[Renal Infarction: multicentric cases in Piedmont].

We describe factors associated to renal infarction, clinical, instrumental and laboratoristic features, and therapeutic strategies too. This is an observational, review and polycentric study of cases in Nephrologic Units in Piedmont during 2013-2015, with diagnosis of renal infarction by Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA). We collected 48 cases (25 M, age 57±16i; 23 F age 70±18, p = 0.007), subdivided in 3 groups based on etiology: group 1: cardio-embolic (n=19) ; group 2: coagulation abnormalities (n= 9); group 3: other causes or idiopathic (n=20). Median time from symptoms to diagnosis, known only in 38 cases, was 2 days (range 2 hours- 8 days). Symptoms of clinical presentation were: fever (67%), arterial hypertension (58%), abdominal o lumbar pain (54%), nausea/vomiting (58%), neurological symptoms (12%), gross hematuria (10%). LDH were increased (>530 UI/ml) in 96% of cases (45 cases out of 47), PCR (>0.5 mg/dl) in 94% of cases (45 out of 48), and eGFR <60 ml/min in 56% of cases (27 out of 48). Comparison of the various characteristics of the three groups shows: significantly older age (p=0.0001) in group 1 (76±12 years) vs group 2 (54±17 years) and group 3 (56±17 years); significantly more frequent cigarette smoking (p = 0.01) in group 2 (67%; 5 cases out of 9) and group 3 (60%; 12 cases out of 20) than group 1 (17%). No case has been subjected to endovascular thrombolysis. In 40 out of 48 cases, anticoagulant therapy was performed after diagnosis: in 12 (32%) cases no treatment, in 12 cases (30%) heparin, in 8 cases (20%) low molecular weight heparin, in 4 cases (10%) oral anticoagulants, in 3 cases fondaparinux (7%), in 1 case (2%) dermatan sulfate. CONCLUSIONS: Although some characteristics may guide the diagnosis, latency between onset and diagnosis is still moderately high and is likely to affect timely therapy.

[Renal biopsy practice in Piedmont and Valle d'Aosta]. / Indagine sulle modalità di esecuzione delle biopsia renale in Piemonte e Valle d'Aosta.

In 2010 a questionnaire was administered to the renal units of Piedmont and Valle d'Aosta to analyze their procedures for renal biopsy (RB). Seventy-eight percent of units performed RBs, 57% for more than 20 years, but only 43% performed at least 20 BRs per year. 20/21 units performed RB in an inpatient setting and 1/21 in day hospital with the patient remaining under observation the night after. Thirty-two percent did not consider a single kidney as a contraindication to RB, 59% considered it a relative contraindication and 9% considered it an absolute contraindication. In 90.5% of units there was a specific protocol for patient preparation for RB and 86% used a specific informed consent form. Ninety-five percent of units performed ultrasound-guided RB, 60% of them using needle guides attached to the probe. In 81% of units the left side was preferred; 71% put a pillow under the patient's abdomen. All units used disposable, automated or semi-automated needles. Needle size was 16G in 29%, 18G in 58%, and both 16G and 18G in 14% of units; 1 to 3 samples were drawn. One third of units had a microscope available for immediate evaluation of specimen adequacy. After RB, 86% of units kept patients in the prone position for 2-6 hours and all prescribed a period of bed rest (at least 24 hours in 90.5%). 90.5% of units followed a specific postbiopsy observation protocol consisting of blood pressure, heart rate and red blood cell measurements at different times, and urine monitoring and ultrasound control within 12-24 hours (only half of them also employing color Doppler). One third of all units discharged patients after 1 day and two thirds after 2-3 days; all prescribed abstention from effort and from antiplatelet drugs for 7-15 days. In 9 units both RB and tissue processing and examination were done in the same hospital, while 12 units sent the samples elsewhere. 76% obtained results in 2-4 days, 19% in 6-7 days, and 5% in 10-15 days. Less than 20% of the interviewed operators were fully familiar with the clauses of hospital insurance securing their activity. Use of RB is widespread in Piedmont and Valle d'Aosta but its practice shows variation between centers.

[Application of guidelines in clinical practice: a multicenter analysis of the treatment of membranous glomerulonephritis in Piedmont, Italy]. / Applicazione delle linee-guida nella realta' clinica: indagine multicentrica sul trattamento della glomerulonefrite membranosa in Piemonte.

The treatment of membranous glomerulonephritis (MGN) is controversial, especially in cases of no response to first-line treatment or multiple relapses. The Clinical Nephrology Group of Piedmont carried out a multicenter analysis of the treatment of patients affected by MGN in 15 nephrology units in Piedmont. The first treatment is usually started after a waiting period of 3-6 months in case of proteinuria in the nephrotic range but normal or slightly impaired renal function. A history of cancer, the presence of infectious disease, and secondary forms of MGN are criteria for exclusion from treatment. As first-line treatment, Piedmont nephrologists prescribe corticosteroids alternated with immunosuppressive drugs, generally preferring cyclophosphamide to chlorambucil. Only one nephrology unit uses cyclosporin A (CyA) as the first choice. In case of no response to treatment, a second therapeutic approach is undertaken after 2-12 months. Second-line treatment consists of CyA if immunosuppressive drugs were given before, and corticosteroids/ immunosuppressive drugs if CyA was the first treatment. A further choice may be ACTH or rituximab. In case of multiple relapses the treatment options are the same but previous immunosuppressive treatment, patient age, and the duration of kidney disease with a greater probability of renal failure and progression towards sclerosis require careful attention. Concern has been expressed regarding the potentially severe side effects of ACTH including myopathy, cataract and diabetes. In conclusion, the applied therapeutic approaches in Piedmont reflect the difficulty reported in the literature in identifying simple recommendations. ACTH and rituximab are increasingly preferred for the treatment of MGN and there is a need for prospective studies to determine the best protocol for rituximab and the safety profile of ACTH.