The risk of arrhythmia and its management become increasingly complex as kidney disease progresses. This presents a multifaceted clinical challenge. Our discussion addresses these specific challenges relevant to patients as their kidney disease advances. We highlight numerous opportunities for enhancing the current standard of care within this realm. Additionally, this review delves into research concerning early detection, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of various arrhythmias spanning the spectrum of kidney disease.

Cardiovascular disease poses a significant threat to individuals with kidney disease, including those affected by acute kidney injury (AKI). In the short term, AKI has several physiological consequences that can impact the cardiovascular system. These include fluid and sodium overload, activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and sympathetic nervous system, and inflammation along with metabolic complications of AKI (acidosis, electrolyte imbalance, buildup of uremic toxins). Recent studies highlight the role of AKI in elevating long-term risks of hypertension, thromboembolism, stroke, and major adverse cardiovascular events, though some of this increased risk may be due to the impact of AKI on the course of chronic kidney disease. Current management strategies involve avoiding nephrotoxic agents, optimizing hemodynamics and fluid balance, and considering renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibition or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. However, future research is imperative to advance preventive and therapeutic strategies for cardiovascular complications in AKI. This review explores the existing knowledge on the cardiovascular consequences of AKI, delving into epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment of various cardiovascular complications following AKI.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is highly prevalent in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). It is associated with an increased risk of stroke, which increases as kidney function declines. In the general population and in those with a moderate degree of CKD (creatinine clearance 30-50 mL/min), the use of oral anticoagulation to decrease the risk of stroke has been the standard of care based on a favorable risk-benefit profile that had been established in seminal randomized controlled trials. However, evidence regarding the use of oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention is less clear in patients with severe CKD (creatinine clearance <30 mL/min) and those receiving maintenance dialysis, as these individuals were excluded from such large randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, the direct oral anticoagulants have invariably usurped vitamin K antagonists as the preferred choice for oral anticoagulation among patients with AF across all strata of CKD based on their well-defined safety and efficacy and multiple pharmacokinetic benefits (e.g., less drug-drug interactions). This review summarizes the current literature on the role of oral anticoagulation in the management of AF among patients with CKD and highlights current deficiencies in the evidence base and how to overcome them.

A growing variety of cardiac devices are available to monitor or support cardiovascular function. The entwined nature of cardiovascular disease and kidney disease makes the relationship of these devices with kidney disease a multifaceted question relating to the use of these devices in individuals with kidney disease and to the effects of the devices and device placement on kidney health. Cardiac devices can be categorized broadly into cardiac implantable electronic devices, structural devices, and circulatory assist devices. Cardiac implantable electronic devices include devices for monitoring and managing cardiac electrical activity and devices for monitoring hemodynamics. Structural devices modify cardiac structure and include valve prostheses, valve repair clips, devices for treating atrial septal abnormalities, left atrial appendage closure devices, and interatrial shunt devices. Circulatory assist devices support the failing heart or support cardiac function during high-risk cardiac procedures. Evidence for the use of these devices in individuals with kidney disease, effects of the devices on kidney health and function, specific considerations with devices in kidney disease, and important knowledge gaps are surveyed in this article. With the growing prevalence of combined cardiorenal disease and the increasing variety of cardiac devices, kidney disease considerations are an important aspect of device therapy.

Despite being the world's top risk factor for death and disability, hypertension awareness and control within the chronic kidney disease (CKD) population have decreased. This is particularly important considering the heightened severity and management challenges of hypertension in CKD patients, whose outcomes are often worse compared with persons with normal kidney function. Therefore, finding novel therapeutics to improve blood pressure control within this vulnerable group is paramount. Although medications that target the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system remain a mainstay for blood pressure control in most stages of CKD, we discuss novel approaches that may expand their use in advanced CKD. We also review newer tools for blood pressure management that have emerged in recent years, including aldosterone synthase inhibitors, endothelin receptor antagonists, and renal denervation. Overall, the future of hypertension management in CKD appears brighter, with a growing arsenal of tools and a deeper understanding of this complex disease.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is highly prevalent, estimated to affect over 800 million people worldwide. Diabetes is a leading cause of kidney disease. Both diabetes and CKD are associated with a high risk of cardiovascular disease and related morbidity and mortality. Over the last several years, there has been a shift in focus toward integrating kidney and cardiovascular care, particularly in diabetes. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists have rapidly become cornerstones of kidney and cardiovascular risk-focused care in diabetes and CKD. However, present-day use of these agents is low, and disparities in use by race, ethnicity, age, sex, and comorbidities are apparent. Challenges in implementation of kidney protective and cardioprotective therapies include low rates of diabetes and CKD screening, lack of provider comfort and subspecialty reliance, inconsistencies across professional society guidelines, high rates of drug discontinuation, and prohibitive costs. Effective implementation of kidney protective and cardioprotective therapies necessitates a multifaceted approach and active engagement of patients, pharmacists, primary care providers, subspecialty providers, and health care system leaders as key stakeholders. Implementation efforts should be practical and incorporate collaborative, multidisciplinary team-based approaches. Successful implementation of kidney protective and cardioprotective therapies has the potential to improve overall health outcomes and ameliorate health care disparities.

Cardiorenal syndrome encompasses a dynamic interplay between cardiovascular and kidney disease, and its prevention requires careful examination of multiple predisposing underlying conditions. The unequal distribution of diabetes, heart failure, hypertension, and kidney disease requires special attention because of the influence of these conditions on cardiorenal disease. Despite growing evidence regarding the benefits of disease-modifying agents (e.g., sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors) for cardiovascular, kidney, and metabolic (CKM) disease, significant disparities remain in access to and utilization of these essential therapeutics. Multilevel barriers impeding their use require multisector interventions that address patient, provider, and health system-tailored strategies. Burgeoning literature also describes the critical role of unequal social determinants of health, or the sociopolitical contexts in which people live and work, in cardiorenal risk factors, including heart failure, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. This review outlines (i) inequality in the burden and treatment of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and heart failure; (ii) disparities in the use of key disease-modifying therapies for CKM diseases; and (iii) multilevel barriers and solutions to achieve greater pharmacoequity in the use of disease-modifying therapies. In addition, this review provides summative evidence regarding the role of unequal social determinants of health in cardiorenal health disparities, further outlining potential considerations for future research and intervention. As proposed in the 2023 American Heart Association presidential advisory on CKM health, a paradigm shift will be needed to achieve cardiorenal health equity. Through a deeper understanding of CKM health and a commitment to equity in the prevention, detection, and treatment of CKM disease, we can achieve this critical goal.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) comprises approximately one-half of all diagnoses of heart failure. There is significant overlap of this clinical syndrome with chronic kidney disease (CKD), with many shared comorbid conditions. The presence of CKD in patients with HFpEF is one of the most powerful risk factors for adverse clinical outcomes, including death and heart failure hospitalization. The pathophysiology linking HFpEF and CKD remains unclear, but it is postulated to consist of numerous bidirectional pathways, including endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, obesity, insulin resistance, and impaired sodium handling. The diagnosis of HFpEF requires certain criteria to be satisfied, including signs and symptoms consistent with volume overload caused by structural or functional cardiac abnormalities and evidence of increased cardiac filling pressures. There are numerous overlapping metabolic clinical syndromes in patients with HFpEF and CKD that can serve as targets for intervention. With an increasing number of therapies available for HFpEF and CKD as well as for obesity and diabetes, improved recognition and diagnosis are paramount for appropriate management and improved clinical outcomes in patients with both HFpEF and CKD.

Kidney transplantation offers recipients superior outcomes and improved quality of life compared with dialysis. However, the need for ongoing immunosuppression places recipients at increased risk of certain forms of cancer. Screening and early detection of precancerous lesions are one of the few proven ways to lower the risk of cancer morbidity and mortality in the transplant population. Women have additional barriers to cancer screening services globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries as well as within certain disadvantaged groups in high-income countries. There is a dearth of published data on screening guidelines and policies on post-transplant malignancy in female recipients. It is vital that health care providers and patients are educated regarding the risks of cancer at all post-transplant stages and that the recommended screening policies are adhered to in order to reduce associated morbidity and mortality in this at-risk group.

Congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract (CAKUT) are the leading cause of kidney failure in children and adolescents. CAKUT describes a wide spectrum of structural disorders with a prenatal origin. The etiology of CAKUT is multifactorial, including environmental, nongenetic, and genetic causes that impact kidney development as well as upper and lower urinary tract development. Adult nephrologists who treat patients with CAKUT may be challenged by the underlying diseases they are not familiar with and the accumulation of chronic kidney disease complications in childhood. This article discusses CAKUT etiology and presentation, the course during childhood and adolescence, as well as adult issues in CAKUT patients including CKD complications, urologic interventions, and genetic counseling. A smooth transition of CAKUT patients from pediatric to adult care can be challenging. Semin Nephrol 43:x-xx © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Kidney services worldwide are increasingly using digital health technologies to deliver care. This includes kidney electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems: ambulatory digital technologies that enable the capture of PRO data electronically from people with kidney disease remotely and in real time to be shared with their kidney care team. Current kidney ePRO systems commonly aim to support the monitoring and management of symptoms in patients with kidney disease. The majority have thus far only been implemented in research settings and are not yet routinely used in clinical practice, leaving their readiness for real-world implementation largely unknown. Compared with paper-based PRO collection, ePRO systems have certain advantages, which we categorize as efficiency benefits (e.g., lower administrative burden), direct patient care benefits (e.g., automated PRO-based patient education), and health system and research benefits (e.g., collecting ePRO data once for multiple purposes). At the same time, kidney ePRO systems come with drawbacks, such as their potential to exacerbate existing inequities in care and outcomes and to negatively affect staff burden and patients' experience of kidney care. Areas that hold promise for expediting the development and uptake of kidney ePRO systems at the local, organizational, and national level include harnessing national kidney registries as enabling infrastructures; using novel data-driven technologies (e.g., computerized adaptive test systems, configurable dashboards); applying implementation science and action research approaches to enhance translation of ePRO research findings into clinical practice; and engaging stakeholders, including patients and carers, health care professionals, policymakers, payers, ePRO experts, technology providers, and organizations that monitor and improve the quality of kidney services.

Patient experience is considered a pillar of high-quality care, integral to patient-centered care, but despite significant policy focus on patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), little is published regarding their development, use, or impact on clinical practice. In nephrology, PREMs are increasingly used in research to capture and quantify patients' perceptions of their experiences with health care services. It has been shown that a negative patient experience impacts patients' physical and psychological health, and a small but significant proportion of patients across a selection of settings report their experiences of health care as poor or suboptimal. Evidence of whether PREMs improve quality of care or support person-centered care in the clinical setting remains largely theoretical. Extensive effort has been invested to develop various PREMs for kidney services. Although little evidence linking PREM collection to meaningful change in delivery of care currently exists, work is underway. Early indications are that with the right facilitators, implementing PREMs in routine practice can help providers recognize where change is needed and galvanize transformation. The journey toward understanding the connection between PREM data and modifiable provider characteristics to target and enable change has started, but further evidence is needed. This article outlines the history of PREMs in nephrology and details their current use alongside implementation challenges. The use and benefits of PREMs are discussed before considering the evidence base for their impact on renal health care. Possible next steps for PREMs are suggested and best practices highlighted.

The increasing burden of chronic kidney disease (CKD) on the health care system highlights the need to prioritize services and manage the use of resources efficiently. Amid these financial constraints, key decision makers must weigh the impact of an intervention or program on health care expenditure when determining the allocation of limited resources. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are relevant in health economic decision-making within nephrology. Health-related quality of life, a patient-reported outcome, can provide data that inform economic evaluations of treatments for patients with CKD. PROMs help determine the value of different therapies by assessing their impact on patients' daily lives beyond clinical outcomes and can help policymakers make decisions about funding and reimbursement that consider the priorities and preferences of patients. Economic evaluations often employ cost-utility analyses, which use quality-adjusted life years as a key metric. Quality-adjusted life years combine both the quality and quantity of life lived, allowing for comparison of the effectiveness of different interventions in a standardized manner. By integrating utilities derived from PROMs, these analyses quantify the benefits of CKD treatments in terms of how patients feel and function. Furthermore, PROMs contribute to quality improvement initiatives by identifying areas where patient care can be enhanced, guiding the implementation of programs that improve health-related quality of life while maintaining cost-effectiveness. In value-based financing environments, the integration of PROMs ensures that patient-centered outcomes are prioritized, leading to more effective and equitable health care delivery. In this article, we discuss the role of PROMs in economic evaluations in CKD and provide an overview of approaches for using PROMs in economic evaluations to inform decision-making in nephrology.

Incorporating the patient's perspective into the entire product life cycle of medical device development is paramount for ensuring patient-centric evaluation. By prioritizing patient-centric evaluation, medical device developers can better address patient needs and enhance the quality and effectiveness of health care solutions. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), patient preference information (PPI), and qualitative inquiry are methodologies to incorporate and amplify the patient's voice. In nephrology, unlike in other clinical domains, the utilization of PROs, PPI, and qualitative inquiry in medical device development has been notably sparse. Consequently, a glaring absence of patient involvement in the development of devices leaves the impact of these devices on patient well-being and functionality largely unexplored. Many forward-thinking programs as well as Food and Drug Administration guidance on the use of PROs and PPI are effectively bringing PROs into nephrology device development. Many resources exist to help researchers select high-quality PROs. There are unique considerations for using PROs and PPI to support regulatory decision-making, including fit-for-purpose, concepts of interest, context of use, and least burdensome selection. The rapid evolution of patient-centric initiatives in nephrology will serve to ensure that medical devices meet the needs of people with kidney disease and improve the quality of care.

Risk, prevalence, management, and outcomes in chronic kidney disease (CKD) are influenced by social and broader determinants of health. Consequently, there are wide-ranging kidney health inequities. As patients are key stakeholders, their perspectives on the care they receive and on health status are central in guiding health system improvement, particularly to reduce the impact of disadvantage. Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important self-report tools in quality improvement, acting to guide initatives aimed at enhancing access to timely and relevant support. However, the extent to which PREMs and PROMs address the reduction of kidney health inequities is unclear. The aim of this review is to summarize how PREMs and PROMs are designed and implemented, highlighting key dimensions that are integral to health equity-oriented quality improvement in kidney care. There are several problems yet to be overcome so that such tools do not unintentionally reproduce kidney health gaps. Inclusive generation of the scope of tools, transparent reporting on attributes of patients who engage, and embedding PREMs and PROMs within a framework of value-based quality improvement is fundamental to their impact as part of equitable health system transformation.

Social functioning is a key aspect of daily life and is important to patients living with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and their caregivers. Many patients with CKD experience debilitating symptoms and treatment burden that can diminish their social functioning and thereby overall social health, which is the aspect of a person's well-being relating to their interactions and connections with others. In patients with CKD, symptoms (e.g., fatigue and pain), burden of ongoing treatments (including kidney replacement therapies), and medication side effects can impair social functioning. Having to manage responsibilities of self-management, which can include time-consuming and invasive treatments such as dialysis, can severely limit social functioning in patients with CKD. This can lead to poor social connections at many levels, including with family, friends, peers, and colleagues, and can hinder the development of new relationships. Patients with CKD with poorer social functioning have been reported to have worse quality of life and impaired mental health. Many patients with CKD rely on an informal caregiver-usually a family member or friend-to assist with management of their disease. This can place strain on the caregiver, further limiting opportunities for social connections for both the patient and caregiver. Although social functioning is critical for the overall well-being of patients with CKD, it remains underaddressed clinically, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess social functioning are limited. The objective of this article is to define social functioning, discuss the impacts of social functioning in patients with CKD and their caregivers, outline PROMs that have included assessment of social functioning, and discuss considerations in developing an appropriate PROM to measure social functioning in patients with CKD. This may help to inform the evaluation of interventions and care regarding social functioning within the CKD population.

Many people across the spectrum of chronic kidney disease (CKD) experience a large symptom burden. Measuring symptoms can be a way of responding to the concerns of patients and their priorities of care and may help to improve overall outcomes, including health-related quality of life. The objective of this article is to discuss approaches to measuring symptoms across the spectrum of CKD and to highlight strategies to facilitate the incorporation of routine symptom assessment into kidney care. Specifically, we discuss the use of validated patient-reported outcome measures in CKD as they relate to measuring symptoms, including their benefits and limitations, and describe commonly used patient-reported outcome measures. We discuss potential barriers that should be considered when contemplating the development of a program to routinely measure and address symptoms. Finally, we outline a systematic, stepwise approach to measuring symptoms with implementation strategies to address the common barriers. Although the principles outlined in this article can be applied to research and audit, the principal focus is on symptom measurement aimed at informing clinical practice and directly improving patient outcomes.

Person-centered care is a system of care delivery that supports effective patient-clinician communication and empowers patients to partner with their clinical providers to develop goal-concordant treatment plans. Models of person-centered care often involve the implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to measure patients' symptoms and quality of life as they navigate complex chronic health conditions. Models of person-centered care have been particularly effective in improving the quality of care delivery for older adults as well as younger adults with aging-associated conditions such as physical function decline. Though PROs have been developed and validated in kidney disease, they are not routinely implemented in clinical practice. Most individuals with kidney disease are 65 and older, but many younger individuals with kidney disease also experience aging-associated conditions earlier than in the general population. Thus, PROs represent an important tool for achieving person-centered care in groups with kidney disease who are the most vulnerable to adverse health outcomes and excess health care utilization. In this article, we aim to move toward more routine implementation of PROs in kidney care for aging adults. To identify the most clinically relevant PROs for this group and understand the ideal mode and context in which to implement PROs, we will (1) provide an evidence-based summary of PROs with the greatest prognostic significance in the general population and in kidney disease, including those specific to older adults; (2) describe barriers to the implementation of PROs in kidney care with a special focus on the needs of older adults and younger adults with aging-associated conditions; and (3) conclude with our evidence-based recommendations for the content, time, and context in which PROs should be implemented to achieve person-centered kidney care for aging adults.

The outcomes reported in trials across all stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD) are highly variable and often do not include outcomes that are directly relevant to patients and caregivers. Frequently, the outcomes reported in trials are often unvalidated surrogate biochemical end points. The omission of outcomes that are meaningful and important to patients can diminish the value of trials in supporting treatment decisions. In response, there have been increasing efforts across many health and medical disciplines to develop core outcome sets, defined as the minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all trials in a specific health area to improve the relevance and consistency of reporting trial outcomes. The international Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) initiative was established in 2014 and has since developed seven core outcome sets for different diagnosis and treatment stages of CKD. The core outcomes were based on consensus among patients, caregivers, and health professionals. Each core outcome set includes at least one patient-reported outcome, including fatigue (hemodialysis), life participation (kidney transplantation, peritoneal dialysis, early CKD not yet requiring kidney replacement therapy, children and adolescents, and glomerular disease), and pain (polycystic kidney disease). This article outlines how patient-reported outcomes are currently reported in trials, discusses core patient-reported outcomes that have been established for trials in kidney disease, and outlines strategies for implementing core patient-reported outcomes in trials.