METHODS: The national nephrology societies of the region; responded to the questionnaire; based on latest registries, acceptable community-based studies and society perceptions. The countries in the region were classified into Group 1 (High|higher-middle-income) and Group 2 (lower|lowermiddle income). Student t-test, Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test were used for comparison.
RESULTS: Fifteen countries provided the data. The average incidence of ESKD was estimated at 226.7 per million population (pmp), (Group 1 vs. Group 2, 305.8 vs. 167.8 pmp) and average prevalence at 940.8 pmp (Group 1 vs. Group 2, 1306 vs. 321 pmp). Group 1 countries had a higher incidence and prevalence of ESKD. Diabetes, hypertension and chronic glomerulonephritis were most common causes. The mean age in Group 2 was lower by a decade (Group 1 vs. Group 2-59.45 vs 47.7 years).
CONCLUSION: Haemodialysis was the most common kidney replacement therapy in both groups and conservative management of ESKD was the second commonest available treatment option within Group 2. The disease burden was expected to grow >20% in 50% of Group 1 countries and 78% of Group 2 countries along with the parallel growth in haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis.
METHODS: The Association of VA and intervenTionAl Renal physicians (AVATAR) Foundation from India conducted a multinational online survey amongst nephrologists from the Asia-Pacific to determine the practice of IN in the planning, creation, and management of dialysis access. The treatment modalities, manpower and equipment availability, monthly cost of treatment, specifics of dialysis access interventions, and challenges in the training and practice of IN by nephrologists were included in the survey.
RESULTS: Twenty-one countries from the APR participated in the survey. Nephrologists from 18 (85.7%) countries reported performing at least one of the basic dialysis access-related IN procedures, primarily the placement of non-tunnelled central catheters (n-TCC; 71.5%). Only 10 countries (47.6%) reported having an average of <4% of nephrologists performing any of the advanced IN access procedures, the most common being the placement of a peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter (20%). Lack of formal training (57.14%), time (42.8%), incentive (38%), institutional support (38%), medico-legal protection (28.6%), and prohibitive cost (23.8%) were the main challenges to practice IN. The primary obstacles to implementing the IN training were a lack of funding and skilled personnel.
CONCLUSION: The practice of dialysis access-related IN in APR is inadequate, mostly due to a lack of training, backup support, and economic constraints, whereas training in access-related IN is constrained by a lack of a skilled workforce and finances.
CASE PRESENTATION: We describe here three cases of type 2 diabetic patients that have rapid renal deterioration with rate of decline 46 - 60 mL/min per 1.73m2 per year. All the patients are heavily nephrotic. All of the renal biopsies done showed the classical diabetic changes, hypertensive changes, diffuse tubulointerstitial damage, and interstitial nephritis. All of the patients admitted to taking various form of traditional medications in hope of curing their renal disease.
CONCLUSION: We wish to highlight that type 2 diabetics with massive nephrotic range proteinuria have enhanced risk of rapid renal function deterioration. The patients should be educated about the risks of rapid renal function deterioration when there is presence of heavy proteinuria. High grade proteinuria is likely to inflict the diffuse tubulointerstitial inflammation. The interstitial nephritis could be further worsened by traditional supplements consumption. Timely health education and advice must be undertaken to retard this unwanted rapid renal disease progression.
STUDY DESIGN: Literature-based meta-analysis and individual-study-data meta-analysis of diagnostic studies following PRISMA-IPD guidelines.
SETTING & STUDY POPULATIONS: Studies of adults investigating AKI, severe AKI, and AKI-D in the setting of cardiac surgery, intensive care, or emergency department care using either urinary or plasma NGAL measured on clinical laboratory platforms.
SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and congress abstracts ever published through February 2020 reporting diagnostic test studies of NGAL measured on clinical laboratory platforms to predict AKI.
DATA EXTRACTION: Individual-study-data meta-analysis was accomplished by giving authors data specifications tailored to their studies and requesting standardized patient-level data analysis.
ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Individual-study-data meta-analysis used a bivariate time-to-event model for interval-censored data from which discriminative ability (AUC) was characterized. NGAL cutoff concentrations at 95% sensitivity, 95% specificity, and optimal sensitivity and specificity were also estimated. Models incorporated as confounders the clinical setting and use versus nonuse of urine output as a criterion for AKI. A literature-based meta-analysis was also performed for all published studies including those for which the authors were unable to provide individual-study data analyses.
RESULTS: We included 52 observational studies involving 13,040 patients. We analyzed 30 data sets for the individual-study-data meta-analysis. For AKI, severe AKI, and AKI-D, numbers of events were 837, 304, and 103 for analyses of urinary NGAL, respectively; these values were 705, 271, and 178 for analyses of plasma NGAL. Discriminative performance was similar in both meta-analyses. Individual-study-data meta-analysis AUCs for urinary NGAL were 0.75 (95% CI, 0.73-0.76) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.79-0.81) for severe AKI and AKI-D, respectively; for plasma NGAL, the corresponding AUCs were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.79-0.81) and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.84-0.86). Cutoff concentrations at 95% specificity for urinary NGAL were>580ng/mL with 27% sensitivity for severe AKI and>589ng/mL with 24% sensitivity for AKI-D. Corresponding cutoffs for plasma NGAL were>364ng/mL with 44% sensitivity and>546ng/mL with 26% sensitivity, respectively.
LIMITATIONS: Practice variability in initiation of dialysis. Imperfect harmonization of data across studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Urinary and plasma NGAL concentrations may identify patients at high risk for AKI in clinical research and practice. The cutoff concentrations reported in this study require prospective evaluation.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 34 chronic renal disease patients (stage 3 and 4) were recruited in a randomized controlled trial. Handgrip exercise was performed for 8 weeks in the intervention group. Handgrip-strength measurement and distal forearm cephalic vein diameter of a non-dominant hand with and without tourniquet was recorded (measurement is taken 1 cm proximal to the radial styloid).
RESULTS: After 8 weeks, the mean cephalic vein diameter in the intervention group increased from 1.77 and 1.97 mm to 2.15 and 2.43 mm, without and with a tourniquet, respectively (p < 0.05). There is also a significant change in the mean diameter of distal forearm cephalic vein (p < 0.05) in the intervention group when measured in both the absence (mean change 0.39 ± 0.06 mm vs 0.01 ± 0.02 mm) and the presence of tourniquet (mean change 0.47 ± 0.07 mm vs 0.01 ± 0.01 mm).
CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that non-invasive handgrip exercise can increase in the diameter of the distal forearm cephalic vein, thereby increasing the rate of successful arteriovenous fistula creation.
METHOD: Outcomes derived from a systematic review, multi-disciplinary expert panel and patient input were included in a multilanguage online survey. Participants rated the absolute importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9 being critically important). The relative importance was determined by a best-worst scale using multinomial logistic regression. Open text responses were analysed thematically.
RESULTS: The survey was completed by 873 participants [224 (26%) patients/caregivers and 649 (74%) health professionals] from 58 countries. Vascular access function was considered the most important outcome (mean score 7.8 for patients and caregivers/8.5 for health professionals, with 85%/95% rating it critically important, and top ranked on best-worst scale), followed by infection (mean 7.4/8.2, 79%/92% rating it critically important, second rank on best-worst scale). Health professionals rated all outcomes of equal or higher importance than patients/caregivers, except for aneurysms. We identified six themes: necessity for HD, applicability across vascular access types, frequency and severity of debilitation, minimizing the risk of hospitalization and death, optimizing technical competence and adherence to best practice and direct impact on appearance and lifestyle.
CONCLUSIONS: Vascular access function was the most critically important outcome among patients/caregivers and health professionals. Consistent reporting of this outcome across trials in HD will strengthen their value in supporting vascular access practice and shared decision making in patients requiring HD.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review.
SETTING & POPULATION: Adults requiring maintenance hemodialysis.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials and trial protocols reporting vascular access outcomes identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialized Register from January 2011 to June 2016.
INTERVENTIONS: Any hemodialysis-related intervention.
OUTCOMES: The frequency and characteristics of vascular access outcome measures were analyzed and classified.
RESULTS: From 168 relevant trials, 1,426 access-related outcome measures were extracted and classified into 23 different outcomes. The 3 most common outcomes were function (136 [81%] trials), infection (63 [38%]), and maturation (31 [18%]). Function was measured in 489 different ways, but most frequently reported as "mean access blood flow (mL/min)" (37 [27%] trials) and "number of thromboses" (30 [22%]). Infection was assessed in 136 different ways, with "number of access-related infections" being the most common measure. Maturation was assessed in 44 different ways at 15 different time points and most commonly characterized by vein diameter and blood flow. Patient-reported outcomes, including pain (19 [11%]) and quality of life (5 [3%]), were reported infrequently. Only a minority of trials used previously standardized outcome definitions.
LIMITATIONS: Restricted sampling frame for feasibility and focus on contemporary trials.
CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of access outcomes in hemodialysis trials is very heterogeneous, with limited patient-reported outcomes and infrequent use of standardized outcome measures. Efforts to standardize outcome reporting for vascular access are critical to optimizing the comparability, reliability, and value of trial evidence to improve outcomes for patients requiring hemodialysis.