Pruritus in dialysis patients. Review and new perspectives.

Uremic pruritus (UP) is one of the most uncomfortable symptoms for patients in dialysis. UP has a great impact on dialysis patients' quality of life and has a great prevalence between those (28-70%). Physiopathology of UP is unknown and usually is unnoticed for most nephrologists (in more than 65% of centers is underdiagnosed). This lack of awareness drives to the unsuccessful treatment of this symptom. Moreover, the fact that most studies have been carried out on small populations and the difficulty assessing UP complicates a correct therapeutical approach. For this reason, we have designed treatment algorithms based on the efficacy of the drugs but also its safeness to avoid adverse effects.

Pruritus in dialysis patients. Review and new perspectives. / Prurito en pacientes en diálisis. Revisión de la literatura y nuevas perspectivas.

Uremic pruritus (UP) is one of the most uncomfortable symptoms for patients in dialysis. UP has a great impact on dialysis patients' quality of life and has a great prevalence between those (28-70%). Physiopathology of UP is unknown and usually is unnoticed for most nephrologists (in more than 65% of centers is underdiagnosed). This lack of awareness drives to the unsuccessful treatment of this symptom. Moreover, the fact that most studies have been carried out on small populations and the difficulty assessing UP complicates a correct therapeutical approach. For this reason, we have designed treatment algorithms based on the efficacy of the drugs but also its safeness to avoid adverse effects.

COVID-19 incidence and outcomes in a home dialysis unit in Madrid (Spain) at the height of the pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) is a viral infection caused by a new coronavirus that is affecting the entire world. There have been studies of patients on in-center hemodialysis (HD), but home dialysis population data are scarce. Our objective is to study the incidence and course of COVID-19 in a home dialysis unit (HDU) at the height of the pandemic. METHODS: an observational, retrospective study enrolling all patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from the HDU of Hospital Universitario La Paz [La Paz University Hospital] (Madrid, Spain) between March 10 and May 15, 2020. We collected clinical data from the HDU (57 patients on peritoneal dialysis [PD] and 22 patients on home hemodialysis [HHD]) and compared the clinical characteristics and course of patients with and without COVID-19 infection. RESULTS: twelve patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 (9 PD; 3 HHD). There were no statistically significant differences in terms of clinical characteristics between patients with COVID-19 and the rest of the unit. The mean age was 62 ± 18.5 years; most were men (75%). All patients but one required hospitalization. Ten patients (83%) were discharged following a mean of 16.4 ± 9.7 days of hospitalization. Two patients were diagnosed while hospitalised for other conditions, and these were the only patients who died. Those who died were older than those who survived. CONCLUSION: The incidence of COVID-19 in our HDU in Madrid at the height of the pandemic was high, especially in patients on PD. No potential benefit for preventing the infection in patients on home dialysis was observed. Advanced age and nosocomial transmission were the main factors linked to a worse prognosis.

Cross-sectional study of quality of life in relation with vascular access in hemodialysis patients. Study in a hospital and a satellite center

Introduction: Vascular access for hemodialysis (HD) is essential for the patient. Even though Arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is the preferred access, in certain age groups, the central venous catheter (CVC) may provide advantages. This study aims to investigate the quality of life related to vascular access. Methods: Cross-sectional study including patients from a hospital, a home HD unit and a satellite hemodialysis center. Clinical data was collected from the patients, who went through a quality-of-life questionnaire SF12 and a Vascular Access Questionnaire (VAQ). Results: 91 patients participated, mostly male (70 %), with a mean age of 68.9 ± 16.2 years. AVF was the current vascular access in 60.4 %, the rest used a CVC. Home HD was performed in 12.1 % of patients and 76 % started it via CVC. Regarding patients who have had both AVF and CVC, 58 % prefer AVF and only 26.5 % of current CVC carriers would have a new AVF, mostly due to fear of pain (52 %). Most people (72.5 %) reported having received sufficient information, with no differences between both accesses. The SF12 results showed no differences between patients with AVF or CVC. Regarding the VAQ, patients with AVF were more satisfied with the social aspect (p = 0.036) and complications (p = 0.006). Conclusion: Patients with AVF had better outcomes than those using CVC regarding complications and social aspects. These differences are not attributable to a worse overall quality of life status of CVC patients. Most patients with CVCs refuse to go through a new AVF for fear of puncture pain.

Introducción: el acceso vascular para la hemodiálisis (HD) es esencial para el paciente. Aunque la fístula arteriovenosa (FAV) es el acceso preferido, en ciertos grupos de edad el catéter venoso central (CVC) puede aportar ventajas. Este estudio pretende investigar la calidad de vida relacionada con el acceso vascular. Métodos: el estudio transversal incluye pacientes del hospital, de una unidad de HD domiciliaria y de un centro de hemodiálisis periférico. Se recogieron datos clínicos de los pacientes que contestaron el cuestionario de calidad de vida SF12 y Cuestionario de Acceso Vascular (VAQ). Resultados: 91 pacientes, en su mayoría varones (70 %), con una edad media de 68,9 ± 16,2 años. La FAV era el acceso vascular actual en el 60,4 %. La HD domiciliaria se realizó en el 12,1 % de los pacientes y el 76 % la inició mediante CVC. En cuanto a los pacientes que han tenido tanto FAV como CVC, el 58 % prefiere la FAV y sólo el 26,5 % de los actuales portadores de CVC se sometería a una nueva FAV, sobre todo por miedo al dolor (52 %). La mayoría de las personas (72,5 %) declararon haber recibido suficiente información, sin diferencias entre ambos accesos. Los resultados del SF12 no mostraron diferencias según el acceso. En cuanto al VAQ, los pacientes con AVF estaban más satisfechos con el aspecto social y las complicaciones. Conclusión: los pacientes con FAV tuvieron mejores resultados en comparación con los que utilizaron CVC en cuanto a complicaciones y aspectos sociales, sin deberse a un peor estado general de la calidad de vida. La mayoría de los pacientes con CVC se niegan a someterse a una nueva FAV por miedo al dolor de la punción.