ABSTRACT
Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have an increased risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Capillary rarefaction may be both one of the causes as well as a consequence of CKD and cardiovascular disease. We reviewed the published literature on human biopsy studies and conclude that renal capillary rarefaction occurs independently of the cause of renal function decline. Moreover, glomerular hypertrophy may be an early sign of generalized endothelial dysfunction, while peritubular capillary loss occurs in advanced renal disease. Recent studies with non-invasive measurements show that capillary rarefaction is detected systemically (e.g., in the skin) in individuals with albuminuria, as sign of early CKD and/or generalized endothelial dysfunction. Decreased capillary density is found in omental fat, muscle and heart biopsies of patients with advanced CKD as well as in skin, fat, muscle, brain and heart biopsies of individuals with cardiovascular risk factors. No biopsy studies have yet been performed on capillary rarefaction in individuals with early CKD. At present it is unknown whether individuals with CKD and cardiovascular disease merely share the same risk factors for capillary rarefaction, or whether there is a causal relationship between rarefaction in renal and systemic capillaries. Further studies on renal and systemic capillary rarefaction, including their temporal relationship and underlying mechanisms are needed. This review stresses the importance of preserving and maintaining capillary integrity and homeostasis in the prevention and management of renal and cardiovascular disease.
Subject(s)
Cardiovascular Diseases , Microvascular Rarefaction , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic , Vascular Diseases , Humans , Capillaries/pathology , Cardiovascular Diseases/pathology , Microvascular Rarefaction/pathology , Kidney/pathology , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic/pathology , Vascular Diseases/pathologyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Clinical benefits of laparoscopic surgery are well established, but evidence for financial benefits is limited. This study aimed to compare the financial impact of the introduction of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: This study included patients who underwent colorectal surgery between January 2010 and 2015. We collected a range of financial data and divided the patients into 2 groups. Primary outcome was total cost defined by surgical-related costs. RESULTS: A total of 1,246 patients were included, of which 440 surgeries were performed laparoscopically. The total median cost of laparoscopy was higher compared to open surgery (EUR 4,665 vs. EUR 4,268, p = 0.001). Laparoscopy was associated with higher equipment costs (EUR 857 vs. EUR 232, p < 0.001), longer operating time (3.2 vs. 2.5 hours, p < 0.001), and more readmissions (10.9 vs. 8.5%, p < 0.001). However, after adjusting for heterogeneity, no difference was found in total cost. Surgical-related costs were counterbalanced by lower costs associated with shorter median hospital stay (6 vs. 9 days, p < 0.001), less morbidity (37.3 vs. 55.1%, p < 0.001), and less mortality (1.8 vs. 5.6%, p = 0.013) for laparoscopy. CONCLUSION: During the introduction of laparoscopy for colorectal surgery, no significant differences were found in total cost between laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery. However, favorable postoperative outcomes were achieved with laparoscopic surgery.
