Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Hemodial Int. 2019 Nov 7. doi: 10.1111/hdi.12795. [Epub ahead of print]

Safety and efficacy of the Tablo hemodialysis system for in-center and home hemodialysis.

Author information

1
University of Nebraska, Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
2
Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Palo Alto, California, USA.
3
Kansas Nephrology Research Institute, Wichita, Kansas, USA.
4
Nephrology Associates Medical Group, Riverside, California, USA.
5
Fresenius Kidney Care Pioneer Valley Dialysis, West Springfield, Massachusetts, USA.
6
Southwest Georgia Nephrology Clinic, Albany, Georgia, USA.
7
Satellite Healthcare, Mountain View, California, USA.
8
University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
9
Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA.
10
Clinical Development, Outset Medical, San Jose, California, USA.
11
DaVita Grapevine at Home, Grapevine, Texas, USA.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

Home hemodialysis remains underutilized despite observational data indicating more favorable outcomes with home compared with in-center hemodialysis. The Tablo Hemodialysis system is designed to be easy to learn and use and to facilitate adoption of home hemodialysis. The objective of the current investigational device exemption (IDE) study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Tablo managed in-center by health care professionals and in-home by patients and/or caregivers.

METHODS:

A prospective, multicenter, open-label, crossover trial comparing in-center and in-home hemodialysis using Tablo. There were 4 treatment periods during which hemodialysis was prescribed 4 times per week: 1-week Run-In, 8-week In-Center, 4-week Transition, and 8-week In-Home. The primary efficacy endpoint was weekly standard Kt/Vurea  ≥ 2.1. The secondary efficacy endpoint was delivery of ultrafiltration (UF) within 10% of prescribed UF. We collected safety and usability data.

FINDINGS:

Thirty participants enrolled and 28 completed all trial periods. Adherence to the protocol requirement of 4 treatments per week was 96% in-center and 99% in-home. The average prescribed and delivered session lengths were 3.4 hours for both the In-Center and the In-Home periods. The primary efficacy endpoint for the intention-to-treat cohort was achieved in 199/200 (99.5%) of measurements during the In-Center period and 168/171 (98.3%) In-Home. The average weekly standard Kt/Vurea was 2.8 in both periods. The secondary efficacy UF endpoint was achieved in the ITT cohort in 94% in both in-center and in-home. Two prespecified adverse events (AEs) occurred during the In-Center period and 6 in the In-Home period. None of the AEs were deemed by investigators as related to Tablo. The median resolution time of alarms was 8 seconds in-center and 5 seconds in-home.

CONCLUSION:

Primary and secondary efficacy and safety endpoints were achieved during both In-Center and In-Home trial periods. This study confirms that Tablo is safe and effective for home hemodialysis use.

KEYWORDS:

Adequacy of dialysis; hemodialysis; hemodialysis delivery systems; home; kinetics; volume control

PMID:
31697042
DOI:
10.1111/hdi.12795

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley
Loading ...
Support Center