RESUMO
UNLABELLED: Permanent dual lumen catheters (PDLC) provide an alternative vascular access in patients considered unsuitable for arteriovenous fistula, graft or peritoneal dialysis. However, the use of PDLC is often complicated by inadequate blood flow. The aim of this study was to identify catheter dysfunctions. We studied prospec-tively 57 chronic hemodialyzed patients, 73+/-11 years of age, with PDLC for 18+/-14 (1-48) months. Catheters were tunneled in silicone (MedComp Tesio n= 40) or in polyurethane (Permcath Quinton n = 11, GamCath Gambro n = 6) in left or right internal jugular (n = 49), in left or right subclavian (n = 3) and in right femoral vein (n = 5). We studied the blood viscosity indices (hematocrit, total protein, cholesterol and triglycerides), catheter intra-dialytic parameters (pre-pump and venous pressure), localization of the catheter tip (superior vena cava = SVC, right atrium = RA, inferior vena cava = IVC), blood pressure before and after hemodialysis during the 3 last dialyses, use of anticoagulant (ACT) or antiaggregant therapy (AAT) and previous infectious episodes. The mean blood flow was 269+/-37 ml/min (median 280 ml/min). The patients were divided according to the median value into groups I (Qb < 280, n = 28) and group II (Qb > 280, n =29). RESULTS: Blood viscosity, patients' mean arterial pressure and venous catheter line pressure did not differ between the two groups. Pre-pump pressure, at the start and at the end of treatment, was higher in group I. ACT, AAT and previous infectious episodes could not explain the low-performance. Blood flows of catheters localized in RA, SVC, and in IVC were respectively 287+/-20, 268+/-39, 244+/-27 ml/min. In the first case the Qb was significantly higher than IVC (p = 0.03) and SVC (p = 0.04). In conclusion, the most important factor influencing blood flow rates seems to be the position of the catheter tip in the venous system. The best blood flows were found in catheters with the tip localized in the right cardiac cavities, while PLDC placed in inferior vena cava showed lower blood flow.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Many attempts have been made to withdraw steroid therapy in renal transplant patients in order to avoid its many side effects. Results have been, so far, controversial. In this randomized prospective study, we compare the efficacy of azathioprine adjuncts to cyclosporine at the time of steroid withdrawal, 6 months after transplantation, versus Cyclosporine monotherapy, in preventing acute rejection. METHODS: One hundred and sixteen kidney transplant patients with good and stable renal function (creatininemia <2 mg/dl) received, in the first 6 months, cyclosporine + steroid. They were then randomized into two groups (A and B), and steroid therapy was withdrawn over 2 months. Group A (58 patients) continued on cyclosporine monotherapy, whereas group B (58 patients) added azathioprine (1 mg/kg/day) at the beginning of randomization and continued on cyclosporine + azathioprine. In both groups, patients resumed steroid therapy at the first episode of acute rejection. Follow-up after randomization was 5.3+/-1.6 years. RESULTS: After 5 years, the incidence of steroid resumption was 57% in group A and 29% in group B (P<0.02); of those, 68% and 88% of them were within 6 months from randomization. Anti-rejection therapy was always successful. Five-year patient and graft survival rates were 90% and 88% in group A and 100% and 91% in group B. Creatininemia did not differ, at follow-up. Side effects differed only for mild and reversible leukopenia caused by azathioprine in group B. CONCLUSION: Cyclosporine plus azathioprine is more effective than cyclosporine monotherapy in reducing the incidence of acute rejection after steroid withdrawal. Graft loss as a result of chronic rejection, mild in both groups, did not differ. Steroid withdrawal is feasible and advantageous, and the addition of azathioprine allowed 71% of our selected patients to remain steroid-free.