Daily nocturnal hemo as helpful for transplant

Hi everyone. It’s been a while since I last visited Home Dialysis Central forums. I never left the forum as such or had any specific intention of “leaving”, but time flies when you are doing other things and dialysis isn’t a daily presence in your life anymore. As you may remember, I finally got a kidney last year (Aug. 2006) after 4 years on hemodialysis (2-1/2 on conventional hemo at the centre, and 1-1/2 on daily nocturnal hemo at home (with some short daily mixed in now and then).

The transplant has gone well so far. As they say, it’s a treatment not a cure, and it’s not without its own problems. The kidney itself (from a deceased donor) is working great. No problems at all as far as that goes, no need for EPO, no need for BP meds, no need for anything special in terms of diet, etc. No rejection episodes of any kind. I had extremely severe diarrhea problems, apparently caused by Cellcept, during the first 3-4 months, but that eventually subsided on its own. An ongoing problem all year has been a low white blood cell count (neutrophils especially). This too has apparently been caused by Cellcept. My dose was stopped a few times, and dosage was lowered and then re-instated several times. Right now, wbc count seems to be stable on a slightly lower than common maintenance dose of Cellcept. But, it has been unpredictable before, and so, you just never know. I was hospitalized for it a few weeks ago, but only for 3 days.

Well, that’s it for the update, and now for the subject of my post today…

Almost every day someone says to me, “You must feel so much better now”. It’s a question I can never really answer properly without going into a lot of detail that few people are interested in hearing. Truthfully, I have to say that with the transplant, I don’t feel that much better than I did when I was on daily nocturnal hemo. It’s a giant step better than 3 times per week hemo at a dialysis centre, but I’ve found that it’s not that much better than daily nocturnal. Now, I’m talking only by overall health, not about all the extra free time. We all know that home hemo takes up a lot of time in several ways. It’ good dialysis, great dialysis even, but it is time consuming, and it does require a lot of motivation and responsibility.

I was one of those people who was severely affected by low kidney function. My previous athlete-level fitness gradually descended into the worse possible exercise intolerance. I was plagued with extreme fatigue and shortness of breath at the slightest exertion (having chronic asthma and exercise-induced asthma didn’t help). Conventional in-centre hemo didn’t really help much with that. I was able to walk my dog a few blocks at best, on a good smog-free day (not too many of those in the typical little backwater Ottawa summer anymore) – but that was about it. My nice racing bicycle, acquired a few years before I started dialysis, mostly just sat unused. I rode it on good days for maybe 15-20 minutes at a very mild pace. I walked a bit, as I said, but I started being plagued by pain in my feet.

Once I started on daily nocturnal, things started to improve, and, I feel that daily hemo kept me healthier until I finally got the call for a transplant. I started being able to walk and ride my bike farther and farther. It wasn’t dramatic at first, but it was definitely noticeable. But as time went by, this improved more and more. I just had more strength and more endurance.

Now, I don’t know to what extent it would have continued to improve over time if I had not gotten the transplant when I did, but at the very least, I credit daily nocturnal hemo with giving me a headstart that I was able to continue and improve on after the transplant. Over the past spring and summer, I managed to build myself up until by mid-summer, I was easily able to ride my bike for an hour or more each and every day. I sometimes went longer, and I rode as far as 30 km a few times. This would have been totally unthinkable before. On days when I didn’t ride, I walked, for more than an hour at a time (the transplant clinic here likes to see its patients exercise an hour a day if possible). And I don’t mean leisurely walks and bike rides either. I’ve been able to do justice to my racing bike by riding it as a pretty good clip, something that I was never able to do even before I started dialysis. It was for me, the most insanely great summer I’ve had in a decade or more. My level of exercise may not seem like that much to some, but it’s not too shabby for a 54 year old after 4 years of hemodialysis, not to mention 25 years of chronic renal insufficiency before that, 20 years of high blood pressure, and asthma on top of it. To me, it’s almost unbelievable.

As far as general health goes, as I said, I don’t find there’s a tremendous difference between daily nocturnal hemo and a kidney transplant, at least not for me. I wouldn’t give up the transplant, of course, but daily nocturnal was pretty good. If anything, I’ve required way more medical attention since the transplant. On a daily basis, while not actually connected to the machine, I assure you that I felt as good then as I do now with the transplant. This leads me to say that at least for me, there’s no doubt whatsoever in my mind that daily nocturnal hemodialysis is a good substitute for a kidney transplant if you have to be on dialysis (as long as you don’t mind sleeping hooked up to a dialysis machine 5-6 nights per week, and managing your supplies, etc.).

One thing I never expected though, was to have 2 different cancer scares so soon after the transplant. I mean, they warn you plenty about the risks when you are being evaluated as a potential transplant recipient, but you don’t really expect it except maybe in some distant future. I developed some strange-looking skin lesions which the nephrologists thought might be skin cancer, but a referral to the dermatologist determined it is a kind of psoriasis (never had it before though). The second time is still ongoing: suspected prostate cancer. So far, I’ve seen 2 urologists. First one I was sent to by my family doctor after a positive PSA test, and the second one I was sent to by the first urologist after a second even more positive PSA test. Because I’m a transplant patient, I had to be referred back to the hospital’s urology department, and in fact, the very same urologist who performed my kidney tranplant. At this point, I’m awaiting the actual biopsy.

I also wanted to mention something about my old lifeline, the fistula. Yes, I still have it, and it’s still exactly the same as it was on my last night of dialysis. Only difference is that there are now 3 little dot-like bumps where my buttonholes were. They remove the fistula if it’s causing problems, but so far so good. I was sent to see the vascular surgeon about it last July, and both he and the highly-experienced vascular nurse (she is really THE fistula expert here) suggested that it might be a good idea to keep it as long as it’s working. I think I fully agree, because I still think of it as my security blanket. Not that anyone expects this to happen, but all of us with a transplant know that a return to dialysis is always a possibility, and it’s unpredictable. Should that happen, with my fistula the way it is now, I just go back on it and carry on as before (although it might not be on home hemo, at least not for a while since there’s a waiting list). It would be a lot worse if I had to go back on dialysis via a catheter (I’ve never had one, by the way, but I’ve been around plenty of other hemo patients who were forced to use one).

If you are still waiting, patience, you just never know when the phone will ring and it will be a nurse from the hospital telling you they have a kidney for you. I never fail to highly recommend daily nocturnal hemo at every opportunity. As far as dialysis goes, it’s unbeatable, and I don’t care that there are no controlled trials to prove it. The improvements for me once I switched to daily nocturnal were so dramatic that there’s no way it was just chance.

A very special hello to Beachy, whom I had occasion to correspond with a few times over the past year.

Hey, what are you guys doing now that you can’t argue the benefits of Aksys vs NxStage every day? :slight_smile:

Too bad about Aksys. I was on a Fresenius Baby K myself (the pre-dumbing down model, identical to the dialysis centre ones, except not as tall), but I always thought Aksys would be a good choice.

Fantastic to hear from you Pierre. Great update. I was thinking of you the other day and hoping that it was a no news is good news situation.

Now if Country Girl aka Marty would check in …

Hi Folks
Pierre
I could not be happier for you SIR. It was you Pierre that talked me into nocturnal. I’m now doing nocturnal 6 nights a week . It still a pain in the a_ _ doing the inventory finding space etc. But the nxstage with the pure flow has been a big help and doing it at night while I sleep , I can say that I’m doing two things at once without getting in trouble.

I will think you and hope that You have the Best with the new kidney. Reading your story has now given me second thought on transplant. I will have to talk with my urologist to get his take on it.
Please chip in from time to time. We need a person like you here to keep us honest. LOL
bob obrien

Bill,
I can not tell you that Marty’s dad passed away this past spring. I call her occasionally. I asked her if she wanted to let everyone know about her dad. She said no only if they asked.
Twards the end her dad had other problems ( I believe cancer) and he finally just wanted to give up.
She took care of her dad for many years giving up her business.
She has been very busy working on her house. Her mom misses her dad but is doing well.
The next time I call her I will tell her you were asking for her.
Pat

Hi there Pierre

Lovely to hear from you and what a great post. You always did have a way with words (by the way the book of patient stories you and Bill and Bear have so kindly contributed to is FINALLY at the printers yay!) As Bob said, your posts were very instrumental in how I too survived those first months on Nocturnal dialysis and you have a special place in my heart.

Glad to hear you are still doing well (all things considered) Keep knocking up those miles on the bike!

All the very best to you.

Thank you Pierre, for the honest comments about your transplant.

Great to hear from you, Pierre, and thanks so much for your detailed report on how life is the same/different with a transplant vs. daily nocturnal HD. As far as the low white blood cell count, besides EPOGEN for anemia, Amgen makes a drug called Neupogen (filgrastim) for exactly this purpose. It ain’t cheap, I suspect, but it’s probably less costly than a 3-day hospitalization. You might ask your doctor if this is something you can get in Canada: http://www.neupogen.com/pi.html#top_ppi

[quote=Pierre;15065]Hi everyone. It’s been a while since I last visited Home Dialysis Central forums. I never left the forum as such or had any specific intention of “leaving”, but time flies when you are doing other things and dialysis isn’t a daily presence in your life anymore. As you may remember, I finally got a kidney last year (Aug. 2006) after 4 years on hemodialysis (2-1/2 on conventional hemo at the centre, and 1-1/2 on daily nocturnal hemo at home (with some short daily mixed in now and then).

Hi Pierre:

Thank you so very much for the honest comments. I just got on the list again not without great personal debate. My last two transplants failed immediately due to FSGS.

The one thing that I find that tips the scales in favor of the transplant is long term outcome. I understand there are various long term risks associated with transplant medications, but in a straight comparison, removing cancer risks, I believe transplant in general provides a better long term outcome than dilailysis over the same period of time. I noticed you didn’t metion anythng about long term outcomes in your comments. Granted perhaps you can’t say anything until many years from now, but I am curious as to whether the thought of a better long term outcome played a role in your decision to get a transplant.

I appreciate any thoughts you have on this issue. Erich

[quote=TheRiverdude;15109]

The one thing that I find that tips the scales in favor of the transplant is long term outcome. I understand there are various long term risks associated with transplant medications, but in a straight comparison, removing cancer risks, I believe transplant in general provides a better long term outcome than dilailysis over the same period of time. I noticed you didn’t metion anythng about long term outcomes in your comments. Granted perhaps you can’t say anything until many years from now, but I am curious as to whether the thought of a better long term outcome played a role in your decision to get a transplant.

I appreciate any thoughts you have on this issue. Erich[/quote]

Who has tested this theory? What is the longest anyone has used more frequent 8 hour dialysis? Even in Tassin where they have had the best clinical outcomes since the '70 all anyone has done is three day a week regimes and possibly every other day 8 hour regimes.

The person who will set the record for being on dialysis the longest is probably on dialysis. The record has yet to be set.

Bill, that was exactly my thought, too. Well, more specifically, 1). How can you discount the pretty substantial cancer risks, and 2). The survival comparisons are based on standard, in-center HD and PD–not on longer and/or more frequent dialysis. I remember when I first heard about nocturnal–one of the things that really stood out in my mind was folks taking themselves off of the transplant list because they felt as well as they did with a transplant, but without all of the costly and sometimes hazardous drugs.

I’m not saying don’t get a transplant – just that the calculus of which is “better” isn’t so clear any more. And, of course, the transplant drug regimens are getting better, too. What could be more ironic than cyclosporin making transplants possible–and also damaging the kidneys?

[quote=Dori Schatell;15112]Bill, that was exactly my thought, too. Well, more specifically, 1). How can you discount the pretty substantial cancer risks, and 2). The survival comparisons are based on standard, in-center HD and PD–not on longer and/or more frequent dialysis. I remember when I first heard about nocturnal–one of the things that really stood out in my mind was folks taking themselves off of the transplant list because they felt as well as they did with a transplant, but without all of the costly and sometimes hazardous drugs.

I’m not saying don’t get a transplant – just that the calculus of which is “better” isn’t so clear any more. And, of course, the transplant drug regimens are getting better, too. What could be more ironic than cyclosporin making transplants possible–and also damaging the kidneys?[/quote]

Of course, if I posted my question to a transplant listserve I would undoubtedly get equally challenging remarks pointing to heart disease, bone disease, neuropathy. X-rays show calcification in my arteries now. That can’t be good, right? Would calcification be occurring with a transplant - probably not. I agree Dori, it is not any easy decision to make - to transplant or to dialyze - which will take me to my three year old daughter’s wedding?

Bill, what are the rates of cancer occurrence for people who have kidney transplants? The risk modeler in me can envision a complex risk model involving all these what ifs scenario, but in the end it will just be my simple brain taking in all the information and then throwing a virtual pair of dice.

Erich

[quote=TheRiverdude;15113]Of course, if I posted my question to a transplant listserve I would undoubtedly get equally challenging remarks pointing to heart disease, bone disease, neuropathy. X-rays show calcification in my arteries now. That can’t be good, right? Would calcification be occurring with a transplant - probably not. I agree Dori, it is not any easy decision to make - to transplant or to dialyze - which will take me to my three year old daughter’s wedding?

Bill, what are the rates of cancer occurrence for people who have kidney transplants? The risk modeler in me can envision a complex risk model involving all these what ifs scenario, but in the end it will just be my simple brain taking in all the information and then throwing a virtual pair of dice.

Erich[/quote]

Erich sorry to hear you’re showing signs of calcification. However, we’re talking about different things here. Pierre’s comparison modality and the studies that have been done are about daily 8 hour treatments at standard dialysate flow rates with stand artificial kidneys. The data about daily short dialysis on standard equipment at standard flow rates is thinner. Data about long term consequences of daily dialysis using the System One parameters is non-existent of course since the longest anyone has used the System One is 3 years.

Risk models can be displayed asbell shaped curves, the pointier/narrower the curve the more predictable the out come - the smaller the deviation from the mean. I would say that daily nocturnal has a pointy/narrow curve in relation to transplant. In other words transplant has more unpredictable outcomes. The question you want answered is what is the mean outcome of transplant v your dialysis modality. I don’t think this is knowable but those curves do exist in theory.

I’m pretty sure that eight hour daily treatments using standard flow rates and standard artificial kidneys has the best clinical outcomes available through hemodialysis. Other dialysis modalities/schedules are compromises against that standard.

As far as seeing your daughter getting married in 20 or so years, there is reason to believe that dialysis can get you there, the data on third FSGS transplants is less clear.

Dori please fix this if i haven’t done the quote correctly.

mel the one fingered typist…

Found this article on Nephrology News online

"HIV/AIDS and kidney transplant patients are at much greater risk of
contracting 20 different types of cancer than the general population,
according to a land mark paper in The Lancet.

The research, which is led by Professor Andrew Grulich from the
University of New South Wales’ National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and
Clinical Research (NCHECR), suggests that immune deficiency – which
is common to the two groups – is responsible for the increased risk.

The paper is the first in the world to compare cancer rates between
the populations.

HIV/AIDS patients are 11 times more likely to develop Hodgkin’s
lymphoma – a cancer associated with Epstein Barr Virus - while there
is almost four times the risk for those who have a transplant.

There are a number of cancers associated with human papilloma virus,
from cervical cancer to cancers of the mouth, penis and anus. In both
these populations, all of these cancers were significantly increased.

“The only thing that people with AIDS and transplant recipients share
is immune deficiency, otherwise their risk factors for cancer differ
markedly,” said the lead author, Professor Grulich, of the paper,
which has been selected for editorial comment in the journal.

“In other cancers, which are not linked with viruses, such as breast
and prostate cancer, both groups had similar rates to the general
population,” he said.

“Until now, the accepted wisdom was that there were only three cancers
associated with HIV – this paper finds that it is more like 20.”

One of those three cancers which was already known to be linked with
HIV is Kaposi’s sarcoma. In that population, there is a 3,640-fold
increased likelihood for patients to develop the disease. This
research shows that there is also a marked increase in transplant
patients – they are 208 times more likely to develop the cancer than
the general population.

Professor Grulich suggests the results could have implications for the
way HIV/AIDS patients are treated.

“This evidence suggests that immune deficiency is associated with risk
of cancer and this suggests we need to maintain people’s immune
systems at a higher level – and that might mean putting HIV patients
on anti-retroviral drugs earlier than is currently the case,” he said.

The researchers now plan to look at cancer rates of those with
congenital immune deficiency and people who have received other
transplanted organs’.

Thanks for your greetings everyone.

Very sorry to hear about Marty’s dad.

Thanks for suggesting Neupogen, Dori. I actually was given an injection of Neupogen at the hospital. I had never heard of it before then. My neutrophil count has remained stable enough since, so I guess it worked for now.

About long term outcome of daily nocturnal hemo vs transplant, I don’t think anyone can say. There are so many variables. Who knows? Me, I never seriously considered not being on the transplant waiting list after my initial potential live donor didn’t pan out. Sure, I did entertain thoughts about it, but I never even came close to deciding dialysis would be it for me.

I don’t think in terms of dialysis vs transplant. I think more like this: I have renal failure, and chances are that over time, I will have a combination of dialysis and transplant. Dialysis keeps me alive when I don’t have a transplant, and a transplant improves lifestyle while I have it. Neither is really a guarantee of any kind of longevity. Either way, I do what they tell me, watch what they tell me to watch, and I try to keep as fit as possible. Being more fit allows me to enjoy my life more.

The advantage of having a transplant is that I just feel more free on a day-to-day basis. Those meds are not that bad, really. But unlike the propaganda says, I don’t think a transplant is a panacea. It’s a treatment, and it has its own set of problems. Right now, I prefer those problems to the ones that belong to dialysis.