Translating chronic kidney disease epidemiology into patient care--the individual/public health risk paradox.

BACKGROUND: Applying the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative definitions of chronic kidney disease (CKD), it appears that CKD is common. The increased recognition of CKD has brought with it the clinical challenge of translating into practice the implications for the patient and for service planning. To understand the clinical relevance and translate that into information to support individual patient care and service planning, we explored clinical outcomes in a large British CKD cohort, identified through routine opportunistic testing, with a 6-year follow-up (≈ 13,000 patient-years). METHODS: A cohort had previously been identified with CKD-sustained reduced eGFR over at least 3 months and case note review. Six-year (13,339 patient-years) follow-up for renal replacement therapy (RRT) initiation and death was achieved through data linkage. Age- and sex-specific mortality rates were compared to the general population. RESULTS: Of 3414 individuals (most Stage 3b-5), median age 78.6 years, followed for 13 339 patient-years, 170 (5%) initiated RRT and 2024 (59%) died without initiating RRT. RRT initiation rates decreased with age from 14.33 to 0.65 per 100 patient-years among those aged 15-25 and 75-85 years at baseline but the actual numbers initiating RRT increased from 6 to 34, respectively. RRT initiation rates were lower for female sex, absence of macroalbuminuria and less advanced CKD stage. Mortality rates increased with age from 2 to 34 per 100 patient-years for those aged 15-45 and > 85 years at baseline, an excess of 2 and 17 per 100 patient-years over that of the general population, respectively. However, the increase in relative risk was 19-fold for those aged 15-45 years and just 2-fold in those > 85 years. These data have been converted into simple tools for considering individual patients' risk and informing service planning. CONCLUSIONS: The contrast between relative and absolute risk for both RRT initiation and mortality by age group illustrates the difficulties for planning services. The challenge that now faces clinicians is how to appropriately identify which elderly patients with CKD are at high risk of poor outcome.

Severe hyponatremia after donor nephrectomy.

Living kidney donation is safe and established but can lead to short- and long-term complications. Hyponatremia is the most common disorder of body fluid and electrolyte balance in clinical practice, associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and the length of hospital stay. A correct diagnosis of the etiology of hyponatremia is critical, both to determine correct management and prognosis. Here, we present a case of a severe hyponatremia following left- sided donor nephrectomy with a physical examination suggestive of mild hypovolemia. Laboratory tests revealed high urine osmolality and sodium concentration mimicking syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion (SIADH), in the setting of abnormally blunted response to Synacthen. The patient responded well to hydrocortisone replacement. Differentiating between primary adrenal insufficiency and SIADH as a cause of severe hyponatremia was the key to successfully treating this patient. Hyponatremia following donor nephrectomy is unusual and could be explained in this case by hypocortisolism.

Ramadan Fasting in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Single-Centre Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Fasting during the lunar month of Ramadan is mandatory to all healthy adult Muslims. Renal transplant recipients are often worried about the impact of fluid and electrolyte deprivation during fasting on the function of their allograft. We aimed to examine the effect of fasting Ramadan on the graft function in renal transplant recipients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent kidney transplantation in our tertiary referral center. Baseline pre-Ramadan estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and urinary protein excretion were compared to those during and after Ramadan within and between the fasting and non-fasting groups. RESULTS: The study population included 280 kidney transplant recipients who chose to fast during the Ramadan month (June-July 2014) and 285 recipients who did not fast. In the fasting group, baseline eGFR did not change from that during or post-Ramadan (72.6 ± 23.7 versus 72.3 ± 24.5 mL/min/1.73 m2, P = 0.53; and 72.6 ± 23.7 versus 72 ± 23.2 mL/min/1.73 m2, P = 0.14, respectively). Compared to baseline, there were no significant differences between the fasting and the non-fasting groups in terms of mean percent changes in eGFR, MAP, and urinary protein excretion. CONCLUSION: Fasting during the month of Ramadan did not have significant adverse effects on renal allograft function.

Automated vs continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) with all forms of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) was performed to assess their comparative clinical effectiveness. METHODS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL, were searched for relevant RCTs. Analysis was by a random effects model and results expressed as relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Three trials (139 patients) were identified. APD when compared to CAPD was found to have significantly lower peritonitis rates (two trials, 107 patients, rate ratio 0.54, 95% CI 0.35-0.83) and hospitalization rates (one trial, 82 patients, rate ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.39-0.93) but not exit-site infection rates (two trials, 107 patients, rate ratio 1.00, 95% CI 0.56-1.76). However no differences were detected between APD and CAPD in respect to risk of mortality (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.51-4.37), peritonitis (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50-1.11), switching from the original peritoneal dialysis (PD) modality to a different dialysis modality including an alternative form of PD (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25-1.02), PD catheter removal (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.27-1.48) and hospital admissions (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.43-2.17). Patients on APD were found to have significantly more time for work, family and social activities. CONCLUSIONS: APD appears to be more beneficial than CAPD, in terms of reducing peritonitis rates and with respect to certain social issues that impact on patients' quality of life. Further, adequately powered trials are required to confirm the benefits for APD found in this review and detect differences with respect to other clinically important outcomes that may have been missed by the trials included in this review due to their small size and short follow-up periods.