Suboptimal Initiation of Home Hemodialysis: Determinants and Clinical Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Suboptimal initiation of conventional hemodialysis is associated with poor clinical outcomes. In this study, we aimed to ascertain the determinants and adverse events associated with suboptimal starts in home hemodialysis (HHD). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study including consecutive incident HHD patients from January 1996 to December 2011. All patients had HHD as their first renal replacement therapy or returned to HHD after kidney transplantation. A suboptimal start was defined by dialysis initiation as an inpatient or with a central venous catheter. The primary outcome was time to first hospitalization, technique failure or death. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization rate, hospital days and determinants of suboptimal starts. Suboptimal starts were further categorized as unavoidable as adjudicated by two independent observers with prespecified criteria. RESULTS: Among 95 incident HHD patients, 44 (46%) and 51 (54%) had optimal and suboptimal starts, respectively. A suboptimal start was associated with a shorter time to the primary outcome (log-rank p < 0.001). In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, the hazard ratio for the composite outcome (comparing suboptimal to optimal starts) was 2.94 (95% confidence interval, CI, 1.49-5.78, p = 0.002). Transplantation clinic follow-up (OR 3.18, 95% CI 1.15-8.79) and the Charlson comorbidity index (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.09-1.97) were associated with higher odds of suboptimal start. CONCLUSION: Suboptimal initiation of HHD is associated with adverse clinical events including early hospitalization. Given the high proportion of suboptimal starts in patients returning from transplantation, better incorporation of dialysis planning and renal replacement therapy education is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".