Serum phosphate and outcome at one year after deceased donor renal transplantation.

Traditional risk factors do not adequately explain the increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease in renal patients. This study considered a "non-traditional" risk factor, serum phosphate and outcome in renal transplant recipients. Data from 377 patients who received a first deceased donor renal transplant between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2008, were recorded; 10% (n=38) had diabetes, 16.7% (n=63) were smokers, and 18.8% (n=71) had a history of vascular disease. Three hundred and thirty-three patients were alive at the time of the analysis. Survivors were significantly younger, less likely to be smokers or diabetic, and had a higher estimated glomerular filtration rate at one yr post-transplantation. Serum phosphate was significantly lower in these patients (0.95 ± 0.23 vs. 1.04 ± 0.26, p = 0.031). Analysis of recipient survival, stratified by serum phosphate at one yr post-transplant, revealed that serum phosphate > 1.11 mMol/L was a significant predictor of all-cause mortality (p=0.006). Serum phosphate between 0.9 and 1.11 mMol/L afforded the best outcome. In multivariate analysis, serum phosphate remained a significant predictor of mortality (p=0.016). Serum phosphate at one yr after transplant seems to have a J-shaped relationship with mortality, and this effect is independent of traditional cardiovascular risk factors.

Discharging patients from the nephrology clinic to primary care--will they get appropriate monitoring of renal function?

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) guidelines have been produced to allow affected individuals to be identified early and managed more effectively, thereby reducing cardiovascular risk and slowing the progression of CKD. The guidelines allow patients with stable early CKD, who were previously followed in nephrology clinics, to be discharged back to primary care for monitoring of their CKD. AIM: To determine if patients discharged from the nephrology clinic have appropriate monitoring of renal function in primary care according to the UK CKD guidelines, and if patients are being referred back to the clinic appropriately. METHODS: All patients discharged from a weekly satellite unit general nephrology clinic over a 2-year period were identified (n = 160). Clinic letters, the local laboratory system and direct contact with the general practice were used to determine if the timing of tests of renal function were consistent with the UK CKD guidelines. RESULTS: Most subjects (88%) had CKD Stages 1-3 at the time of discharge (i.e. eGFR > 30 ml/min). After exclusion of patients with an incomplete management plan or insufficient time since discharge (n = 50), 85% of eligible patients (n = 110) had at least one measure of eGFR after discharge. In 65% (n = 84) of these patients, measurement occurred within 1 month of the correct timing according to the guidelines. Four patients were re-referred appropriately. There were no other patients who should have been re-referred due to deteriorating renal function. CONCLUSION: Patients with stable early CKD get appropriate monitoring of renal function after discharge from the nephrology clinic to primary care and are also referred back to the renal clinic appropriately.