Prognoses of patients undergoing hemodialysis administered 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide versus 13-valent pneumococcal protein conjugate vaccines.

INTRODUCTION: Sequential vaccination with the 13-valent pneumococcal protein conjugate vaccine (PCV13) and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) is recommended for patients undergoing hemodialysis; however, evidence for the efficacy of these pneumococcal vaccines for patients undergoing hemodialysis is limited to a single dose. We aimed to evaluate the prognosis of patients undergoing hemodialysis who received vaccination with PPSV23 alone versus sequential vaccination with PCV13 and PPSV23. METHODS: Patients undergoing hemodialysis who were vaccinated with PPSV23 alone (PPSV23 group) or PCV13 followed by PPSV23 (PCV13+PPSV23 group) between 2014 and 2016 were included; the observation period was three years from the first injection. Patients who underwent hemodialysis between 2011 and 2012 were included as controls. After propensity score matching using age, sex, dialysis vintage, diabetes history, pneumonia history, and serum albumin and creatinine levels, survival analysis was performed. RESULTS: The study included 89, 71, and 319 patients in the PPSV23, PCV13+PPSV23, and control groups, respectively. After propensity score matching, the PPSV23 and control group 1 (79 patients each) and the PCV13+PPSV23 and control group 2 (61 patients each) were compared. Significant differences were observed in the survival rate between the PPSV23 group and control group 1 (p = 0.005) but not between the PCV13+PPSV23 group and control group 2. Pneumonia-related mortality in the two vaccinated groups did not differ significantly during the observation period. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received PPSV23 had a favorable prognosis; however, no positive effect was demonstrated in the PCV13+PPSV23 group.

Poor prognosis after lower-limb amputation irrespective of diabetes status in patients undergoing hemodialysis.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes mellitus is one of the most important risk factors for lower-limb amputation in patients undergoing hemodialysis. However, the influence of diabetes mellitus on survival after lower-limb amputation is unknown. METHODS: Patients who underwent lower-limb amputation since 1996 (amputation group) and those who underwent hemodialysis during 2011-2012 (control group) were included and were followed up until July 2022. RESULTS: There were 70 patients (age: 66.3 ± 8.2 years, 80% male, 77% diabetic) in the amputation group and 328 (age: 67.5 ± 13.5 years, 56% male, 33% diabetic) in the control group. The amputation group showed a poorer prognosis than the control group (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.41, p < 0.001). In the control group, patients with diabetes exhibited poorer survival than those without diabetes (HR: 1.86, p < 0.001). In the amputation group, patients with diabetes exhibited improved survival (HR: 0.47, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing hemodialysis who underwent lower-limb amputation exhibited a poor prognosis, irrespective of diabetes status.

Parameters affecting prognosis after hemodialysis withdrawal: experience from a single center.

INTRODUCTION: Withdrawal from maintenance hemodialysis is unavoidable in some patients due to their poor general condition; however, their survival days vary depending on their health status. The factors associated with life prognosis in the terminal phase in patients undergoing hemodialysis remain unclear. METHODS: Patients who died after withdrawal from hemodialysis between 2011 and 2021 at Nagasaki Renal Center were included. Patient background data were collected, and the association between the patients' clinical features and survival duration was analyzed. RESULTS: The withdrawal group included 174 patients (79.8 ± 10.8 years old; 50.6% male; median dialysis vintage, 3.6 years). The most common reason for withdrawal (95%) was that hemodialysis was more harmful than beneficial because of the patient's poor general condition. The median time from withdrawal to death was 4 days (interquartile range, 3-10 days). Multivariable Cox proportional regression analysis showed that oral nutrition (hazard ratio (HR), 1.98; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12-3.50; P = 0.03), hypoxemia (HR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.55-3.47; P < 0.01), ventilator use (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.11-0.58; P < 0.01), and pleural effusion (HR, 1.54; CI, 1.01-2.37; P = 0.04) were associated with increased survival duration. In contrast, antibiotics and vasopressor administration were not associated with the survival duration. CONCLUSION: In this study, we explored the parameters affecting the survival of patients who withdrew from hemodialysis. Physicians could use our results to establish more accurate predictions, which may help the patient and their family to emotionally accept and implement the desired care plan.

Comparison of sevelamer hydrochloride with colestimide, administered alone or in combination with calcium carbonate, in patients on hemodialysis.

Since hyperphosphatemia in hemodialysis patients can cause secondary hyperparathyroidism and promotes vascular calcification, serum phosphate (Pi) levels must be controlled by phosphate binders. Although sevelamer and colestimide are known as similar non-calcium, non-aluminum phosphate binders in hemodialysis patients, there are no studies that compare the effects of the two agents as either a monotherapy or in combination with calcium carbonate (CaCO3). We randomly allocated 62 hemodialysis patients with hyperphosphatemia to treatment with sevelamer (3.0 g/day) and colestimide (3.0 g/day). During the study, 35 subjects dropped out, leaving 13 in the sevelamer group and 14 in the colestimide group. After a 2-week CaCO3 washout, all subjects received the monotherapy for 4 weeks and then CaCO3 (3.0 g/day) was added for another 4 weeks. Serum corrected calcium levels tended to decrease in both groups during the washout period and monotherapy, but there was no significant difference between the two groups after the addition of CaCO3. Although the calcium x phosphorus product (Ca x P) in the two groups increased during the washout period, there was no significant change or difference between the two groups during monotherapy. However, the addition of CaCO3 significantly reduced serum Pi at Week 8 compared to that at Week 0 in both groups, and significantly lowered Ca x P only in the sevelamer group, but not in the colestimide group(.) In this short-term study, sevelamer and colestimide similarly ameliorated hyperphosphatemia, but the combination of sevelamer and CaCO3 was more effective than colestimide with CaCO3 in controlling the Ca x P product, and it may improve cardiovascular mortality in hemodialysis patients.