Case Report
Case Series
Clinical Case Report
Clinicopathological Conference
Commentary
Corrigendum
Editorial
Editorial – World Kidney Day 2016
Editorial Commentary
Erratum
Foreward
Guidelines
Image in Nephrology
Images in Nephrology
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Literature Review
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Perspective
Research Letter
Retraction Notice
Review
Review Article
Short Review
Special Article
Special Feature
Special Feature - World Kidney Day
Systematic Review
Technical Note
Varia
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author Reply
Book Review
Brief Communication
Case Report
Case Series
Clinical Case Report
Clinicopathological Conference
Commentary
Corrigendum
Editorial
Editorial – World Kidney Day 2016
Editorial Commentary
Erratum
Foreward
Guidelines
Image in Nephrology
Images in Nephrology
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Literature Review
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Perspective
Research Letter
Retraction Notice
Review
Review Article
Short Review
Special Article
Special Feature
Special Feature - World Kidney Day
Systematic Review
Technical Note
Varia
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Letter To Editor
33 (
6
); 486-487
doi:
10.4103/ijn.ijn_183_23

Dialysis Quality Improvement Needs Dialysis Registry: A Follow-up Study of Incident Hemodialysis Patients

Department of Nephrology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Vijaypur, Jammu, India
Department of Paediatrics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Vijaypur, Jammu, India
Department of Emergency Medicine, Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India
Address for correspondence: Dr. Asheesh Kumar, Department of Nephrology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Vijaypur, Jammu, India. E-mail: asheesh03.kapil@gmail.com
Licence
This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

Dear Editor,

In India, kidney replacement therapy (RRT) is largely limited to urban areas.[1] An Indian study stated that definitive RRT was instituted in 34% of eligible patients.[2] Hemodialysis (HD) is the most common RRT modality. A dialysis registry is needed to monitor patients on HD.[3] As data on incident hemodialysis is scarce, we conducted this prospective observational study from November 2020 to December 2021. Adult patients having chronic kidney disease stage 5 (CKD-5) who presented with uremic symptoms and who were initiated on HD for the first time were included. All patients and their caregivers were counseled for regular HD and early arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation till renal transplantation. After shared decision-making, a tunneled cuffed catheter was inserted for those ready for regular HD. Patients or attendants were contacted by phone at three monthly intervals. The concerned information included their well-being, current vascular access, and AVF creation status. There were 193 patients with a mean age of 61.5 ± 13.4 years [Table 1]. The follow-up time was 6–16 months. Twenty-four (12.4%) patients were lost to follow-up and 46 (23.8%) patients expired within 3 months. Among 123 (63.7%) patients who continued on hemodialysis after three months, the mortality was 47.2%. In India, these patients are not monitored because of the lack of a national registry for hemodialysis patients. In our study, the HD-dependent population was younger (75% being <64 years of age, which is higher than that stated in the ERS registry [~50%]) and had higher mortality (47.2%) at one year compared to other registries (50%) in four years.[4] With the implementation of the national dialysis program, the financial burden has decreased. Still, many factors need to be addressed for giving quality dialysis services. A government-supported centralized registry of dialysis patients and user-operated mobile apps can be possible solutions. Providing training, motivation, and incentives to the staff involved in dialysis for maintenance of records are other possible solutions for the same. A small sample size, limited follow-up, and patients being dialyzed at different dialysis centers in follow-up were the limitations. In conclusion, this study may pave large prospective studies to monitor and maintain quality dialysis services.

Table 1 Baseline characteristics and follow-up data of study participants
Variables n=193
Age (years), mean±SD 61.5±13.4
 18–20 years, n (%) 2 (1.0)
 20–44 years, n (%) 48 (24.9)
 45–64 years, n (%) 98 (50.8)
 >65 years, n (%) 45 (23.3)
Sex (male-to-female ratio) 1.7:1
Comorbidities
 Hypertension, n (%) 125 (64.7)
 Diabetes, n (%) 65 (33.7)
Hemoglobin (g%), mean+SD 7.9±1.1
Follow-up duration (range) 6-16 months
Patients having follow-up and dialysis >90 days, n 123
Dialysis duration (months), median (IQR) 12 (6, 13)
Continued on maintenance dialysis, n (%) 65 (52.8)
AVF created, n (%) 39 (60)
Death, n (%) 58 (47.2)

AVF=arteriovenous fistula, IQR=interquartile range, SD=standard deviation, TCC=tunneled cuffed catheter

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. , . Current status of end-stage renal disease care in India and Pakistan. Kidney Int Suppl. 2013;3:157-60.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , , . Haemodialysis for end-stage renal disease in Southern India--A perspective from a tertiary referral care centre. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1998;13:2494-500.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , , . Global dialysis perspective:India. Kidney 360. 2020;1:1143-7.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. .
Show Sections