Search

Background There is conflicting evidence of benefit versus harm for warfarin anticoagulation in hemodialysis patients with atrial fibrillation. This equipoise may be explained by suboptimal Time in Therapeutic Range (TTR), which correlates well with thromboembolic and bleeding complications. This study aimed to compare nephrologist-led management of warfarin therapy versus that led by specialized anticoagulation clinic. Methods In a retrospective cohort of chronic hemodialysis patients from two institutions (Institution A: Nephrologist-led warfarin management, Institution B: Anticoagulation clinic-led warfarin management), we identified patients with atrial fibrillation who were receiving warfarin for thromboembolic prophylaxis. Mean TTRs, proportion of patients achieving TTR ≥ 60%, and frequency of INR testing were compared using a logistic regression model. Results In Institution A, 16.7% of hemodialysis patients had atrial fibrillation, of whom 36.8% were on warfarin. In Institution B, 18% of hemodialysis patients had atrial fibrillation, and 55.5% were on warfarin. The mean TTR was 61.8% (SD 14.5) in Institution A, and 60.5% (SD 15.8) in Institution B (p-value 0.95). However, the proportion of patients achieving TTR ≥ 60% was 65% versus 43.3% (Adjusted OR 2.22, CI 0.65–7.63) and mean frequency of INR testing was every 6 days versus every 13.9 days in Institutions A and B respectively. Conclusions There was no statistical difference in mean TTR between nephrologist-led management of warfarin and that of clinic-led management. However, the former achieved a trend toward a higher proportion of patients with optimal TTR. This improved therapeutic results was associated with more frequent INR monitoring.

Background Observational data suggest that serum magnesium (Mg) concentration is inversely related to vascular calcification and hyperparathyroidism among patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). In recent years, there have been several case reports of hypomagnesemia due to use of proton-pump inhibitors (PPI), with the hypomagnesemia attributed to inappropriate gastrointestinal (GI) Mg loss. We hypothesized that the tendency to GI Mg loss is more common than is currently reported. Since patients with ESRD have little to no renal Mg loss to affect serum Mg concentration, dialysis patients are an interesting population in whom to study the relationship between PPI use and serum Mg levels. Methods Using a single-center cross-sectional design, we studied 155 prevalent hemodialysis (HD) patients. Serum Mg concentration for each patient was determined based on the mean of 3 consecutive serum Mg levels drawn at 6 week intervals. PPI use at the time of the blood tests was documented. The relationship between PPI use and Mg concentration was determined in unadjusted analyses, as well as after adjustment for age, gender, race, cause of ESRD, diabetes, time on HD and dialysate Mg concentration. Results 55 % of patients were on PPIs at the time of the study. The majority of patients (62 %) used a dialysate Mg (in mmol/L) of 0.5, and the remainder (38 %) used a dialysate Mg of 0.375. Serum Mg levels were significantly lower among PPI users vs. non-users (0.93 vs. 1.02 mmol/L, p