Outcomes and Mortality in Renal Transplant Recipients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit.

INTRODUCTION: In the intensive care unit (ICU), mortality is considered higher among renal transplant recipients than among nontransplantation patients. However, data regarding severe complications after kidney transplantation are scarce. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, we evaluated all consecutive renal transplant recipients admitted to our ICU between July 2012 and July 2013 (n = 70), comparing their outcomes with those of a control group of nontransplantation patients admitted during the same period (n = 153). Among the transplant recipients, we compared survivors and nonsurvivors to identify predictors of ICU mortality. RESULTS: The mean age of the transplant recipients was 52 ± 13 years. Of the 70 transplant recipients, 18 (25%) required mechanical ventilation, 28 (40%) required inotropic support, and 27 (39%) required hemodialysis, all of which are factors that worsen the prognosis significantly. Twenty-two (31%) of the transplant recipients died in the ICU and 17 (24%) died within 30 days after ICU discharge, rates similar to those observed for the control group. CONCLUSIONS: We observed similar mortality between recipient and control groups, albeit the mortality was higher in the clinical group. In the multivariate model, the need for mechanical ventilation and the need for hemodialysis were independently associated with mortality.

Lupus nephritis is more severe in children and adolescents than in older adults.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinicopathological features and treatment response in patients with lupus nephritis (LN), comparing the childhood- and late-onset forms of the disease. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed clinical presentation, treatment and evolution in patients diagnosed with LN by renal biopsy between 1999 and 2008. Patients were grouped by age-≤18 years (n = 23); and ≥50 years (n = 13)-and were followed for the first year of treatment. RESULTS: The baseline features of the childhood- and late-onset groups, respectively, were as follows: mean age, 15 ± 2 and 54 ± 5 years; female gender, 87% and 92%; hypertension, 87% and 77%; Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index, 29 ± 9 and 17 ± 7 (p = 0.002); estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), 86 ± 66 and 70 ± 18 ml/min; concurrent SLE/LN diagnosis, 90% and 15% (p < 0.001); crescents on biopsy, 74% and 30% (p = 0.02); activity index on biopsy, 4.8 ± 2.6 and 3.3 ± 1.9 (p = 0.10); and interstitial fibrosis (>10%), 39% and 61% (p = 0.08). Treatment consisted mainly of methylprednisolone, prednisone and intravenous cyclophosphamide, average cumulative doses being similar between the groups. After 12 months of treatment, the eGFR in the younger and older patients was 116 ± 62 and 78 ± 20 ml/min, respectively (p = 0.005). Three of the younger patients progressed to dialysis at 12 months, compared with none of the older patients. CONCLUSION: Childhood-onset LN seems to be more severe than is late-onset LN.

Use of complementary and alternative medicine by Brazilian oncologists.

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is frequently employed by patients with cancer. An extensive survey was conducted among Brazilian cancer physicians to understand their attitude towards CAM. A questionnaire was sent to all 655 members of the Brazilian Cancer Society asking what is their opinion regarding CAM and if they would prescribe any CAM modality for their patients. They were also questioned regarding their degree of awareness of CAM self-administration by their patients. Overall, 119 questionnaires were returned to us (18%). Most oncologists knew at least one type of CAM (96.6%) and 76.7% had previously made use of at least one type of CAM for themselves. We observed that 76 (63.8%) of the oncologists used to ask their patients about CAM utilization and 37.8% described at least one reason to stimulate its use (68.8% as complementary treatment). Only 10% of the oncologists would prescribe at least one type of CAM and this attitude correlated significantly with previous physicians' use of CAM and with being a clinical oncologist as well as with having questioned patients about CAM use. Most oncologists (80.7%) would not indicate the use of CAM, mainly for lack of scientific proof of its efficacy (56.2%). Physicians knew many kinds of CAM and had frequently used some of them themselves, but only a minority of Brazilian oncologists would indicate them. As CAM use is very prevalent in our population, we believe that most of its utilization depends, probably, on patient's own and independent initiatives. However, these results should be viewed with caution because of the low response rate we observed in this study.