Search

Western Europe boasts advanced health care systems, robust kidney care guidelines, and a well-established health care workforce. Despite this, significant disparities in kidney replacement therapy incidence, prevalence, and transplant access exist. This paper presents the third International Society of Nephrology Global Kidney Health Atlas’s findings on kidney care availability, accessibility, affordability, and quality in 22 Western European countries, representing 99% of the region’s population. The known chronic kidney disease (CKD) prevalence across Western Europe averages 10.6%, slightly above the global median. Cardiovascular diseases account for a substantial portion of CKD-related deaths. Kidney failure incidence varies. Government health expenditure differs; however, most countries offer government-funded acute kidney injury, dialysis, and kidney transplantation care. Hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis are universally available, with variations in the number of dialysis centers. Kidney transplantation is available in all countries (except for 3 microstates), with variable transplant center prevalence. Conservative kidney management (CKM) is increasingly accessible. The region’s kidney care workforce is substantial, exceeding global averages; however, workforce shortages are reported. Barriers to optimal kidney care include limited workforce capacity, lack of surveillance mechanisms, and suboptimal integration into national noncommunicable disease (NCD) strategies. Policy recognition of CKD as a health priority varies across countries. Although Western Europe exhibits strong kidney care infrastructure, opportunities for improvement exist, particularly in CKD prevention, surveillance, awareness, and policy implementation. Efforts to improve CKD care should include automated detection, educational support, and enhanced workflows. Based on these findings, health care professionals, stakeholders, and policymakers are called to act to enhance kidney care across the region.

CKD and HIV infection are two chronic diseases impacting heavily on the survival of the affected patients. The interplay between HIV infection and chronic kidney disease (CKD) is complex and interactions occur at multiple levels. Approach to the management of HIV-infected patients requires special attention to face the numerous therapeutic difficulties ranging from drug-drug interactions to drug-toxicity. The most effective strategy is targeted to suppression of HIV viral load, as it dramatically changes the prognosis of the patients as well as prevents the development of HIV-associated kidney disease. As shown in this review, the approach to the therapeutic management of CKD in the setting of HIV infection varies in relation to the degree of renal impairment.

Background: Although discontinuation of antiplatelet agents at least 5 days before kidney biopsy is commonly recommended, the evidence behind this practice is of low level. Indeed, few non-randomized studies previously showed an equivalent risk of bleeding in patients receiving aspirin therapy. Methods: We conducted a single center retrospective study comparing the risk of complications after percutaneous native kidney biopsy in patients who received low-dose aspirin (ASA) within 5 days from biopsy and those who did not. The main outcome was the difference in the incidence of major complications (red blood cell transfusion, need for selective arterial embolization, surgery, nephrectomy). Secondary outcomes included difference in minor complications, comparison between patients who received ASA within 48 h or within 3–5 days, identification of independent factors predictive of major complications. Results: We analyzed data on 750 patients, of whom 94 received ASA within 5 days from biopsy. There were no significant differences in the proportion of major complications in patients receiving or not receiving ASA (2.59% and 3.19%, respectively, percentage point difference 1%, 95% CI − 3 to 4%, p= 0.74). Groups were also comparable for minor complications; among patients receiving ASA, there were no differences in major bleeding between those who received ASA within 48 h or 3–5 days from biopsy. Significant baseline predictors of major bleeding in our cohort were platelet count lower than 120*103/microliter, higher diastolic blood pressure and higher blood urea. Conclusions: Treatment with low-dose ASA within 5 days from kidney biopsy did not increase the risk of complications after the procedure. Graphical abstract:

Background: Patients undergoing in-centre haemodialysis (HD) are particularly exposed to the dire consequences of COVID-19. The present systematic scoping review aims to identify the extent, range, and nature of articles related to COVID-19 and maintenance HD: it reports specifically the prevalence of the COVID-19 pandemic in the HD population, implementation of strategies for the prevention, mitigation and containment of the COVID-19 pandemic in HD centres, demographic and clinical characteristics, and outcomes of the pediatric and adult HD patients. Methods: A multi-step systematic search of the literature in Pubmed, Scopus, Ovid Medline, Embase and Web of Science, published between December 1, 2019, and January 30, 2021 was performed. Two authors separately screened the titles and abstracts of the documents and ruled out irrelevant articles. A report of the papers that met inclusion criteria was performed; then, a descriptive analysis of the characteristics of the included articles and a narrative synthesis of the results were performed. Results: The review process ended with the inclusion of 145 articles. Most of them were based on single-centre experiences, which spontaneously developed best practices. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries (69.7%) and a part of them (9.6%) were not in English. Prevalence of COVID-19 among dialysis patients accounted for 0%-37.6%. Preventive measures were reported in 54% of the included articles, with particular emphasis on education, triage, hygiene, and containment measures. Patients experienced a heterogeneous spectrum of symptoms that led 35%-88.2% of them to hospital admission. Median and mean hospital length of stay ranged from 8 to 28.5 and 16.2 to 22 days, respectively. Admission to intensive care units varied widely across studies (from 2.6% to 70.5%) and was associated with high mortality (42.8%–100%). Overall, prognosis was poor in 0%–47% of the hospitalized patients. Conclusions: This systematic scoping review provides an overview of the current knowledge on the impact of COVID-19 on the frail world of HD patients. Furthermore, it may help to implement the existing strategies of COVID-19 prevention and provide a list of unmet needs (safe transport, testing, shelter). Finally, it may be a stimulus for performing systematic reviews and meta-analyses which will form the basis for evidence-based guidelines. Graphic abstract:

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pneumonia has been poorly reported in solid organ transplanted patients; prognosis is uncertain and best management unclear. We describe the case of a 61‐year‐old kidney transplant recipient with several comorbidities who was hospitalized and later received a diagnosis of COVID‐19 pneumonia; the infection was successfully managed with the use of hydroxychloroquine and a single administration of tocilizumab, after immunosuppression reduction; the patient did not require mechanical ventilation. During the rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) pandemic, transplant clinicians should be readily informed about new cases of COVID‐19 pneumonia in solid organ transplant recipients, with focus on therapeutic strategies employed and their outcome. The authors present the case of a kidney transplant recipient with COVID‐19 pneumonia successfully treated with hydroxychloroquine and a single administration of subcutaneous tocilizumab, after immunosuppression reduction.

Patients requiring dialysis are extremely vulnerable to infectious diseases. The high burden of comorbidities and weakened immune system due to uremia and previous immunosuppressive therapy expose the patient on dialysis to more infectious events than the general population. The infectious risk is further increased by the presence of endovascular catheters and implantable cardiologic devices. The former is generally placed as urgent vascular access for dialysis and in subjects requiring hemodialysis treatments without autogenous arteriovenous fistula. The high frequency of cardiovascular events also increases the likelihood of implanting indwelling implantable cardiac devices (CIED) such as pacemakers (PMs) and defibrillators (ICDs). The simultaneous presence of CVC and CIED yields an increased risk of developing severe prosthetic device-associated bloodstream infections often progressing to septicemia. Although, antibiotic therapy is the mainstay of prosthetic device-related infections, antibiotic resistance of biofilm-residing bacteria reduces the choice of infection eradication. In these cases, the resolution of the infection process relies on the removal of the prosthetic device. Compared to CVC removal, the extraction of leads is a more complex procedure and poses an increased risk of vessel tearing. As a result, the prevention of prosthetic device-related infection is of utmost importance in hemodialysis (HD) patients and relies principally on avoiding CVC as vascular access for HD and placement of a new class of wireless implantable medical devices. When the combination of CVC and CIED is inevitable, prevention of infection, mainly due translocation of skin bacteria, should be a mandatory priority for healthcare workers.

Native arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is the favorite access for hemodialysis (HD). The National Kidney Foundation's Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) recommends its creation in most patents with renal failure. Unfortunately, intensive efforts to promote native AVF in patents with marginal vessels have increased the rate of primary fistula failure. A non-functioning fistula prompts the use of central venous catheter (CVC) that, unlike AVF, has been associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality among patents receiving HD. We believe that successful and timely AVF placement relies on the development of a multidisciplinary integrated preoperative program divided into five stages: (i) management of patents with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), (ii) management of preoperative risk factors for AVF failure, (iii) planning of native AVF, (iv) assessment of patent eligibility and (v) preoperative vascular mapping. Focusing specifically on native AVF, we review scientific evidence regarding preoperative management of this vascular access in order to favor construction of long-term functioning fistula minimizing development of severe complications.

Background:The Nexfin monitor is a device used for measuring arterial blood pressure (BP) continuously and noninvasively through finger-cuff technology. Since it was validated against the auscultatory method using a sphygmomanometer, the aim of this study was to test the ability of the Nexfin to evaluate brachial arterial pressure (BAP) in maintenance hemodialysis patients, quantifying accuracy and precision. Methods:Forty hemodynamically stable hemodialysis patients underwent serial measurements of Nexfix arterial pressure (NAP) and BAP, respectively, through Nexfin and oscillometric devices. All BP measurements were recorded before starting hemodialysis. Results:The mean age of the patients was 68.9 ± 14.9 years with 65% older than 65 years and 30% older than 75; eleven subjects (27%) were diabetic. Vascular calcification, evaluated from the aortic arch to the iliac bifurcation, was detected in 87.5% of patients. Bland-Altman analysis comparing NAP measurements with BAP revealed the following outcomes: a mean bias ± limits of agreements (LA) of 15.3 ± 34.8 mm Hg (29% error) for systolic BP, a mean bias ± LA of -0.9 ± 20.34 mm Hg (32% error) for diastolic BP and a mean bias ± LA of 4.5 ± 21.34 mm Hg (26% error) for mean arterial pressure (MAP). Nexfin had poor precision in the reconstruction of diastolic and mean BP and was extremely inaccurate when evaluating systolic BP. Diabetes mellitus, peripheral neuropathy, and increase in systolic BAP significantly predicted the disagreement in systolic pressure measurement between NAP and MAP, F (3.34) = 10.787, p< 0.005, R2= 0.488. Conclusion:The Nexfin does not meet the criteria of interchangeability with oscillometric method in our hemodialysis patients. The negative influence of diabetes, neuropathy, and increase of systolic BAP on the reconstruction of systemic systolic pressure raises concerns about the feasibility of Nexfin in patients with a high prevalence of vasculopathy.