Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. AlSahow A, Alkandari O, Bahbahani Y, AlYousef A, AlHelal B, AlRajab H, et al.
    Med Princ Pract, 2025 Feb 04.
    PMID: 39904326 DOI: 10.1159/000543882
    INTRODUCTION: Continuous dialysis in hemodynamically stable patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) may impact outcomes differently than intermittent dialysis. We evaluated differences in patient and kidney outcomes between the two modalities.

    METHODS: Clinical and 30-day outcome data for inpatients with AKI who were hemodynamically stable and not on ventilation and who received intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) or continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT) in public hospitals in Kuwait from January 1 to December 31, 2021, were prospectively collected.

    RESULTS: We recruited 229 patients (age: 59.9 years; males, 60.3%; baseline estimated baseline glomerular filtration [eGFR], 56 mL/min). CKRT accounted for 72.9% of cases due to lack of access to water treatment. No statistically significant differences were observed between groups in terms of age, baseline eGFR, sex, comorbidities, cause of AKI, or fluid administration. The intensive care unit contributed 21% of cases, with no significant difference between groups. More IHD patients received diuretics (62.9% vs. 43.1% for CKRT, p = 0.008). At 30 days, 21.8% of patients had died. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality between groups (16.1% for IHD vs. 24% for CKRT, p = 0.2). Final eGFR was 53.2 mL/min, with no difference between groups. Complete kidney recovery was greater with CKRT (33.1% vs. 13.5%, p = 0.009). Baseline eGFR < 60 mL/min did not influence mortality or kidney recovery.

    CONCLUSION: Compared with IHD, CKRT did not lower mortality at 30 days, which is similar to that of randomized trials; however, it was associated with better complete kidney recovery, which was reported in observational studies.

  2. Bhandari P, Subramaniam S, Bourke MJ, Alkandari A, Chiu PWY, Brown JF, et al.
    Gut, 2020 11;69(11):1915-1924.
    PMID: 32816921 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322329
    The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on provision of endoscopy services globally as staff and real estate were repurposed. As we begin to recover from the pandemic, a cohesive international approach is needed, and guidance on how to resume endoscopy services safely to avoid unintended harm from diagnostic delays. The aim of these guidelines is to provide consensus recommendations that clinicians can use to facilitate the swift and safe resumption of endoscopy services. An evidence-based literature review was carried out on the various strategies used globally to manage endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic and control infection. A modified Delphi process involving international endoscopy experts was used to agree on the consensus statements. A threshold of 80% agreement was used to establish consensus for each statement. 27 of 30 statements achieved consensus after two rounds of voting by 34 experts. The statements were categorised as pre-endoscopy, during endoscopy and postendoscopy addressing relevant areas of practice, such as screening, personal protective equipment, appropriate environments for endoscopy and infection control precautions, particularly in areas of high disease prevalence. Recommendations for testing of patients and for healthcare workers, appropriate locations of donning and doffing areas and social distancing measures before endoscopy are unique and not dealt with by any other guidelines. This international consensus using a modified Delphi method to produce a series of best practice recommendations to aid the safe resumption of endoscopy services globally in the era of COVID-19.
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links