Comparison of baseline data between chronic kidney disease patients starting hemodialysis who live near and far from the dialysis center

Introduction: The treatment offered to chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients before starting hemodialysis (HD) impacts prognosis. Objective: We seek differences among incident HD patients according to the distance between home and the dialysis center. Methods: We included 179 CKD patients undergoing HD. Patients were stratified in two groups: "living near the dialysis center" (patients whose hometown was in cities up to 100 km from the dialysis center) or as "living far from the dialysis center" (patients whose hometown was more than 100 km from the dialysis center). Socioeconomic status, laboratory results, awareness of CKD before starting HD, consultation with nephrologist before the first HD session, and type of vascular access when starting HD were compared between the two groups. Comparisons of continuous and categorical variables were performed using Student's t-test and the Chi-square test, respectively. Results: Ninety (50.3%) patients were classified as "living near the dialysis center" and 89 (49.7%) as "living far from the dialysis center". Patients living near the dialysis center were more likely to know about their condition of CKD than those living far from the dialysis center, respectively 46.6% versus 28.0% (p = 0.015). Although without statistical significance, patients living near the dialysis center had more frequent previous consultation with nephrologists (55.5% versus 42.6%; p = 0.116) and first HD by fistula (30.0% versus 19.1%; p = 0.128) than those living far from the dialysis center. Conclusion: There are potential advantages of CKD awareness, referral to nephrologists and starting HD through fistula among patients living near the dialysis center.

Tuberculosis in renal transplant patients: The experience of a single center in Medellín-Colombia, 2005-2013

Introduction: Tuberculosis is a common opportunistic infection in renal transplant patients. Objective: To obtain a clinical and laboratory description of transplant patients diagnosed with tuberculosis and their response to treatment during a period ranging from 2005 to 2013 at the Pablo Tobón Uribe Hospital. Methods: Retrospective and descriptive study. Results: In 641 renal transplants, tuberculosis was confirmed in 12 cases. Of these, 25% had a history of acute rejection, and 50% had creatinine levels greater than 1.5 mg/dl prior to infection. The disease typically presented as pulmonary (50%) and disseminated (33.3%). The first phase of treatment consisted of 3 months of HZRE (isoniazid, pyrazinamide, rifampicin and ethambutol) in 75% of the cases and HZME (isoniazid, pyrazinamide, moxifloxacin and ethambutol) in 25% of the cases. During the second phase of the treatment, 75% of the cases received isoniazid and rifampicin, and 25% of the cases received isoniazid and ethambutol. The length of treatment varied between 6 and 18 months. In 41.7% of patients, hepatotoxicity was associated with the beginning of anti-tuberculosis therapy. During a year-long follow-up, renal function remained stable, and the mortality rate was 16.7%. Conclusion: Tuberculosis in the renal transplant population studied caused diverse nonspecific symptoms. Pulmonary and disseminated tuberculosis were the most frequent forms and required prolonged treatment. Antituberculosis medications had a high toxicity and mortality. This infection must be considered when patients present with a febrile syndrome of unknown origin, especially during the first year after renal transplant.

Impact of social vulnerability on the outcomes of predialysis chronic kidney disease patients in an interdisciplinary center

Introduction: Numerous studies examined the associations between socio-demographic, economic and individual factors and chronic kidney disease (CKD) outcomes and observed that the associations were complex and multifactorial. Socioeconomic factors can be evaluated by a model of social vulnerability (SV). Objective: To analyze the impact of SV on the outcomes of predialysis patients. Methods: Demographic, clinical and laboratory data were collected from a cohort of patients with predialysis stage 3 to 5 who were treated by an interdisciplinary team (January 2002 and December 2009) in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Factor, cluster and discriminant analysis were performed in sequence to identify the most important variables and develop a model of SV that allowed for classification of the patients as vulnerable or non-vulnerable. Cox regression was performed to examine the impact of SV on the outcomes of mortality and need for renal replacement therapy (RRT). Results: Of the 209 patients examined, 29.4% were classified as vulnerable. No significance difference was found between the vulnerable and non-vulnerable groups regarding either mortality (log rank: 0.23) or need for RRT (log rank: 0.17). In the Cox regression model, the hazard ratios (HRs) for the unadjusted and adjusted impact of SV on mortality were found to be 1.87 (confidence interval [CI]: 0.64-5.41) and 1.47 (CI: 0.35-6.0), respectively, and the unadjusted and adjusted impact of need for RRT to be 1.85 (CI: 0.71-4.8) and 2.19 (CI: 0.50-9.6), respectively. Conclusion: These findings indicate that SV did not influence the outcomes of patients with predialysis CKD treated in an interdisciplinary center.