Discharging patients from the nephrology clinic to primary care--will they get appropriate monitoring of renal function?

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) guidelines have been produced to allow affected individuals to be identified early and managed more effectively, thereby reducing cardiovascular risk and slowing the progression of CKD. The guidelines allow patients with stable early CKD, who were previously followed in nephrology clinics, to be discharged back to primary care for monitoring of their CKD. AIM: To determine if patients discharged from the nephrology clinic have appropriate monitoring of renal function in primary care according to the UK CKD guidelines, and if patients are being referred back to the clinic appropriately. METHODS: All patients discharged from a weekly satellite unit general nephrology clinic over a 2-year period were identified (n = 160). Clinic letters, the local laboratory system and direct contact with the general practice were used to determine if the timing of tests of renal function were consistent with the UK CKD guidelines. RESULTS: Most subjects (88%) had CKD Stages 1-3 at the time of discharge (i.e. eGFR > 30 ml/min). After exclusion of patients with an incomplete management plan or insufficient time since discharge (n = 50), 85% of eligible patients (n = 110) had at least one measure of eGFR after discharge. In 65% (n = 84) of these patients, measurement occurred within 1 month of the correct timing according to the guidelines. Four patients were re-referred appropriately. There were no other patients who should have been re-referred due to deteriorating renal function. CONCLUSION: Patients with stable early CKD get appropriate monitoring of renal function after discharge from the nephrology clinic to primary care and are also referred back to the renal clinic appropriately.

Lobar nephronia in a transplanted kidney.

We report a patient who presented with a solid mass in her graft 15 years after renal transplantation. The appearances by ultrasound were consistent with either malignancy or lobar nephronia (focal acute bacterial nephritis). Biopsy confirmed the diagnosis of a lobar nephronia with marked inflammatory infiltrate and frank pus formation. Treatment with antibiotics was associated with resolution of the mass. Lobar nephronia is a diagnosis based upon renal ultrasonography and must be considered in a patient with a solid mass in the kidney.

Hypertension, antihypertensive agents and outcomes following renal transplantation.

UNLABELLED: Hypertension is common following renal transplantation and adversely affects graft and patient survival. However, strategies for antihypertensive drug therapy and target blood pressure have not been clearly defined. AIM: To assess the influence of achieved blood pressure and antihypertension drug therapy on graft and patient survival with the aim of identifying targets and event rates for future intervention studies. METHODS: We undertook a longitudinal follow up study of 634 renal transplant patients. Patients were surveyed in December 1994 and followed up after 102 months. Blood pressure (BP) was determined from the mean of three clinic readings and antihypertensive drug therapy recorded. RESULTS: Complete follow up data were available for analysis on 622 patients (57.2% male; mean age: 45.2 +/- 13.0 yr. There were 158 (25.4%) deaths and 115 (18.5%) death-censored graft failures. Lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure were associated with better graft survival in the Kaplan-Meier analysis. Univariate analysis showed serum creatinine (HR 1.012, p < 0.001), duration of renal replacement therapy (HR 0.946, p = 0.012), age (HR 0.979, p = 0.014) and pulse pressure (HR 1.017, p = 0.044) to be predictors of graft survival with serum creatinine and duration of renal replacement therapy as the only significant factors in the multivariate analysis. Lower systolic and pulse pressure were associated with better patient survival in the Kaplan-Meier analysis. Age (HR) 1.062, p < 0.0001), serum creatinine (HR 1.002, p = 0.021), diabetes (HR 3.371, p < 0.0001), and pulse pressure (HR 1.013, p = 0.036) were significant predictors of patient survival in the univariate and multivariate analysis. Patient survival was reduced with increasing number of antihypertensives (p < 0.05), as was graft survival (p < 0.05). Reduced patient and graft survival were seen in patients prescribed calcium channel antagonists (p < 0.01). There was no increased patient mortality in those patients on beta-blockers or angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. CONCLUSION: Hypertension is a risk factor, which remains despite the use of anti-hypertensives, for reduced patient and graft survival. The risk was not significant when blood pressure was entered together with serum creatinine in the multivariate analysis. Beta-blockers may have a beneficial effect on cardiovascular mortality, and ACE inhibitors a beneficial effect on both patient and graft survival. There is a pressing need for interventional studies to assess the impact of blood pressure targets on patient and graft survival and the effect of individual agents on these outcomes.

Partial nephrectomy used to treat renal cell carcinoma arising in a live donor transplant kidney.

There are few reported cases of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) arising in kidney allografts. Whether these tumours occur due to post-transplant malignant transformation or are present at the time of transplantation is unclear. The influence of immunosuppression must be considered in their development, progression and treatment. We report a case of a RCC presenting asymptomatically in a functioning live donor renal allograft 173 months after transplantation. In an attempt to avoid return to dialysis treatment, a partial nephrectomy was carried out. To optimise the procedure, and to assure cancer clearance, combined intraoperative ultrasound and frozen section analysis were used. Our patient remains disease free and dialysis independent at 22 months follow up. To our knowledge, this patient represents the only live donor organ transplant tumour reported to be treated using nephron-sparing surgery and remain dialysis independent. Partial nephrectomy should be considered as a treatment option in such cases.

Biocompatible membranes do not promote graft recovery following cadaveric renal transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Controversy surrounds the role of biocompatible membrane dialyzers in treatment of acute renal failure. Studies that have shown a benefit have involved critically ill patients where renal recovery and patient mortality are influenced by other comorbid disease. The aim of the present work is to clarify this issue in a more homogeneous population of patients with acute renal failure following cadaveric renal transplantation. METHODS: All patients with delayed graft function between January 1996 and February 1998 were randomized to receive either a biocompatible (BCM, polysulfone) membrane or bioincompatible (BICM, cuprophane) membrane for dialysis until onset of graft function. RESULTS: Forty-one patients were randomized, 23 to receive BCM and 18 BICM. Five patients (2 BCM, 3 BICM; p = NS) with primary non-function of graft were excluded from analysis, leaving 36 cases of acute tubular necrosis (ATN). Patient and donor characteristics were similar in both groups. The BCM group had significantly longer periods of dialysis dependency compared to the BICM group (14 vs 10 days; p = 0.03). There was a tendency towards higher serum creatinine levels in the short term in the BCM group (318 vs 164 micromol/l at 1 month (p = 0.1), 190 vs 169 micromol/l at latest visit (p = 0.07)) and a greater number of acute rejection episodes in the BCM group (3.7 vs 1.7 episodes per 100 days of dialysis dependency, p = 0.1). With an intention-to-treat analysis of all 41 patients originally randomized, there was no significant difference in time to graft recovery between the 2 groups (p = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of ARF posttransplantation, we have found no evidence to support the use of biocompatible membranes for dialysis. Rather, our study provides argument against a large benefit for the use of BCM in the recovery of ARF, as suggested by earlier studies.