[Renal function performance in CKD stage 5: a sealed fate?]

Introduction and aims: Stages 4 and 5 of chronic kidney disease (CKD) have always been considered hard to modify in their speed and evolution. We retrospectively evaluated our CKD stage 5 patients (from 01/1/2016 to 12/31/2018), with a view to analyzing their kidney function evolution. Material and Methods: We included only patients with longer than 6 months follow-up and at least 4 clinical-laboratory controls that included measured Creatinine Clearance (ClCr) and estimated GFR with CKD-EPI (eGFR). We evaluated: the agreement between ClCr and eGFR through Bland-Altman analysis; progression rate, classified as fast (eGFR loss >5ml/min/year), slow (eGFR loss 1-5 ml/min/year) and non-progressive (eGFR loss <1 ml/min/year or eGFR increase). We also evaluated which clinical-laboratory parameters (diabetes, blood pressure control, use of ACEi/ARBs, ischemic myocardiopathy, peripheral obliterant arteriopathy (POA), proteinuria, hemoglobin, uric acid, PTH, phosphorus) were associated to the different eGFR progression classes by means of bivariate regression and multinomial multiple regression model. Results: Measured CrCl and eGFR where often in agreement, especially for GFR values <12ml/min. The average slope of eGFR was -3.05 ±3.68 ml/min/1.73 m2/year. The progression of kidney function was fast in 17% of the patients, slow in 57.6%, non-progressive in 25.4%. At the bivariate analysis, a fast progression was associated with poor blood pressure control (p=0.038) and ACEi/ARBs use (p=0.043). In the multivariable model, only peripheral obliterative arteriopathy proved associated to an increased risk of fast progression of eGFR (relative risk ratio=5.97). Discussion: Less than one fifth of our patients presented a fast GFR loss (>5 ml/min/year). The vast majority showed a slow progression, stabilisation or even an improvement. Despite the limits due to the small sample size, the data has encouraged us not to consider CKD stage 5 as an inexorable and short journey towards artificial replacement therapy.

The challenge of diagnosing atheroembolic renal disease: clinical features and prognostic factors.

BACKGROUND: Atheroembolic renal disease (AERD) is caused by showers of cholesterol crystals released by eroded atherosclerotic plaques. Embolization may occur spontaneously or after angiographic/surgical procedures. We sought to determine clinical features and prognostic factors of AERD. METHODS AND RESULTS: Incident cases of AERD were enrolled at multiple sites and followed up from diagnosis until dialysis and death. Diagnosis was based on clinical suspicion, confirmed by histology or ophthalmoscopy for all spontaneous forms and for most iatrogenic cases. Cox regression was used to model time to dialysis and death as a function of baseline characteristics, AERD presentation (acute/subacute versus chronic renal function decline), and extrarenal manifestations. Three hundred fifty-four subjects were followed up for an average of 2 years. They tended to be male (83%) and elderly (60% >70 years) and to have cardiovascular diseases (90%) and abnormal renal function at baseline (83%). AERD occurred spontaneously in 23.5% of the cases. During the study, 116 patients required dialysis, and 102 died. Baseline comorbidities, ie, reduced renal function, presence of diabetes, history of heart failure, acute/subacute presentation, and gastrointestinal tract involvement, were significant predictors of event occurrence. The risk of dialysis and death was 50% lower among those receiving statins. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical features of AERD are identifiable. These make diagnosis possible in most cases. Prognosis is influenced by disease type and severity.

Lack of association between dialysis modality and outcomes in atheroembolic renal disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Atheroembolic renal disease (AERD) can require dialytic support. Because anticoagulation may trigger atheroembolization, peritoneal dialysis may be preferred to hemodialysis. However, the effect of dialysis modality on renal and patient outcomes in AERD is unknown. DESIGN, SETTINGS, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A subcohort of 111 subjects who developed acute/subacute renal failure requiring dialysis was identified from a larger longitudinal study of AERD. The main exposure of interest was dialysis modality (peritoneal versus extracorporeal therapies). Logistic regression was used to study the probability of renal function recovery. Times from dialysis initiation to death were studied using Cox's regression. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients received hemodialysis and 25 received peritoneal dialysis. The probability of renal function recovery was similar by dialysis modality (25% among hemodialysis patients and 24% among peritoneal dialysis patients; P = 0.873). During follow-up, 58 patients died, 14 among peritoneal patients and 44 among hemodialysis patients (P = 0.705). In multivariable analysis, gastrointestinal tract involvement and use of statins maintained an independent effect on the risk of patient death. CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support the notion that one dialysis modality is superior to the other. However, the observational nature of the data precludes any firm conclusions.