Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure in Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation and End-Stage Renal Disease on Hemodialysis: A Case Series.

Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in the general population, and its prevalence increases among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing hemodialysis. This population presents high risk of both hemorrhagic and thrombotic events, with little evidence regarding the use of oral anticoagulation treatment (OAT) and multiple complications arising from it; however, stroke prevention with percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is an alternative to be considered. We retrospectively describe the safety and efficacy of percutaneous LAAC in eight patients with NVAF and CKD on hemodialysis during a 12-month follow-up. The mean age was 78.8 years (range 64-86; SD ± 6.7), and seven patients were male. The mean CHA2DS2-VASC and HAS-BLED scores were high, 4.8 (SD ± 1.5) and 3.8 (SD ± 1.3), respectively. Seventy-five percent of the patients were referred for this intervention due to a history of major bleeding, with gastrointestinal bleeding being the most common type, while the remaining twenty-five percent of the patients were referred because of a high risk of bleeding. The percutaneous LAAC procedure was successfully completed in 100% of the patients, with complete exclusion of the appendage without complications or leaks exceeding 5 mm. There was one death not related to the procedure four days after the intervention. Among the other seven patients, no deaths, cardioembolic events or major bleeding were reported during the follow-up period. In our sample, percutaneous LAAC appears to be a safe and effective alternative to anticoagulation in patients with NVAF and CKD on hemodialysis.

Management of immunosuppressive therapy in kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19. A multicentre national study derived from the Spanish Society of Nephrology COVID registry.

INTRODUCTION: SARS CoV2 infection has had a major impact on renal transplant patients with a high mortality in the first months of the pandemic. Intentional reduction of immunosuppressive therapy has been postulated as one of the cornerstone in the management of the infection in the absence of targeted antiviral treatment. This has been modified according to the patient`s clinical situation and its effect on renal function or anti-HLA antibodies in the medium term has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the management of immunosuppressive therapy made during SARS-CoV2 infection, as well as renal function and anti-HLA antibodies in kidney transplant patients 6 months after COVID19 diagnosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective, national multicentre, retrospective study (30 centres) of kidney transplant recipients with COVID19 from 01/02/20 to 31/12/20. Clinical variables were collected from medical records and included in an anonymised database. SPSS statistical software was used for data analysis. RESULTS: renal transplant recipients with COVID19 were included (62.6% male), with a mean age of 57.5 years. The predominant immunosuppressive treatment prior to COVID19 was triple therapy with prednisone, tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid (54.6%) followed by m-TOR inhibitor regimens (18.6%). After diagnosis of infection, mycophenolic acid was discontinued in 73.8% of patients, m-TOR inhibitor in 41.4%, tacrolimus in 10.5% and cyclosporin A in 10%. In turn, 26.9% received dexamethasone and 50.9% were started on or had their baseline prednisone dose increased. Mean creatinine before diagnosis of COVID19, at diagnosis and at 6 months was: 1.7 ±â€¯0.8, 2.1 ±â€¯1.2 and 1.8 ±â€¯1 mg/dl respectively (p < 0.001). 56.9% of the patients (N = 350) were monitored for anti-HLA antibodies. 94% (N = 329) had no anti-HLA changes, while 6% (N = 21) had positive anti-HLA antibodies. Among the patients with donor-specific antibodies post-COVID19 (N = 9), 7 patients (3.1%) had one immunosuppressant discontinued (5 patients had mycophenolic acid and 2 had tacrolimus), 1 patient had both immunosuppressants discontinued (3.4%) and 1 patient had no change in immunosuppression (1.1%), these differences were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The management of immunosuppressive therapy after diagnosis of COVID19 was primarily based on discontinuation of mycophenolic acid with very discrete reductions or discontinuations of calcineurin inhibitors. This immunosuppression management did not influence renal function or changes in anti-HLA antibodies 6 months after diagnosis.

Efficacy and Safety of the Use of SGLT2 Inhibitors in Patients on Incremental Hemodialysis: Maximizing Residual Renal Function, Is There a Role for SGLT2 Inhibitors?

SGLT-2i are the new standard of care for diabetic kidney disease (DKD), but previous studies have not included patients on kidney replacement therapy (KRT). Due to their high risk of cardiovascular, renal complications, and mortality, these patients would benefit the most from this therapy. Residual kidney function (RKF) conveys a survival benefit and cardiovascular health among hemodialysis (HD) patients, especially those on incremental hemodialysis (iHD). We retrospectively describe the safety and efficacy of SGLT2i regarding RKF preservation in seven diabetic patients with different clinical backgrounds who underwent iHD (one or two sessions per week) during a 12-month follow-up. All patients preserved RKF, measured as residual kidney urea clearance (KrU) in 24 h after the introduction of SGLT2i. KrU levels improved significantly from 4.91 ± 1.14 mL/min to 7.28 ± 1.68 mL/min at 12 months (p = 0.028). Pre-hemodialysis blood pressure improved 9.95% in mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) (p = 0.015) and 10.95% in mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (p = 0.041); as a result, antihypertensive medication was modified. Improvements in blood uric acid, hemoglobin A1c, urine albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR), and 24 h proteinuria were also significant. Regarding side effects, two patients developed uncomplicated urinary tract infections that were resolved. No other complications were reported. The use of SGLT2i in our sample of DKD patients starting iHD on a 1-2 weekly regimen appears to be safe and effective in preserving RKF.

Treatment with sotrovimab for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a cohort of high-risk kidney transplant recipients.

Background: Sotrovimab is a neutralizing monoclonal antibody (mAb) that seems to remain active against recent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants. The evidence on its use in kidney transplant (KT) recipients, however, is limited. Methods: We performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 82 KT patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection {coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]} treated with sotrovimab. Results: Median age was 63 years. Diabetes was present in 43.9% of patients, and obesity in 32.9% of patients; 48.8% of patients had an estimated glomerular filtration rate under 30 mL/minute/1.73 m2. Additional anti-COVID-19 therapies were administered to 56 patients, especially intravenous steroids (65.9%). Sotrovimab was administered early (<5 days from the onset of the symptoms) in 46 patients (56%). Early-treated patients showed less likely progression to severe COVID-19 than those treated later, represented as a lower need for ventilator support (2.2% vs 36.1%; P < .001) or intensive care admission (2.2% vs 25%; P = .002) and COVID-19-related mortality (2.2% vs 16.7%; P = .020). In the multivariable analysis, controlling for baseline risk factors to severe COVID-19 in KT recipients, early use of sotrovimab remained as a protective factor for a composite outcome, including need for ventilator support, intensive care, and COVID-19-related mortality. No anaphylactic reactions, acute rejection episodes, impaired kidney function events, or non-kidney side effects related to sotrovimab were observed. Conclusions: Sotrovimab had an excellent safety profile, even in high-comorbidity patients and advanced chronic kidney disease stages. Earlier administration could prevent progression to severe disease, while clinical outcomes were poor in patients treated later. Larger controlled studies enrolling KT recipients are warranted to elucidate the true efficacy of monoclonal antibody therapies.

[Management of immunosuppressive therapy in kidney transplant recipients with COVID19. A multicentre national study derived form the S.E.N. COVID registry.] / Manejo de la inmunosupresión en pacientes trasplantados de riñón con COVID19. Estudio multicéntrico nacional derivado del registro COVID de la S.E.N.

INTRODUCTION: SARS CoV2 infection has had a major impact on renal transplant patients with a high mortality in the first months of the pandemic. Intentional reduction of immunosuppressive therapy has been postulated as one of the cornerstone in the management of the infection in the absence of targeted antiviral treatment. This has been modified according to the patient`s clinical situation and its effect on renal function or anti-HLA antibodies in the medium term has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the management of immunosuppressive therapy made during SARS-CoV2 infection, as well as renal function and anti-HLA antibodies in kidney transplant patients 6 months after COVID19 diagnosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective, national multicentre, retrospective study (30 centres) of kidney transplant recipients with COVID19 from 01/02/20 to 31/12/20. Clinical variables were collected from medical records and included in an anonymised database. SPSS statistical software was used for data analysis. RESULTS: 615 renal transplant recipients with COVID19 were included (62.6% male), with a mean age of 57.5 years.The predominant immunosuppressive treatment prior to COVID19 was triple therapy with prednisone, tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid (54.6%) followed by m-TOR inhibitor regimens (18.6%). After diagnosis of infection, mycophenolic acid was discontinued in 73.8% of patients, m-TOR inhibitor in 41.4%, tacrolimus in 10.5% and cyclosporin A in 10%. In turn, 26.9% received dexamethasone and 50.9% were started on or had their baseline prednisone dose increased.Mean creatinine before diagnosis of COVID19, at diagnosis and at 6 months was: 1.7±0.8, 2.1±1.2 and 1.8±1 mg/dl respectively (p<0.001).56.9% of the patients (N=350) were monitored for anti-HLA antibodies. 94% (N=329) had no anti-HLA changes, while 6% (N=21) had positive anti-HLA antibodies. Among the patients with donor-specific antibodies post-COVID19 (N=9), 7 patients (3.1%) had one immunosuppressant discontinued (5 patients had mycophenolic acid and 2 had tacrolimus), 1 patient had both immunosuppressants discontinued (3.4%) and 1 patient had no change in immunosuppression (1.1%), these differences were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The management of immunosuppressive therapy after diagnosis of COVID19 was primarily based on discontinuation of mycophenolic acid with very discrete reductions or discontinuations of calcineurin inhibitors. This immunosuppression management did not influence renal function or changes in anti-HLA antibodies 6 months after diagnosis.

Breakthrough Infections Following mRNA SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Kidney Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: The clinical effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in kidney transplant (KT) recipients is lower than in the general population. METHODS: From April to October 2021, 481 KT recipients with COVID-19, included in the Spanish Society of Nephrology COVID-19 Registry, were analyzed. Data regarding vaccination status and vaccine type were collected, and outcomes of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (n = 130) were compared with fully vaccinated patients (n = 351). RESULTS: Clinical picture was similar and survival analysis showed no differences between groups: 21.7% of fully vaccinated patients and 20.8% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated died (P = 0.776). In multivariable analysis, age and pneumonia were independent risk factors for death, whereas vaccination status was not related to mortality. These results remained similar when we excluded patients with partial vaccination, as well as when we analyzed exclusively hospitalized patients. Patients vaccinated with mRNA-1273 (n = 213) showed a significantly lower mortality than those who received the BNT162b2 vaccine (n = 121) (hazard ratio: 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.85; P = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 severity in KT patients has remained high and has not improved despite receiving 2 doses of the mRNA vaccine. The mRNA-1273 vaccine shows higher clinical effectiveness than BNT162b2 in KT recipients with breakthrough infections. Confirmation of these data will require further research taking into account the new variants and the administration of successive vaccine doses.

Expanded hemodialysis: Is anticoagulation of the dialysis circuit different from online hemodiafiltration and high-flux hemodialysis?

Expanded hemodialysis (HDx) has a high capacity for removing medium and medium-large molecules; however, there are no specific recommendations during HDx for anticoagulation of the dialysis circuit. We aimed to evaluate the differences in the efficacy of anticoagulation procedures using the venous port and 40 mg enoxaparin in HDx compared to high-flux hemodialysis (HF-HD) and postdilution online hemodiafiltration (HDF). We compared anticoagulant activity in 11 patients in HDx, HF-HD, and HDF under similar dialysis conditions. In the 33 dialysis sessions, 40 mg enoxaparin was administered through the venous port, and pre- and postdialysis antifactor Xa activity (aXa) and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), postdialysis clotting time of the vascular access, visual clotting score of the dialyzer, and any complications with the extracorporeal circuit or bleeding were registered. APTT postdialysis in HDx was not significantly different from that in HF-HD and HDF. Postdialysis aXa in HDx was not significantly different from that in HF-HD and HDF. We found no significant differences in visual clotting score of the dialyzer. Enoxaparin administered through the venous port was sufficient for anticoagulation within the extracorporeal circuit in HDx, HF-HD, and HDF. There were no differences in postdialysis aXa or APTT, most likely because when low molecular-weight heparin is applied through venous port, lesser enoxaparin concentration reaches the dialyzer. Thus, we conclude that the dose of enoxaparin administered through the venous port should not be adjusted according to dialysis technique.

Efficacy of enoxaparin in preventing coagulation during high-flux haemodialysis, expanded haemodialysis and haemodiafiltration.

BACKGROUND: Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are easily dialysable with high-flow membranes; however, it is not clear whether the LMWH dose should be adjusted according to the membrane type and dialysis technique. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of the dialyser on anticoagulation of the extracorporeal dialysis circuit. METHODS: Thirteen patients received the same dose of LMWH through the arterial port via three dialysis techniques: high-flux haemodialysis (HF-HD), online haemodiafiltration (HDF) and expanded haemodialysis (HDx). All dialysis was performed under similar conditions: duration, 4 h; blood flow, 400 mL/min; and dialysate flow, 500 mL/min. Antifactor Xa (aXa) activity and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) were measured before and after the dialysis. Clotting time of the vascular access site after haemodialysis, visual clotting score of the dialyser and any complications with the extracorporeal circuit or bleeding were registered. RESULTS: Post-dialysis aXa activity in HF-HD (0.26 ± 0.02 U/mL) was significantly different from that in HDF (0.21 ± 0.02 U/mL, P = 0.024), and there was a trend in HDx (0.22 ± 0.01 U/mL, P = 0.05). APTT post-dialysis in HF-HD (30.5 ± 0.7 s) was significantly different from that in HDx (28.2 ± 0.64 s, P = 0.009) and HDF (28.8 ± 0.73 s, P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: AXa activity in HDF was significantly lower than that in HF-HD, possibly because of more losses of LMWH through the dialyser. Given the higher anticoagulant loss in HDF and probably in HDx than in HF-HD, the enoxaparin dose administered may be adjusted according to the dialysis technique.