983 resultados para Relatório anual 2003
Resumo:
Introduction: The prevalence of comorbidities in incident renal replacement therapy (RRT) patients changes with age and varies between ethnic groups. This study describes these associations and the independent effect of comorbidities on outcomes. Methods: Adult patients starting RRT between 2003 and 2008 in centres reporting to the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) with data on comorbidity (n ¼ 14,909) were included. The UKRR studied the association of comorbidity with patient demographics, treatment modality, haemoglobin, renal function at start of RRT and subsequent listing for kidney transplantation. The relationship between comorbidities and mortality at 90 days and one year after 90 days from start of RRT was explored using Cox regression. Results: Completeness of comorbidity data was 40.0% compared with 54.3% in 2003. Of patients with data, 53.8% had one or more comorbidities. Diabetes mellitus and ischaemic heart disease were the most common conditions seen in 30.1% and 22.7% of patients respectively. Current smoking was recorded for 14.5% of incident RRT patients in the 6-year period. Comorbidities became more common with increasing age in all ethnic groups although the difference between the 65–74 and 75+ age groups was not significant. Within each age group, South Asians and Blacks had lower rates of comorbidity, despite higher rates of diabetes mellitus. In multivariate survival analysis, malignancy and ischaemic/neuropathic ulcers were the strongest independent predictors of poor survival at 1 year after 90 days from the start of RRT. Conclusion: Differences in prevalence of comorbid illnesses in incident RRT patients may reflect variation in access to health care or competing risk prior to commencing treatment. At the same time, smoking rates remained high in this ‘at risk’ population. Further work on this and ways to improve comorbidity reporting should be priorities for 2010–11.
Resumo:
The European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 has now been in force in Ireland for ten years. This article analyses the Act itself and the impact which it has had on the Irish courts during the first decade of its operation. The use of the European Convention on Human Rights in the Irish courts prior to the enactment of the legislation is discussed, as are the reasons for the passing of the Act. The relationship between the Act and the Irish Constitution is examined, as is the jurisprudence of the Irish courts towards the interpretative obligation found in section 2(1), and the duty placed upon organs of the State by section 3(1). The article ends with a number of observations regarding the impact which the Act has had on the Irish courts at a more general level. Comparisons will be drawn with the UK’s Human Rights Act 1998 throughout the discussion.