Seminars in Dialysis最新文献

Main problem: We aim to look at potential gaps in current dialysis literature on inequities and explore future research that could contribute to more equitable care.

Methods: Following guidelines from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), we conducted a scoping review of health inequities in dialysis. PubMed and Ovid Embase were searched in July 2022 for articles published between 2016 and 2022 that examined at least one of the following NIH defined health inequities: race/ethnicity, sex/gender, LGBTQ+ identity, underserved rural populations, education level, income, and occupation status. Frequencies of each health inequity as well as trends over time of the four most examined inequities were analyzed.

Results: In our sample of 69 included studies, gaps were identified in LGBTQ+ identity and patient education. Inequities pertaining to race/ethnicity, sex/gender, underserved rural populations, and income were sufficiently reported. No trends between inequities investigated over time were identified.

Conclusions: Our scoping review examined current literature on health inequities pertaining to dialysis and found gaps concerning LGBTQ+ and patients with lower levels of education. To help fill these gaps, and possibly alleviate additional burden to these patients, we recommend cultural competency training for providers and dialysis center staff as well as community-based educational programs to improve dialysis patients' health literacy.

A 54-year-old underwent brachiocephalic arteriovenous fistula placement. Following maturation of the access, consistent cannulation for routine hemodialysis was challenging for clinical specialists. A three-dimensional intraluminal access model was generated, but clinical specialists adept at cannulation had difficulty orienting the model to the patient's anatomy without repeat supervision. When provided the model prima facie, 50% (4/8) clinical specialists were not able to spatially orient the model appropriately in the x-axis with respect to the coronal plane (2/8) or in the z-axis with respect to the transverse plane (2/8). Spatial renderings of the subcutaneous volume available for cannulation were then printed and physically applied to the vascular access model resulting in appropriate spatial orientation among all clinical specialists (n = 12) that were presented the models for the first time. Mean Kt/V increased during the 3-month period directly following model introduction. This case demonstrates the potential utility of 3D-modeling to readily visualize the subcutaneous volume of a hemodialysis vascular access and reduce cannulation error.

Introduction: To determine appropriate dosing of piperacillin-tazobactam in critically ill patients receiving continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT).

Methods: The databases of PubMed, Embase, and ScienceDirect were searched. We used the Medical Subject Headings of "piperacillin-tazobactam," "CRRT," and "pharmacokinetics" or related terms or synonym to identify the studies for reviews. A one-compartment pharmacokinetic model was conducted to predict piperacillin levels for the initial 48 h of therapy. The pharmacodynamic target was 50% of free drug level above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and 4 times of the MIC. The dose that achieved at least 90% of the probability of target attainment was defined as an optimal dose.

Results: Our simulation study reveals that the dosing regimen of piperacillin-tazobactam 12 g/day is appropriate for treating Pseudomonal infection with KDIGO recommended effluent rate of 25-35 mL/kg/h. The MIC values of each setting were an important factor to design piperacillin-tazobactam dosing regimens.

Conclusion: The Monte Carlo simulation can be a useful tool to evaluate drug dosing in critically ill acute kidney injury patients receiving CRRT when limited pharmacokinetic data are a concern. Clinical validation of these results is needed.

Introduction: People on renal replacement therapy (RRT) have a high risk of COVID-19 infection and subsequent death. COVID-19 vaccination is strongly recommended for those on RRT. Data are limited on the immune response of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/AZD1222 (Covishield®) vaccine in patients on RRT.

Methods: A prospective cohort of adult (age > 18 years), on RRT in the form of hemodialysis were included and received two intramuscular doses of Covishield®. A blood specimen of 5.0 mL was collected at two time points, within a few days before administering the first dose of the vaccine and at 4-16 weeks after the second dose. According to their prior COVID-19 infection status, the participants were grouped as (i) prior symptomatic COVID-19 infection, (ii) prior asymptomatic COVID-19 infection, and (iii) no prior COVID-19 infection.

Results: A large proportion (81%) of participants had anti-spike antibodies (ASAb) before vaccination, and a reasonable proportion (30%) also had neutralizing antibodies (NAb). The titer of ASAb was relatively low (207 U/mL) before vaccination. The ASAb titer (9405 [1635-25,000] U/mL) and percentage of NAb (96.4% [59.6-98.1%]) were markedly increased following the administration of two doses of the vaccine. The participants' prior COVID-19 exposure status did not influence the rise in ASAb titer and NAb percentage. Further, administering two doses of the Covishield vaccine helps them achieve a high ASAb titer.

Conclusion: Two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/AZD1222 (Covishield®) vaccine, given 12 weeks apart, achieve a high titer of ASAb and a high percentage of NAb in people on hemodialysis.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a heterogeneous syndrome with multiple etiologies. It occurs frequently in the neurocritical intensive care unit and is associated with greater morbidity and mortality. In this scenario, AKI alters the kidney-brain axis, exposing patients who receive habitual dialytic management to greater injury. Various therapies have been designed to mitigate this risk. Priority has been placed by KDIGO guidelines on the use of continuous over intermittent acute kidney replacement therapies (AKRT). On this background, continuous therapies have a pathophysiological rationale in patients with acute brain injury. A low-efficiency therapy such as PD and CRRT could achieve optimal clearance control and potentially reduce the risk of secondary brain injury. Therefore, this work will review the evidence on peritoneal dialysis as a continuous AKRT in neurocritical patients, describing its benefits and risks so it may be considered as an option when deciding among available therapeutic options.

Vascular access (VA) for hemodialysis (HD) continues to be the keystone of the technique's success. The first option should be an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or arteriovenous graft (AVG), although in some scenarios the only possibility available is a central venous catheter, which could lead to an increase in vascular complications such as thoracic central vein occlusion (TCVO), becoming a challenge for physicians. If conventional therapies cannot be performed, a new device called the Surfacer® Inside-Out® Access Catheter System (IOA) (Bluegrass Vascular Technologies, San Antonio, TX, USA) arises as a promising alternative. Here we describe the case of a patient in which we performed a combination of two techniques: sharp recanalization plus Surfacer® Inside-Out® Access Catheter System.

Introduction: The purity of water and dialysis fluids is of utmost importance in ensuring the safe and effective administration of hemodialysis treatment to patients with chronic kidney disease. It is crucial to enforce compliance with international standards for dialysis water and fluids, as this is mandatory in reducing chemical hazards, mitigating the adverse effects of bioincompatibility resulting from contaminated water and ultimately enhancing long-term patient outcomes.

Standards and risks: Within this comprehensive review, we highlight the presence of water contaminants and thoroughly assess the existing international standards for dialysis water and fluids, spanning from pure to ultrapure. Additionally, we delve into the fundamental components of water purification and present a comprehensive range of water treatment options, encompassing pre-treatment, primary treatment (reverse osmosis), and tertiary water treatment. Furthermore, we outline recommended monitoring and maintenance procedures, ensuring the consistent delivery of high-quality water and dialysis fluids at the point of care. WATER PURIFICATION AND MONITORING SUSTAINABILITY AND FUTURE CHALLENGES: Importantly, we raise concerns regarding the sustainability and conservation of water resources in hemodialysis treatment. It is imperative that these concerns be addressed in the future to avert the potential shortage of this essential resource.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the contemporary landscape of hemodialysis conditions has engendered an urgent necessity for advanced water treatment systems and optimized delivery of dialysis fluids. This review serves as a comprehensive update on the latest technological advancements aimed at meeting these critical demands. Dialysis water and fluids must adhere to increasingly stringent purity constraints, encompassing both biochemical and microbiological perspectives.

Introduction: Sarcopenia is associated with significant cardiovascular risk, and death in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD). Three tools are used for diagnosing sarcopenia. The evaluation of muscle mass requires dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) or computed tomography (CT), which is labor-intensive and relatively expensive. This study aimed to use simple clinical information to develop a machine learning (ML)-based prediction model of PD sarcopenia.

Methods: According to the newly revised Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS2019), patients were subjected to complete sarcopenia screening, including appendicular skeletal muscle mass, grip strength, and five-time chair stand time test. Simple clinical information such as general information, dialysis-related indices, irisin and other laboratory indices, and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) data were collected. All data were randomly split into training (70%) and testing (30%) sets. Difference, correlation, univariate, and multivariate analyses were used to identify core features significantly associated with PD sarcopenia.

Result: 12 core features (C), namely, grip strength, body mass index (BMI), total body water value, irisin, extracellular water/total body water, fat-free mass index, phase angle, albumin/globulin, blood phosphorus, total cholesterol, triglyceride, and prealbumin were excavated for model construction. Two ML models, the neural network (NN), and support vector machine (SVM) were selected with tenfold cross-validation to determine the optimal parameter. The C-SVM model showed a higher area under the curve (AUC) of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-1.00), with a highest specificity of 0.96, sensitivity of 0.91, positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.96, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.91.

Conclusion: The ML model effectively predicted PD sarcopenia and has clinical potential to be used as a convenient sarcopenia screening tool.

Background: In the United Kingdom, over 80% of end-stage kidney disease patients receive in-center hemodialysis. We conducted a survey of UK renal healthcare workers on their preferred dialysis modality if they needed dialysis themselves.

Methods: An anonymized online survey was disseminated to all renal healthcare workers in the United Kingdom. We asked "Assume you are an otherwise well 40-year-old (and, separately, 75-year-old) person approaching end stage kidney disease, you have no living kidney donor options at present. There are no contraindications to any dialysis options. Which dialysis therapy would you choose?" We also asked about factors influencing their choice.

Results: 858 individuals with a median age of 44.3 years responded. 70.2% were female, 37.4% doctors, and 31.1% were senior nurses. There was a preference for peritoneal dialysis over in-center hemodialysis (50.47% v. 6.18%; p < 0.001 for 40-year-old and 49.18% v. 17.83%; p < 0.001 for 75-year-old assumption) and home hemodialysis (50.47% v. 39.28%; p < 0.001 for 40-year-old and 49.18% v. 18.41% for 75-year-old assumption). There was a preference for home hemodialysis over in-center hemodialysis for 40-year-old (39.28% v. 6.18%; p < 0.001) but not for 75-year-old. On logistic regression, senior doctors were more likely to opt for PD when compared to nurses. Nurses, allied healthcare professionals, and those of Asian/British Asian ethnicity were more likely to choose in-center hemodialysis.

Conclusions: Most healthcare workers in renal medicine would choose home-based treatment for themselves although the majority of end-stage kidney disease patients receive in-center hemodialysis in the United Kingdom; the reasons for the discrepancy need to be explored.