RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There are no guidelines for transitioning patients from chronic kidney disease stage 5 to hemodialysis. We conducted this study to determine if there are uniform patterns in how nephrologists transition patients to dialysis. METHODS: We designed an electronic survey with 39 questions and sent it to a database of practicing nephrologists at the National Kidney Foundation. Factors that were important for transitioning a patient to hemodialysis were evaluated, including medication changes on dialysis initiation, dry weight and dialysis prescription. RESULTS: 160 US Nephrologists replied to the survey; 18% (29/160) of the responses were completed via social media sites. Prior to dialysis, 74% (118/160), prescribed furosemide and 67% (107/160) used furosemide with metolazone. Once dialysis started, only 46% (74/160) of the responders continued patients on diuretics daily. Hypertension medications prescribed in dialysis were calcium channel blockers 69% (112/160), beta blockers 36% (58/160), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor 32% (53/160), angiotensin receptor blocker 29% (46/160) and diuretics 25% (42/160). Once dialysis started, 68% (109/160) routinely changed medications. Most, 67% (107/160) ordered patients to avoid anti-hypertensive medications on dialysis days to allow for ultrafiltration. Dry weight was determined in the first week by 29% (46/160) and in the first month by 53% (85/160). Most, 59% (94/160) felt that multiple causes lead to hypertension. Most nephrologists would prescribe small dialyzers and a shorter period of time for the first dialysis session. CONCLUSION: The transition period to chronic hemodialysis has variations in practice patterns and may benefit from further studies to optimize clinical practice.
Asunto(s)
Nefrólogos/tendencias , Transferencia de Pacientes/tendencias , Diálisis Renal/tendencias , Insuficiencia Renal Crónica/epidemiología , Insuficiencia Renal Crónica/terapia , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Antagonistas Adrenérgicos beta/administración & dosificación , Inhibidores de la Enzima Convertidora de Angiotensina/administración & dosificación , Antihipertensivos/administración & dosificación , Bloqueadores de los Canales de Calcio/administración & dosificación , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Insuficiencia Renal Crónica/tratamiento farmacológico , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Despite advances in the approach to cure acute kidney injury (AKI), including definition, classification and treatment methods, there are no standard criteria to withdraw dialysis in the setting of improving AKI. We conducted this survey to elucidate parameters that United States (US) nephrologists used to determine when to stop dialysis with improving renal function in AKI. We hypothesized that there would be a difference in approach to weaning a patient off dialysis based on years in practice or the number of cases of AKI treated per year. METHODS: This was an anonymous electronic survey of practicing nephrologists who treated AKI. Data was de-identified and analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The commonest criteria used to stop dialysis when renal function improved was, in decreasing order of importance, resolution in oliguria (51%), resolution of volume overload (29%), improvement in serum creatinine (26.7%) and resolution of hyperkalemia (21%). The most common reasons for re-starting dialysis within 28 days did not show a specific trend but respondents (20%) reported re-starting if estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) declined. There was no significant pattern in approach to withdrawing dialysis or resuming dialysis based on the number of years in nephrology practice. However, responses of nephrologists who saw more than 20 AKI patients/year were significantly different in stopping dialysis with clinical stabilization of blood pressure (p < 0.001), improvement in respiratory parameters (p = 0.005), improvement in pre-dialysis blood urea nitrogen (BUN) levels despite the same dose of dialysis (p = 0.05) and resolution of oliguria (p = 0.025) compared to those who saw fewer cases. CONCLUSION: Resolution of oliguria was the commonest factor used to help deciding to stop dialysis in improving AKI. However, considerable variation was noted among US nephrologists who participated in this survey, regarding what criteria they used to withdraw dialysis in the setting of improving AKI. These results call for more studies in withdrawing dialysis in the setting of AKI that could lead to guideline formulation.
Asunto(s)
Lesión Renal Aguda/terapia , Diálisis Renal/métodos , Acidosis/metabolismo , Acidosis/terapia , Lesión Renal Aguda/fisiopatología , Lesión Renal Aguda/psicología , Adulto , Presión Sanguínea , Nitrógeno de la Urea Sanguínea , Cognición , Creatinina/sangre , Femenino , Tasa de Filtración Glomerular , Encuestas de Atención de la Salud , Humanos , Hiperpotasemia/sangre , Hiperpotasemia/terapia , Pruebas de Función Renal , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Nefrología , Médicos , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Primary goal of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study of Renadyl in end-stage renal disease patients was to assess the safety and efficacy of Renadyl measured through improvement in quality of life or reduction in levels of known uremic toxins. Secondary goal was to investigate the effects on several biomarkers of inflammation and oxidative stress. METHODS: Two 2-month treatment periods separated by 2-month washout and crossover, with physical examinations, venous blood testing, and quality of life questionnaires completed at each visit. Data were analyzed with SAS V9.2. RESULTS: 22 subjects (79%) completed the study. Observed trends were as follows (none reaching statistical significance): decline in WBC count (-0.51 × 10(9)/L, P = 0.057) and reductions in levels of C-reactive protein (-8.61 mg/L, P = 0.071) and total indoxyl glucuronide (-0.11 mg%, P = 0.058). No statistically significant changes were observed in other uremic toxin levels or measures of QOL. CONCLUSIONS: Renadyl appeared to be safe to administer to ESRD patients on hemodialysis. Stability in QOL assessment is an encouraging result for a patient cohort in such advanced stage of kidney disease. Efficacy could not be confirmed definitively, primarily due to small sample size and low statistical power-further studies are warranted.