Switching from continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration to intermittent sustained low-efficiency daily hemodiafiltration (SLED-f) in pediatric acute kidney injury: A prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT) is the preferred modality in critically ill children with acute kidney injury. Upon improvement, intermittent hemodialysis is usually initiated as a step-down therapy, which can be associated with several adverse events. Hybrid therapies such as Sustained low-efficiency daily dialysis with pre-filter replacement (SLED-f) combines the slow sustained features of a continuous treatment, ensuring hemodynamic stability, with similar solute clearance along with the cost effectiveness of conventional intermittent hemodialysis. We examined the feasibility of using SLED-f as a transition step-down therapy after CKRT in critically ill pediatric patients with acute kidney injury. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted in children admitted to our tertiary care pediatric intensive care units with multi-organ dysfunction syndrome including acute kidney injury who received CKRT for management. Those patients receiving fewer than two inotropes to maintain perfusion and failed a diuretic challenge were switched to SLED-f. RESULTS: Eleven patients underwent 105 SLED-f sessions (mean of 9.55 +/- 4.90 sessions per patient), as a part of step-down therapy from continuous hemodiafiltration. All (100%) our patients had sepsis associated acute kidney injury with multiorgan dysfunction and required ventilation. During SLED-f, urea reduction ratio was 64.1 +/- 5.3%, Kt/V was 1.13 +/- 0.1, and beta-2 microglobulin reduction was 42.5 +/-4%. Incidence of hypotension and requirement of escalation of inotropes during SLED-f was 18.18%. Filter clotting occurred twice in one patient. CONCLUSION: SLED-f is a safe and effective modality for use as a transition therapy between CKRT and intermittent hemodialysis in children in the PICU.

WITHDRAWN: Non-Anti-TNF Biologics as Salvage Therapy for Refractory Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis, A Systematic Review

Since the authors are not responding to the editor's requests to fulfill the editorial requirement, therefore, the article has been withdrawn.Bentham Science apologizes to the readers of the journal for any inconvenience this may have caused.The Bentham Editorial Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://benthamscience.com/editorial-policies-main.php BENTHAM SCIENCE DISCLAIMER: It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to this journal have not been published and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. Furthermore, any data, illustration, structure or table that has been published elsewhere must be reported, and copyright permission for reproduction must be obtained. Plagiarism is strictly forbidden, and by submitting the article for publication the authors agree that the publishers have the legal right to take appropriate action against the authors, if plagiarism or fabricated information is discovered. By submitting a manuscript, the authors agree that the copyright of their article is transferred to the publishers if and when the article is accepted for publication.

Health Maintenance and Preventative Care in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review of the Overall Quality of Societal Recommendations.

BACKGROUND AIMS: Preventative care plays an important role in maintaining health in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aimed to assess the overall quality, strength, and transparency of conflicts among guidelines on preventative care in IBD. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in multiple databases to identify all guidelines pertaining to preventative care in IBD in April 2021. All guidelines were reviewed for the transparency of conflicts of interest and funding, recommendation quality and strength, external guideline review, patient voice inclusion, and plan for update-as per Institute of Medicine standards. In addition, recommendations and their quality were compared between societies. RESULTS: Fifteen distinct societies and a total of 89 recommendations were included. Not all guidelines provided recommendations on the key aspects of preventative care in IBD-such as vaccinations, cancer prevention, stress reduction, and diet/exercise. Sixty-seven percent of guidelines reported on conflicts of interest, 20% underwent external review, and 27% included patient representation. In all, 6.7%, 21.3%, and 71.9% of recommendations were based on high, moderate, and low-quality evidence, respectively. Twenty-seven percent, 23.6%, and 49.4% of recommendations were strong, weak/conditional, and did not provide a strength, respectively. The proportion of high-quality evidence ( P =0.28) and strong recommendations ( P =0.41) did not significantly differ across societies. CONCLUSIONS: Many guidelines do not provide recommendations on key aspects of preventative care in IBD. As over 70% of recommendations are based on low-quality evidence, further studies on preventative care in IBD are warranted to improve the overall quality of evidence.