BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected health care systems and dialysis access care in the US and across the globe. Beyond the initial challenges posed by the pandemic and despite the actions taken by health care leaders/organizations/professional societies such as the Maintaining Lifelines for ESKD Patients joint statement, there continues to be delays in providing timely care and performing elective and emergent dialysis access procedures worldwide. The aim of this study was to assess the global challenges associated with providing dialysis vascular access care across the international vascular access community during the pandemic. METHODS: The American Society of Diagnostic and Interventional Nephrology (ASDIN) conducted an online survey in 2021, that was administered to an expert panel of dialysis vascular access specialists and global leaders spanning across the international community. The respondents who are members of ASDIN, Association of Vascular Access and InTerventionAl Renal physicians (AVATAR), Asia Pacific Society of Dialysis Access (APSDA), Peruvian Vascular Access Society (APDAV), and Australia/New Zealand Society of Interventional Nephrology (ANZSIN) reported their experiences in the care of dialysis vascular access, practice patterns, and challenges faced during the COVID pandemic. RESULTS: Of the 53 individual surveys sent, 16 were opened and 11 (69%) responses were received from across the world and from different practice settings. The survey revealed the continued challenges facing the international community, the stark disparities in care delivery, supply chain disruption and logistical, regulatory, and financial issues that the global community continues to face in the ongoing pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID19 pandemic is far from over, and the challenges and barriers to providing dialysis access care seen on the initial ASDIN survey in the US seem to extend across the globe. We describe those results and discuss options, opportunities, and innovative tools to provide dialysis and access care during these trying times.

Purpose of review

Advanced kidney failure requiring dialysis, commonly labeled end-stage kidney disease or chronic kidney disease stage 5D, is a heterogeneous syndrome -a key reason that may explain why: treating advanced kidney dysfunction is challenging and many clinical trials involving patients on dialysis have failed, thus far. Treatment with dialytic techniques - of which maintenance thrice-weekly hemodialysis is most commonly used - is broadly named kidney 'replacement' therapy, a term that casts the perception of a priori abandonment of intrinsic kidney function and subsumes patients into a single, homogeneous group.

Recent findings

Patients with advanced kidney failure necessitating dialytic therapy may have ongoing endogenous kidney function, and differ in their clinical manifestations and needs. Different terminology, for example, kidney dysfunction requiring dialysis (KDRD) with stages of progressive severity could better capture the range of phenotypes of patients who require kidney 'assistance' therapy.

Summary

Classifying patients with KDRD based on objective, quantitative levels of endogenous kidney function, as well as patient-reported symptoms and quality of life, would facilitate hemodialysis prescriptions tailored to level of kidney dysfunction, clinical needs, and personal priorities. Such classification would encourage clinicians to move toward personalized, physiological, and adaptive approach to hemodialysis therapy.

Each year approximately 13,000 Veterans transition to maintenance dialysis, mostly in the traditional form of thrice-weekly hemodialysis from the start. Among >6000 dialysis units nationwide, there are currently approximately 70 Veterans Affairs (VA) dialysis centers. Given this number of VA dialysis centers and their limited capacity, only 10% of all incident dialysis Veterans initiate treatment in a VA center. Evidence suggests that, among Veterans, the receipt of care within the VA system is associated with favorable outcomes, potentially because of the enhanced access to healthcare resources. Data from the United States Renal Data System Special Study Center "Transition-of-Care-in-CKD" suggest that Veterans who receive dialysis in a VA unit exhibit greater survival compared with the non-VA centers. Substantial financial expenditures arise from the high volume of outsourced care and higher dialysis reimbursement paid by the VA than by Medicare to outsourced providers. Given the exceedingly high mortality and abrupt decline in residual kidney function (RKF) in the first dialysis year, it is possible that incremental transition to dialysis through an initial twice-weekly hemodialysis regimen might preserve RKF, prolong vascular access longevity, improve patients' quality of life, and be a more patient-centered approach, more consistent with "personalized" dialysis. Broad implementation of incremental dialysis might also result in more Veterans receiving care within a VA dialysis unit. Controlled trials are needed to examine the safety and efficacy of incremental hemodialysis in Veterans and other populations; the administrative and health care as well as provider structure within the VA system would facilitate the performance of such trials.

The global nephrology community recognizes the need for a cohesive strategy to address the growing problem of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). In March 2018, the International Society of Nephrology hosted a summit on integrated ESKD care, including 92 individuals from around the globe with diverse expertise and professional backgrounds. The attendees were from 41 countries, including 16 participants from 11 low- and lower-middle-income countries. The purpose was to develop a strategic plan to improve worldwide access to integrated ESKD care, by identifying and prioritizing key activities across 8 themes: (i) estimates of ESKD burden and treatment coverage, (ii) advocacy, (iii) education and training/workforce, (iv) financing/funding models, (v) ethics, (vi) dialysis, (vii) transplantation, and (viii) conservative care. Action plans with prioritized lists of goals, activities, and key deliverables, and an overarching performance framework were developed for each theme. Examples of these key deliverables include improved data availability, integration of core registry measures and analysis to inform development of health care policy; a framework for advocacy; improved and continued stakeholder engagement; improved workforce training; equitable, efficient, and cost-effective funding models; greater understanding and greater application of ethical principles in practice and policy; definition and application of standards for safe and sustainable dialysis treatment and a set of measurable quality parameters; and integration of dialysis, transplantation, and comprehensive conservative care as ESKD treatment options within the context of overall health priorities. Intended users of the action plans include clinicians, patients and their families, scientists, industry partners, government decision makers, and advocacy organizations. Implementation of this integrated and comprehensive plan is intended to improve quality and access to care and thereby reduce serious health-related suffering of adults and children affected by ESKD worldwide.

There are an estimated 14,000 randomized trials published in chronic kidney disease. The most frequently reported outcomes are biochemical endpoints, rather than clinical and patient-reported outcomes including cardiovascular disease, mortality, and quality of life. While many trials have focused on optimizing kidney health, the heterogeneity and uncertain relevance of outcomes reported across trials may limit their policy and practice impact. The international Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) Initiative was formed to identify core outcomes that are critically important to patients and health professionals, to be reported consistently across trials. We convened a SONG Implementation Workshop to discuss the implementation of core outcomes. Eighty-two patients/caregivers and health professionals participated in plenary and breakout discussions. In this report, we summarize the findings of the workshop in two main themes: socializing the concept of core outcomes, and demonstrating feasibility and usability. We outline implementation strategies and pathways to be established through partnership with stakeholders, which may bolster acceptance and reporting of core outcomes in trials, and encourage their use by end-users such as guideline producers and policymakers to help improve patient-important outcomes.