A quality improvement model for optimizing care of the diabetic end-stage renal disease patient.

Persons with diabetes mellitus whose kidney disease progresses to end-stage requiring dialysis have poorer outcomes compared to nondiabetic patients who commence maintenance dialysis. In the diabetic patient without renal failure, sustained strict glycemic, lipid, and blood pressure (BP) control can retard or thwart diabetic complications such as retinopathy, neuropathy, coronary disease, and peripheral vascular disease. Achieving these outcomes requires multidisciplinary collaborative care. Best care of the diabetic person requires a dedicated clinician who knows the patient well, who closely follows the course of clinical problems, who provides frequent assessments and interventions, and who also directs care to other agencies, clinics, and specialized clinicians who provide expert focused evaluations and interventions aimed at specific clinical concerns. Diabetic patients who reach end-stage renal disease (ESRD) have even greater clinical need of a dedicated principal care clinician than the diabetic patient who has minimal or moderate kidney disease. The diabetic patient with ESRD exhibits greater fluctuations in glucose and BP due to dialysis-related diet patterns and fluid balances and has more active cardiovascular problems due to the combined influences of calcium, phosphorus, and lipid imbalances. These problems warrant exceptional care that includes frequent surveillance and monitoring with timely interventions if patient outcomes are to be improved. We present here a quality improvement model for optimizing care of the diabetic dialysis patient that relies on a dedicated practitioner who can evaluate and intervene on the multiple variables within and beyond the dialysis clinic that impact the patient's health. We present three detailed clinical care pathways that the dedicated clinician can follow. We believe that patient outcomes can be improved with this approach that provides customized problem-focused care, collaborates with the dialysis-provider team, and extends and directs diabetic self-care, home-care, and specialized clinical care in the challenging areas of cardiac and peripheral vascular disease, glycemic control, lipid control, infection prevention, and BP management.

Successful use of intraperitoneal daptomycin in the treatment of vancomycin-resistant enterococcus peritonitis.

Peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis from such resistant organisms as vancomycin-resistant enterococci increasingly is occurring and is challenging to treat. We describe 2 cases of vancomycin-resistant entercoccus peritonitis successfully treated with intraperitoneal daptomycin. Both patients were on automated peritoneal dialysis therapy with culture-positive vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium peritonitis and were treated with 10 to 14 days of intraperitoneal daptomycin given every 4 hours through manual peritoneal dialysate exchanges. Despite the known degradation in dextrose solutions, intraperitoneal daptomycin was effective in clearing both infections. Neither patient experienced a relapse or repeated peritonitis. Additional studies of dosing and pharmacokinetics of intraperitoneal daptomycin in the treatment of patients with vancomycin-resistant enterococcus peritonitis are needed.

Intradialytic administration of amphotericin B: clinical observations on efficacy and safety.

BACKGROUND: Amphotericin B is used commonly to treat fungal infections. Unfortunately, little information exists regarding the use of intravenous amphotericin B in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical course of patients receiving amphotericin B during hemodialysis (HD). Twenty-five episodes of systemic fungal infection occurring in 24 patients with ESRD treated with parenteral amphotericin B administered during HD were noted. Patients received a maintenance dose of 0.5 to 1.0 mg/kg amphotericin B intravenously thrice weekly during HD sessions. Twenty-three patients received either 500 or 1000 mg of amphotericin B, whereas 1 patient with AIDS received a total of 6,500 mg. RESULTS: Intradialytic hypotension developed in 27.7% of HD sessions during treatment with amphotericin B compared with 28.8% of 20 HD sessions evaluated before initiation of amphotericin B therapy. Four patients exhibited a temperature rise greater than 38.8 degrees C during drug infusion (1 episode per patient). Increases in heart rate and ventricular ectopy were rare. Serum potassium concentrations as well as Kt/V and urea reduction ratio did not change significantly. All patients (except the patient with AIDS) resolved their respective fungal infections. CONCLUSIONS: Intradialytic administration of amphotericin B was generally well tolerated. Our observations suggest that amphotericin B is effective and safe for outpatient intradialytic therapy when administered according to protocol.