Search

Introduction: The current Spanish Clinical Guidelines on Vascular Access for Hemodialysis support the need for surveillance and monitoring of vascular access (VA) to avoid complications. Ultrasound dilution (UD) methods are accepted for the evaluation of VA flow and Transonic® has established the gold standard method for the measurement. The DMed NephroFlow (NIPRO®) device, based on UD method has recently been incorporated. We report a comparative study between the classic Transonic® versus the new NephroFlow® device., Material and Methods: For two consecutive months, measurements of VA flow using both referred systems were performed in patients with a native arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or a graft (AVG) on hemodialysis (HD) in our unit. Both studies were undertaken according to the usual recommendations: VA flow of 250 ml/min, ultrafiltration rate without modifications, both needles in the same vein, and always in the first hour of the HD session., Results: Forty-five patients were included: 17 women and 28 men, mean age of 67 ± 12 years. Thirty patients were diabetic. The baseline meantime on HD was 51 ± 39 months (range: 3-163). Type of VA was: 17 patients radio-cephalic AVF, 17 brachiocephalic AVF, 7 brachiobasilic AVF, and 3 with a graft. The mean flow estimated by the Transonic® was 1222 ± 805 ml/min and the estimated flow by the NephroFlow® device was 1252 ± 975 ml/min. Good reliability between Transonic® and NephroFlow® was observed, with a reliability index of Cronbach's Alpha of 0.927 and an Intraclass Correlation Index of 0.928., Conclusions: The NephroFlow® device seems comparable with the accepted gold standard UD method for estimating VA flow. More studies must be performed to verify these results. However, they should be considered for the surveillance and monitoring of VA flow, in agreement with the Spanish Guidelines., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the association between the use of remote patient monitoring (RPM) in patients on automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) and the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology in peritoneal dialysis (SONG-PD) clinical outcomes., Methods: A prospective and multicenter cohort study was conducted on patients with advanced chronic kidney disease on APD, recruited at 16 Spanish Hospitals, between June 1 and December 31, 2021. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts, namely patients on APD with RPM (APD-RPM) and patients on APD without RPM. The primary endpoints were the standardized outcomes of the SONG-PD clinical outcomes: PD-associated infection, cardiovascular disease (CVD), mortality rate, technique survival, and life participation (assessed as health-related quality of life [QoL]). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to evaluate the association of RPM exposure with the clinical outcomes., Results: A total of 232 patients were included, 176 (75.9%) in the APD-RPM group and 56 (24.1%) in the APD-without-RPM group. The mean patient follow-up time was significantly longer in the APD-RPM group than in the APD-without-RPM group (10.4 ± 2.8 vs. 9.4 ± 3.1 months, respectively; P  = 0.02). In the overall study sample, the APD-RPM group was associated with a lower mortality rate (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01 to 0.69; P  = 0.020) and greater technique survival rate (HR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.59; P  = 0.001). After PSM, APD-RPM continued to be associated with better technique survival (HR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.83; P  = 0.024)., Conclusion: The use of RPM programs in patients on APD was associated with better survival of the technique and lower mortality rates. However, after PSM, only technique survival was significant., (© 2023 International Society of Nephrology. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Current guidelines establish the same hemoglobin (Hb) and iron biomarkers targets for hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) in patients receiving erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) even though patients having PD are usually younger, more active and less comorbid. Unfortunately, specific renal anemia [anemia in chronic kidney disease (aCKD)] trials or observational studies on PD are scanty. The aims of this study were to describe current aCKD management, goals and adherence to clinical guidelines, identifying opportunities for healthcare improvement in PD patients., Methods: This was a retrospective, nationwide, multicentre study including patients from 19 PD units. The nephrologists collected baseline data, demographics, comorbidities and data related to anemia management (laboratory values, previously prescribed treatments and subsequent adjustments) from electronic medical records. The European adaptation of KDIGO guidelines was the reference for definitions, drug prescriptions and targets., Results: A total of 343 patients (mean age 62.9 years, 61.2% male) were included; 72.9% were receiving ESAs and 33.2% iron therapy [20.7% intravenously (IV)]. Eighty-two patients were receiving ESA without iron therapy, despite 53 of them having an indication according to the European Renal Best Practice guidelines. After laboratory results, iron therapy was only started in 15% of patients. Among ESA-treated patients, 51.9% had an optimal control [hemoglobin (Hb) 10-12 g/dL] and 28.3% between 12-12.9 g/dL. Seventeen patients achieved Hb >13 g/dL, and 12 of them remained on ESA after overshooting. Only three patients had Hb <10 g/dL without ESAs. Seven patients (2%) met criteria for ESA resistance (epoetin dose >300 IU/kg/week). The highest tertile of erythropoietin resistance index (>6.3 UI/kg/week/g/dL) was associated with iron deficiency and low albumin corrected by renal replacement therapy vintage and hospital admissions in the previous 3 months., Conclusion: Iron therapy continues to be underused (especially IV). Low albumin, iron deficiency and prior events explain most of the ESA hyporesponsiveness. Hb targets are titrated to/above the upper limits. Thus, several missed opportunities for adequate prescriptions and adherence to guidelines were identified., Competing Interests: J.P. and B.Q. have received support for travel, consultancy and speaker fees from CSL Vifor, Astellas and GSK. A.C. has received grants from CSL Vifor, consultancy fees from CSL Vifor, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Otsuka, and speaker fees from CSL Vifor, Astellas, Amgen, Bayer, GSK, Novo Nordisk or Sanofi Mexico, as well as travel grants from Astellas, AstraZeneca or GSK outside the submitted work., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the ERA.)