Análisis de la influencia de la pandemia por el virus SARS-CoV-2 sobre la tasa de bacteriemia en catéteres venosos tunelizados en una unidad de hemodiálisis / Analysis of the influence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus pandemic on the bacteriemia rate in tunneled venous catheters in a hemodialysis unit

Antecedentes: La infección relacionada con catéter venoso central (CVC) está asociada a una elevada morbimortalidad y se ha relacionado con la bacteriemia asociada a CVC, disfunciones de catéter, la manipulación y las medidas higiénicas tomadas durante la misma.Objetivo: El objetivo del presente estudio fue comparar la tasa de bacteriemia entre los años 2019 y 2020, primer año de pandemia por el virus SARS-CoV-2, en una unidad de hemodiálisis de un hospital de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid. Material y Método: Se ha llevado a cabo un estudio observacional retrospectivo transversal en el que se compararon datos relativos a la manipulación y al funcionamiento del catéter, y tasa de bacteriemias relacionadas con el catéter entre los años 2019 y 2020 a través de la base de datos de la unidad. Resultados: En 2019 se incluyeron 35 pacientes, que presentaron una tasa de bacteriemia de 1,42/1.000 días de catéter y 29 pacientes en 2020, con una tasa de bacteriemia de 1,82/1.000 días de catéter, no encontrándose diferencias significativas (p=0,54), no encontrando un riesgo de bacteriemia incrementado o disminuido durante el primer año de pandemia producida por el virus SARS-CoV-2.Conclusiones: Como principal conclusión de este estudio, podemos afirmar que no se ha evidenciado que la llegada de la pandemia producida por la enfermedad del coronavirus y las medidas adoptadas frente al virus SARS-CoV-2, tanto organizacionales como de prevención, sean un factor de riesgo o protección respecto a la tasa de bacteriemia, probablemente debido al bajo número de eventos encontrados.(AU)

Background: Central venous catheter (CVC) related infection is associated with high morbidity and mortality. It has also been linked to CVCassociated bacteremia, catheter dysfunctions, as well as handling and hygienic measures taken during that time. Objective: The aim of the present study is to compare the bacteremia rate between 2019 and 2020, the last one during which the SARS-CoV-2 virus pandemic started. The study was accomplished in a hemodialysis unit at the Comunidad Autonoma de Madrid hospital. Material and Method: An observational retrospective cross-sectional study has been carried out in which data related to the management and functioning of the catheter were compared to the bacteremia rate linked to the catheter between 2019 and 2020 through the unit’s database.Results: In 2019, thirty-five patients were included, who had a bacteraemia rate of 1.42/1,000 catheter days, and twenty-nine patients in 2020, with a bacteraemia rate of 1.82/1,000 catheter days, finding no significant differences (p=0.54), as well as not finding an increased or decreased bacteremia risk during the first year of the pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.Conclusions: As the main conclusion of this case of study, we are able to confirm that there is no evidence of the coronavirus pandemic and the measures adopted against the SARS-CoV-2 virus (both organizational and preventives), being a risk or protection factor in regard to the bacteraemia rate, most likely due to the low number of events found.(AU)

Fibrilación auricular no valvular en pacientes en hemodiálisis crónica. ¿Debemos anticoagular? / Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis. Should dialysis patients with atrial fibrillation receive oral anticoagulation?

La enfermedad renal crónica (ERC) es un factor de riesgo independiente para presentar fibrilación auricular (FA) lo que condiciona un incremento del riesgo ya presente en la ERC de sufrir un evento tromboembólico; y este riesgo es mayor aún en la población en hemodiálisis (HD). Por otro lado, en estos pacientes también es mayor la probabilidad de sufrir una hemorragia grave. Por ello, decidir si se debe anticoagular o no a un paciente con FA en diálisis es motivo de controversia entre la comunidad nefrológica.Tomando como modelo lo aconsejado para la población general, la actitud más común entre los nefrólogos ha sido la de optar por la anticoagulación, pese a que no haya estudios randomizados que lo apoyen.Clásicamente la anticoagulación se ha hecho con antagonistas de la vitamina K, con alto coste para nuestros pacientes: eventos hemorrágicos graves, calcificación vascular y progresión de la nefropatía entre otras complicaciones.Con el surgimiento de los anticoagulantes de acción directa, se abrió un panorama esperanzador en el campo de la anticoagulación, al postularse como fármacos más eficaces y seguros que los antivitamina K. Sin embargo, en la práctica clínica, esto no ha sido así.En esta revisión repasamos diversos aspectos de la FA y de su tratamiento anticoagulante en la población en HD. (AU)

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an independent risk factor for presenting atrial fibrillation (AF), which conditions an increased risk already present in CKD of suffering a thromboembolic event. And this risk is even higher in the hemodialysis (HD) population. On the other hand, in CKD patients and even more so in HD patients, the probability of suffering serious bleeding is also higher. Therefore, there is no consensus on whether or not to anticoagulate this population.Taking as a model what is advised for the general population, the most common attitude among nephrologists has been to opt for anticoagulation, even though there are no randomized studies to support it.Classically, anticoagulation has been done with vitamin K antagonists, at high cost for our patients: severe bleeding events, vascular calcification, and progression of nephropathy, among other complications.With the emergence of direct-acting anticoagulants, a hopeful outlook was opened in the field of anticoagulation, as they were postulated as more effective and safer drugs than antivitamin K. However, in clinical practice, this has not been the case.In this paper we review various aspects of AF and its anticoagulant treatment in the HD population. (AU)

Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis. Should dialysis patients with atrial fibrillation receive oral anticoagulation?

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an independent risk factor for presenting atrial fibrillation (AF), which conditions an increased risk already present in CKD of suffering a thromboembolic event. And this risk is even higher in the hemodialysis (HD) population. On the other hand, in CKD patients and even more so in HD patients, the probability of suffering serious bleeding is also higher. Therefore, there is no consensus on whether or not to anticoagulate this population. Taking as a model what is advised for the general population, the most common attitude among nephrologists has been to opt for anticoagulation, even though there is no randomized studies to support it. Classically, anticoagulation has been done with vitamin K antagonists, at high cost for our patients: severe bleeding events, vascular calcification, and progression of nephropathy, among other complications. With the emergence of direct-acting anticoagulants, a hopeful outlook was opened in the field of anticoagulation, as they were postulated as more effective and safer drugs than antivitamin K. However, in clinical practice, this has not been the case. In this paper we review various aspects of AF and its anticoagulant treatment in the HD population.

Renal replacement therapy in Europe: a summary of the 2012 ERA-EDTA Registry Annual Report.

BACKGROUND: This article summarizes the 2012 European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association Registry Annual Report (available at www.era-edta-reg.org) with a specific focus on older patients (defined as ≥65 years). METHODS: Data provided by 45 national or regional renal registries in 30 countries in Europe and bordering the Mediterranean Sea were used. Individual patient level data were received from 31 renal registries, whereas 14 renal registries contributed data in an aggregated form. The incidence, prevalence and survival probabilities of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) receiving renal replacement therapy (RRT) and renal transplantation rates for 2012 are presented. RESULTS: In 2012, the overall unadjusted incidence rate of patients with ESRD receiving RRT was 109.6 per million population (pmp) (n = 69 035), ranging from 219.9 pmp in Portugal to 24.2 pmp in Montenegro. The proportion of incident patients ≥75 years varied from 15 to 44% between countries. The overall unadjusted prevalence on 31 December 2012 was 716.7 pmp (n = 451 270), ranging from 1670.2 pmp in Portugal to 146.7 pmp in the Ukraine. The proportion of prevalent patients ≥75 years varied from 11 to 32% between countries. The overall renal transplantation rate in 2012 was 28.3 pmp (n = 15 673), with the highest rate seen in the Spanish region of Catalonia. The proportion of patients ≥65 years receiving a transplant ranged from 0 to 35%. Five-year adjusted survival for all RRT patients was 59.7% (95% confidence interval, CI: 59.3-60.0) which fell to 39.3% (95% CI: 38.7-39.9) in patients 65-74 years and 21.3% (95% CI: 20.8-21.9) in patients ≥75 years.