RESUMEN
Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is performed as a home-based treatment and in this context, telemedicine has been proven helpful for improving clinicians' surveillance and maintaining PD patients in their home setting. The new e-health devices make remote patient monitoring (RPM) for automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) treatment possible, evaluating the data at the end of every treatment and adapting the prescription at distance if necessary. This paper aims to share a method for improving clinical surveillance and enabling PD patients to receive their treatment at home. In the present case series, we delineate the clinical protocol of the Vicenza PD Center regarding patient characteristics, timing, and the purpose of the APD-RPM. We present the Vicenza PD Center's experience, illustrating its application through three case reports as exemplars. Telemedicine helps to carefully allocate healthcare resources while removing the barriers to accessing care. However, there is a risk of data overload, as some data might not be analyzed because of an increased workload for healthcare professionals. A proactive physician's attitude towards the e-health system has to be supported by clinical instructions and legislative rules. International and national guidelines may suggest which patients should be candidates for RPM, which parameters should be monitored, and with what timing. According to our experience, we suggest that the care team should define a workflow that helps in formulating a correct approach to RPM, adequately utilizing resources. The workflow has to consider the different needs of patients, in order to assure frequent remote control for incident or unstable patients, while prevalent and stable patients can perform their home treatment more independently, helped by periodic and deferred clinical supervision.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Blood transfusion reactions may have a negative impact on organ function. It is unknown whether this association holds true for acute kidney injury (AKI). Therefore, we conducted a cohort study to assess the association between transfusion reactions and the incidence of AKI and major adverse kidney events. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we included patients who received transfusion of blood products during hospitalization at the Hospital Civil of Guadalajara. We analyzed them according to the development of transfusion reactions, and the aim was to assess the association between transfusion reactions and AKI during long-term follow-up. RESULTS: From 2017 to 2021, 81,635 patients received a blood product transfusion, and 516 were included in our study. The most common transfusion was red blood cell packaging (50.4%), fresh frozen plasma (28.7%) and platelets (20.9%); of the 516 patients, 129 (25%) had transfusion reactions. Patients who had transfusion reactions were older and had more comorbidities. The most common type of transfusion reaction was allergic reaction (70.5%), followed by febrile nonhemolytic reaction (11.6%) and anaphylactoid reaction (8.5%). Most cases were considered mild. Acute kidney injury was more prevalent among those who had transfusion reactions (14.7%) than among those who did not (7.8%), p = < 0.01; those with AKI had a higher frequency of diabetes, vasopressors, and insulin use. Transfusion reactions were independently associated with the development of AKI (RR 2.1, p = < 0.02). Major adverse kidney events were more common in those with transfusion reactions. The mortality rate was similar between subgroups. CONCLUSION: In our retrospective cohort of patients who received blood product transfusions, 25% experienced transfusion reactions, and this event was associated with a twofold increase in the probability of developing AKI and some of the major adverse kidney events during long follow-up.
