1 / 76

The Old Paradigm (The full cup)

The Old Paradigm (The full cup). Fistula First Utilize Kt/V for “adequate” dialysis 3 – 4 hours, thrice weekly Manage ASCVD “Optimize” treatment: anemia (EPO and Iron), divalent ions (phosphate binders), PTH (Vitamin D), lipids, BP control, estimate “dry weight”

salena
Télécharger la présentation

The Old Paradigm (The full cup)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Old Paradigm(The full cup) • Fistula First • Utilize Kt/V for “adequate” dialysis 3 – 4 hours, thrice weekly • Manage ASCVD • “Optimize” treatment: anemia (EPO and Iron), divalent ions (phosphate binders), PTH (Vitamin D), lipids, BP control, estimate “dry weight” • Restrictive diets • Early Start

  2. The State of Renal Care in the U.S. Challenges and Changes“We can do better” Dallas, Texas June, 2010

  3. The Boston Steering Committee Conclusions • The model of dialytic care since the 1970s is insufficient: • the nephrology community likely used incomplete - perhaps even flawed – science, at least as we know the science now • the providers and payers supported the model • for 35 years. • The problem is propagated by how we measure ourselves: • Clinical Performance Measures; (CPMs; CPGs; i.e., HGB, Kt/V, Ca, P, …) • Though enormously helpful, current CPMs do not provide the power to predict the outcomes that we had hoped for, either for the patient or the facility. • Current CPMs account for only about 14% of the measurable differences in facility outcomes (SMRs). • Consequentially, too many patients are dying, hospitalizations are too high, and cost is enormous. • The Boston meeting concluded that now we have the information to change this

  4. To accomplish: • The REASONS for the Boston Meeting • Mortality trends • Hospitalization trends • Costs • SUMMARY of Boston Meeting data, conclusions and recommendations • ACTIONS to implement change, since the meeting

  5. Mortality

  6. Dallas M and M Conference

  7. The Boston meeting concluded that – now – we can do better than this.

  8. Hospitalizations

  9. The Boston meeting concluded that we can do something about this.

  10. Once again, it was concluded that we can do something about this.

  11. Costs

  12. $34B if other payors included

  13. Our Current Milieu of Care • 20% of facility patients die each year; 70% deceased in 5 years; Up to 40% mortality in the first year • A program that costs $34+,000,000,000/year • With a cost of $60 – 80,000 PPPY with the difference based on AV access alone • $20,000 PPPY in hospitalizations, mostly due to cardiovascular disease and infection • Less than 20% rehabilitation • 110,996 new ESRD patients – 2007 • 101,688 In Center HD • 6506 PD (6875 in 2005) • 2665 Pre-emptive transplant (2424 in 2005)

  14. Possible Therapies CAPD CCPD Conventional In Center Nocturnal In Center Conventional HHD Nocturnal HHD Short Daily HHD Transplant Living Cadaveric Palliative Therapies Stratified by Nephrologists’ Choice Transplantation Nocturnal HHD Nocturnal In-center and Short Daily HHD Conventional HHD CAPD and CCPD Conventional In Center Palliative Therapies and OutcomesResults from an informal survey at 2008 ASN

  15. 98% would choose alternatives to conventional care. If we are going to choose conventional therapy for patients, then we need to do it better. Let’s at least get it right.

  16. To Accomplish This Morning • The REASONS for the Boston Meeting • Mortality • Hospitalization trends and causes • Costs • A SUMMARY of Boston Meeting data, conclusions and recommendations • ACTION since the meeting

  17. Primary Issues Identified(4 days, >1700 PPT Slides) • Infection and AV Access • Cardiovascular Disease • Inflammation • The Dialysis Dose • The First Year

  18. 82%

  19. Catheter Events and Hospitalizations Fistula events and complication are .2 to .4 as prevalent

  20. Consequences of Catheters • 22% infectious complications, with septic arthritis, endocarditis and osteomyelitis • 43% higher cardiovascular related death rate than fistulas in some studies • AVF after 90 days with 29% reduction in all-cause mortality compared to catheters • Greater all cause and infection related hospitalizations • Reduced dialysis adequacy, poorer quality of life and greater costs

  21. Infection Trends • Infection hospitalizations substantially increasing over past 10 years, largely due to catheters • Infection hospitalizations increasing at a rate greater than cardiovascular hospitalizations • Much higher costs in patients with catheters • There is even likely a linkage between one access infection and associated ongoing risk of death • Higher mortality in catheter patients and facilities with more catheters (and grafts)

  22. Boston Meeting Recommendations #1:Infection and Access • Acknowledge: The catheter problem is IATROGENIC • Hospitals, health plans, nephrologists, providers and vascular surgeons (currently, 50% primary failure rate) must be accountable for reducing catheter placement • CMS might consider moving catheters, as a CPM, to the very highest level of scrutiny and surveys and place less emphasis on CPMs that make little difference in outcomes • They just concluded a TEP to make just such recommendations, which are now being considered • Vaccination, as a CPM, needs to be an important aspect of facility practice and accountability

  23. Primary Issues • Infection and AV Access • Cardiovascular Disease • Inflammation • The Dialysis Dose • The First Year

  24. ASCVD is apparently not the leading cause of CV death, and all of these years we’ve concentrated on hemoglobin, calcium, phosphorus, lipids and the like – to fix the cardiovascular problem. We’ve simply been looking at the wrong outcomes measures to improve mortality, hospitalizations and cost associated with CV disease.

  25. It’s LVH and Cardiomyopathy % LVH glassock

  26. THEME:Alterations in LV Mass in CKD/ESRD are an Example of What is WRONG with Conventional Regimens of Treatment

  27. The Core Issues: LV Disease • LV mass disease progresses as CKD progresses (not inevitably) • Increased LV Mass is very prevalent in the incident ESRD patient (70%), with only minimal to modest improvement with conventional in-center HD (A bit better with PD) • Non regressors have a very poor prognosis Glassock

  28. Three of every four deaths and hospitalizations in dialysis patients can be linked to sudden death or CHF Left Ventricular in Origin Glassock

  29. Ritz

  30. Ritz

  31. Leading Causes of LV Muscle and Fibrotic Disease • Hypervolemia • “dry weight” is an “evil doer” • Whatever happened to euvolemia or normalized extracellular volume? • Hypertension • Inflammation (likely caused by hypervolemia) • Cardiac stunning during overly aggressive ultrafiltration because of shortened dialysis

  32. Volume Overload and LVH • In experimental spontaneous hypertension, LV Mass increase is linked to volume expansion and salt intake, not to blood pressure • Salt-loading may increase LV mass through local effects (augmentation of A-II effects and TGFβ) (Varagic J. et al Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 290:Hi503, 2006; Wu HCM, et al Circulation 98:2621, 1998))

  33. Consequences of LVH and cardiac fibrosis • CHF • Difficulty attaining euvolemia with short Rx time • Because of ongoing hypervolemia, it is the leading cause of hospitalizations and death, especially in the first year, but ongoing. • High cause of re-hospitalization • Arrhythmias • Fibrous tissue encircling myocytes with high electrical resistance; local delay of the spreading front of the action potential • Favors “re-entry” type of atrial and ventricular ARRYTHMIAS with high hospitalization and death

  34. LVH and Dialysis mode and Prescription • Conventional 3x/wk dialysis corrects less than 40% of LVH • Observational (cross-sectional) studies show a lowerprevalence of LVH in PD compared to conventional HD patients • Emerging data: More frequent/longer HD sessions: strongly associated with a much lower prevalence, even reversal of LVH compared to conventional HD (Awaiting FHN studies) • It is very difficult to attain euvolemia with the current model of care

  35. What has not worked so farin conventional hemodialysis to resolve cardiovascular disease? • Statins have not been effective • 4D and Aurora • ESA treatment of anemia has not had a salutary effect on mortality • Attempting to attain euvolemia with conventional HD • Traditional outcome assessments oriented towards ASCVD • Sodium modeling and control

  36. LVH in ESRD:Effect of EPO therapy • Seven (7) RCT have been conducted that examine the effect of EPO therapy on LVH in CKD/ESRD • All but one have failed to show any beneficial effect on LVH of EPO therapy and correction of hemoglobin to normal or near normal levels

  37. Harmful Effect of Dialysis(after McIntyre CW, et al CJASN, 4:914,2009) • Myocardial “Stunning” (transient regional wall motion abnormality) develops frequently (65%) during hemodialysis, especially in presence of underlying CHD and/or Diabetes • High UF volumes increase risk • Repeated episodes compromise cardiac function, lead to LV fibrosis and enhance mortality risk

  38. Sodium • Known effects on blood pressure and hypervolemia (inter-dialytic weight gains) • Blood pressure independent target organ damage • Vasculature changes • Minor increases of sodium in CSF or serum increases pressor mechanisms and increases cardiotonic steroids – sodium modeling • And we load our patients with sodium • Hypertonic Saline bolus for hypotension • Saline bolus in the rinse back (hypertonic) and priming • Sodium modeling • Dialysate sodium (hypertonic to usual serum sodium)

  39. A New Paradigm Adding control of LVH to Clinical Performance Guidelines will achieve salutary effects on morbidity and mortality in ESRD therapy

  40. Cardiovascular Disease in ESRD:Boston Conclusions • This is a problem of the left ventricle, not ASCVD • It is a problem of hypervolemia • The new paradigm of ESRD therapy must include modification of LVH as a high priority • Current “conventional” HD regimen is insufficient to fully correct or substantially modify LVH by lowering extracellular volume, BP and correcting fibrosis (despite “adequate” Kt/V), in the majority of patients • Longer/more frequent HD regimens with shorter inter-dialytic intervals very likely improve LVH (and thereby reduce hospitalizations and mortality due to CHF and arrhythmias) - FHN will provide the definitive answer

  41. Boston Meeting Recommendations #2:Cardiovascular (LV) Disease • Forego misapplication of the formulaic (Kt/V) approach to “adequate” dialysis • Greater emphasis on LV disease with Td tied to attainment of normalized ECV (not “dry weight). Td and volume become the new CPMs. • Caution about sodium modeling until safety studies affirm benefit • (Did not recommend more frequent or hugely longer therapies. Though tying therapy to volume removal will likely result in somewhat longer therapies.) • CMS to work with nephrology community in development of objective measures for assessment of volume status that would result in decreased hospitalization costs induced by volume/CHF/LVH/arrhythmias • They just concluded a TEP to do just that

  42. Primary Issues • Infection and AV Access • Cardiovascular Disease • Inflammation • The Dialysis Dose • The First Year

More Related