AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess systematically the characteristics of patients and risk factors associated with nosocomial infections among ESRD patients undergoing hemodialysis.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify eligible studies published during the period from inception to December 2018 pertaining to risk factors associated with nosocomial infections among hemodialysis patients. The relevant studies were generated through a computerized search on five databases (PubMed, EBSCOhost, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect and Scopus) using the Mesh Words: nosocomial infections, hospital acquired infections, healthcare associated infections, end stage renal disease, end stage renal failure, hemodialysis, and risk factors. The complete protocol has been registered under PROSPERO (CRD42019124099).
RESULTS: Initially, 1411 articles were retrieved. Out of these, 24 were duplicates and hence were removed. Out of 1387 remaining articles, 1337 were removed based on irrelevant titles and/or abstracts. Subsequently, the full texts of 50 articles were reviewed and 41 studies were excluded at this stage due to lack of relevant information. Finally, nine articles were selected for this review. Longer hospital stay, longer duration on hemodialysis, multiple catheter sites, longer catheterization, age group, lower white blood cell count, history of blood transfusion, and diabetes were identified as the major risk factors for nosocomial infections among hemodialysis patients.
CONCLUSION: The results of this review indicate an information gap and potential benefits of additional preventive measures to further reduce the risk of infections in hemodialysis population. Moreover, several patient-related and facility-related risk factors were consistently observed in the studies included in this review, which require optimal control measures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an investigator-initiated, single-center, randomized, controlled, clinical trial in patients with T2DM and DKD, comparing 12-weeks of low carbohydrate diet (<20g daily intake) versus standard low protein (0.8g/kg/day) and low salt diet. Patients in the VLCBD group underwent 2-weekly monitoring including their 3-day food diaries. In addition, Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) was performed to estimate body fat percentages.
RESULTS: The study population (n = 30) had a median age of 57 years old and a BMI of 30.68kg/m2. Both groups showed similar total calorie intake, i.e. 739.33 (IQR288.48) vs 789.92 (IQR522.4) kcal, by the end of the study. The VLCBD group showed significantly lower daily carbohydrate intake 27 (IQR25) g vs 89.33 (IQR77.4) g, p<0.001, significantly higher protein intake per day 44.08 (IQR21.98) g vs 29.63 (IQR16.35) g, p<0.05 and no difference in in daily fat intake. Both groups showed no worsening of serum creatinine at study end, with consistent declines in HbA1c (1.3(1.1) vs 0.7(1.25) %) and fasting blood glucose (1.5(3.37) vs 1.3(5.7) mmol/L). The VLCBD group showed significant reductions in total daily insulin dose (39(22) vs 0 IU, p<0.001), increased LDL-C and HDL-C, decline in IL-6 levels; with contrasting results in the control group. This was associated with significant weight reduction (-4.0(3.9) vs 0.2(4.2) kg, p = <0.001) and improvements in body fat percentages. WC was significantly reduced in the VLCBD group, even after adjustments to age, HbA1c, weight and creatinine changes. Both dietary interventions were well received with no reported adverse events.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that dietary intervention of very low carbohydrate diet in patients with underlying diabetic kidney disease was safe and associated with significant improvements in glycemic control, anthropometric measurements including weight, abdominal adiposity and IL-6. Renal outcomes remained unchanged. These findings would strengthen the importance of this dietary intervention as part of the management of patients with diabetic kidney disease.