Development and validation of a prognostic index for allograft outcome in kidney recipients with transplant glomerulopathy.

We studied 92 patients with transplant glomerulopathy to develop a prognostic index based on the risk factors for allograft failure within five years of diagnosis (Development cohort). During 60 months (median) follow-up, 64 patients developed allograft failure. A chronic-inflammation score generated by combining Banff ci, ct and ti scores, serum creatinine and proteinuria at biopsy, were independent risk factors for allograft failure. Based on the Cox model, we developed a prognostic index and classified patients into risk groups. Compared to the low-risk group (median allograft survival over 60 months from diagnosis), patients in the medium risk group had a hazard ratio of 2.83 (median survival 25 months), while those in the high-risk group had a hazard ratio of 5.96 (median survival 3.7 months). We next evaluated the performance of the prognostic index in an independent external cohort of 47 patients with transplant glomerulopathy (Validation cohort). The hazard ratios were 2.18 (median survival 19 months) and 16.27 (median survival 1.6 months), respectively, for patients in the medium and high-risk groups, compared to the low-risk group (median survival 47 months). Our prognostic index model did well in measures of discrimination and calibration. Thus, risk stratification of transplant glomerulopathy based on our prognostic index may provide informative insight for both the patient and physician regarding prognosis and treatment.

The Nitty-Gritties of Kt/Vurea Calculations in Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis.

In advanced Chronic Kidney Disease, patients require renal replacement therapy (dialysis or transplantation) for clearance of toxins, electrolyte and acid-base balance and removal of excess fluid. Dialysis adequacy should be taken into consideration in the adjustment of the dialysis prescription. Kt/Vurea is one method of measuring dialysis adequacy that is commonly used in clinical practice. Different formulae for calculating Kt/V are available. The appropriate Kt/V formula to be used depends on the clinical scenario, as well as parameters such as gender and size of patient, frequency of dialysis, mode of dialysis (ie hemodialysis vs, peritoneal dialysis), inter-dialysis weight gain, clinical symptoms, complications (fluid overload, hyperkalemia, intolerance to dialysis, etc), and residual kidney function. Nutrition parameters including serum protein and albumin levels, vitamin B12 and ß2-microglobulin levels should be factored into the assessment of dialysis adequacy. In this review, we have described how Kt/Vurea is calculated in hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis with examples. We reviewed the available literature by searching for papers related to calculating Kt/Vurea, single pool Kt/V, double pool Kt/V, weekly Kt/V, standard Kt/V, surface area normalized Kt/V, and various equations commonly practiced in clinical practice. We found several original articles, some review articles along with detailed information from manufacturers of different dialyzers published on their websites or as package inserts. Understanding the different equations available for calculating Kt/Vurea and the application of these results in the clinical setting is important for refining patient care and for designing clinical studies.