Search

Background: Cardiac telemetry plays a key role in diagnosing and monitoring arrhythmias in hospitalized patients. The American Heart Association (AHA) provides recommendations on the use of telemetry outside the intensive care unit (ICU). These can be stratified into three categories; telemetry is indicated (Class I), telemetry may provide benefit (Class II) or telemetry is unlikely to be of benefit or may cause harm (Class III). The AHA and Choosing Wisely Canada suggest that telemetry use should be guideline-based and should not be used outside the ICU without a plan for discontinuation. In the United States, interventions that modify the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) have been shown to improve telemetry utilization. Patients admitted to our nephrology ward are often prescribed telemetry inappropriately, which impacts patients and providers, and increases healthcare costs.Methods: We used the Model for Improvement framework to conduct a quality improvement project with the aim of reducing inappropriate telemetry utilization (ordered for a Class III indication). We employed an interrupted time series design to evaluate telemetry utilization from January 2018 to September 2019 (pre-intervention period, which was retrospective) and September 2019 to September 2020 (postintervention period, which was prospective). We implemented a modification to our electronic health record (EMR) that forced prescribers to choose an appropriate telemetry indication.Results: There was a reduction of Class III telemetry utilization from 56 to 22%. This reduction was sustained for 12 months following implementation. We piloted a nursing-led discontinuation protocol which resulted in 35% of telemetry orders being discontinued prior to the 48-hour prescribed period.Interpretation: Our study shows that interventions to enhance the EMR in a way that supports better utilization of telemetry can be successful at Canadian institutions. Our next steps will be to implement a permanent nursing-led discontinuation protocol to reduce the duration of telemetry utilization. RésuméContexte: La télémétrie cardiaque joue un rôle clé dans le diagnostic et la surveillance des arythmies chez les patients hospitalisés. L’American Heart Association (AHA) fournit des recommandations sur l’utilisation de la télémétrie en dehors de l’unité de soins intensifs. Ces recommandations peuvent être classées en trois catégories: la télémétrie est indiquée (classe I); la télémétrie peut procurer un bénéfice (classe II); la télémétrie n’est pas susceptible de procurer un bénéfice ou peut avoir des effets néfastes (classe III). D’après l’AHA et l’organisme Choisir avec soin, l’utilisation de la télémétrie devrait reposer sur des lignes directrices et ne devrait pas avoir lieu en dehors de l’unité de soins intensifs sans qu’il y ait un plan d’arrêt. Aux États-Unis, on constate que les interventions qui modifient le dossier médical électronique (DME) améliorent l’utilisation de la télémétrie. Les patients admis à notre service de néphrologie se voient souvent prescrire la télémétrie de manière inappropriée, ce qui entraîne des répercussions sur les patients et les fournisseurs de soins et augmente les coûts de soins de santé.Méthodologie: Nous avons utilisé le cadre du modèle d’amélioration pour mener un projet d’amélioration de la qualité qui vise à réduire l’utilisation inappropriée de la télémétrie (prescrite pour une indication de classe III). Nous avons employé un plan d’étude de séries chronologiques interrompues pour évaluer l’utilisation de la télémétrie de janvier 2018 à septembre 2019 (période préintervention, qui est rétrospective) et de septembre 2019 à septembre 2020 (période postintervention, qui est prospective). Nous avons mis en application une modification à notre DME qui oblige les prescripteurs à choisir une indication de télémétrie appropriée. Résultats: On constate une diminution de l’utilisation de la télémétrie de classe III, qui est passée de 56 % à 22 %. Cette diminution a été maintenue pendant 12 mois après la mise en application de la modification. Nous avons expérimenté un protocole d’arrêt dirigé par le personnel infirmier qui a permis d’arrêter 35 % des ordonnances de télémétrie avant la période prescrite de 48 heures.Interprétation: Notre étude montre qu’il est possible de réussir des interventions visant à améliorer le DME de manière à favoriser une meilleure utilisation de la télémétrie dans les établissements canadiens. Nos prochaines étapes consisteront à mettre en œuvre un protocole permanent d’arrêt dirigé par le personnel infirmier pour réduire la durée d’utilisation de la télémétrie.

Kidney transplantation gives many patients with kidney failure a longer and healthier life. Unfortunately, some transplant-eligible patients will never receive one. In this paper, we describe how patients and researchers collaborated on new strategies and programs to enhance access to kidney transplantation and living kidney donation. These efforts led to the creation of the Transplant Ambassador Program (TAP). TAP is a patient-led program that helps connect patients who have kidney failure to individuals who have successfully received a kidney transplant or donated a kidney. We also detail barriers, facilitators and lessons learned from engaging patients in research.

Background: Kidney transplantation success can help improve the quality of life substantially and alleviate much of the physical, social and psychological stress that comes with dialysis lifestyle. Preemptive kidney transplantation has been established to be superior with more success rates than other means of transplantation types. However, low rates of this method need more attention to address the reason and tackle the root causes affecting low preemptive kidney transplantation. Methods: This study was undertaken at a tertiary care academic hospital. We conducted a retrospective chart review of 50 living donor kidney transplants (recipient and donor charts) between January 1, 2017 and September 30, 2018 and performed a root cause analysis on the module. A three-step algorithm was developed to divide the root cause of all preemptive kidney transplantation. Results: Out of 50 patients included, only 11 (22%) achieved a successful preemptive kidney transplantation. Furthermore, an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 15 - 20 was a significant factor in achieving preemptive kidney transplantation (P = 0.042). Meanwhile, 22 recipients started dialysis before transplant and was a major cause of not achieving the preemptive transplantation despite them achieving the status. Moreover, the most common recipient root cause was incidental medical issues in 10 cases (20%) while in donor factors, the most common root cause was the delay in evaluating multiple donors to achieve the preemptive status (20%). Conclusion: Even though preemptive kidney transplantation is superior when compared to other modalities, achieving such a milestone is still considered very challenging. An eGFR of 15 - 20 was a significant factor in achieving preemptive kidney transplantation, while pre-transplant dialysis was a major cause of not achieving it. Further large-scale studies are needed to identify new factors as well as validate our findings. J Clin Med Res. 2021;13(1):1-8 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr4391

Background and objectives Many patients, providers, and potential living donors perceive the living kidney donor evaluation process to be lengthy and difficult to navigate. Design, setting, participants, & measurements We sought consensus on key terms and process and outcome indicators that can be used to measure how efficiently a transplant center evaluates persons interested in becoming a living kidney donor. Using a RAND-modified Delphi method, 77 participants (kidney transplant recipients or recipient candidates, living kidney donors or donor candidates, health care providers, and health care administrators) completed an online survey to define the terms and indicators. The definitions were then further refined during an in-person meeting with ten stakeholders. Results We identified 16 process indicators (e.g., average time to evaluate a donor candidate), eight outcome indicators (e.g., annual number of preemptive living kidney donor transplants), and two measures that can be considered both process and outcome indicators (e.g., average number of times a candidate visited the transplant center for the evaluation). Transplant centers wishing to implement this set of indicators will require 22 unique data elements, all of which are either readily available or easily collected prospectively. Conclusions We identified a set of indicators through a consensus-based approach that may be used to monitor and improve the performance of a transplant center in how efficiently it evaluates persons interested in becoming a living kidney donor.

Many patients with kidney failure will live longer and healthier lives if they receive a kidney transplant rather than dialysis. However, multiple barriers prevent patients from accessing this treatment option.To determine if a quality improvement intervention provided in chronic kidney disease (CKD) programs (vs. usual care) enables more patients with no recorded contraindications to kidney transplant to complete more steps toward receiving a kidney transplant.This protocol describes a pragmatic 2-arm, parallel-group, open-label, registry-based, cluster-randomized clinical trial-the Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD) trial.All 26 CKD programs in Ontario, Canada, with a trial start date of November 1, 2017. The original end date of March 31, 2021 (3.4 years) has been extended to December 31, 2021 (4.1 years) due to the COVID-19 pandemic.During the trial, the 26 CKD programs are expected to care for more than 10 000 adult patients with CKD (including patients approaching the need for dialysis and patients receiving dialysis) with no recorded contraindications to a kidney transplant.Programs were randomly allocated to provide a quality improvement intervention or usual care. The intervention has 4 main components: (1) local quality improvement teams and administrative support; (2) tailored education and resources for staff, patients, and living kidney donor candidates; (3) support from kidney transplant recipients and living kidney donors; and (4) program-level performance reports and oversight by program leaders.The primary outcome is the number of key steps completed toward receiving a kidney transplant analyzed at the cluster level (CKD program). The following 4 unique steps per patient will be counted: (1) patient referred to a transplant center for evaluation, (2) at least one living kidney donor candidate contacts a transplant center for an intended recipient and completes a health history questionnaire to begin their evaluation, (3) patient added to the deceased donor transplant wait list, and (4) patient receives a kidney transplant from a living or deceased donor.Study data will be obtained from Ontario's linked administrative healthcare databases. An intent-to-treat analysis will be conducted comparing the primary outcome between randomized groups using a 2-stage approach. First stage: residuals are obtained from fitting a regression model to individual-level variables ignoring intervention and clustering effects. Second stage: residuals from the first stage are aggregated at the cluster level as the outcome.It may not be possible to isolate independent effects of each intervention component, the usual care group could adopt intervention components leading to contamination bias, and the relatively small number of clusters could mean the 2 arms are not balanced on all baseline prognostic factors.The EnAKT LKD trial will provide high-quality evidence on whether a multi-component quality improvement intervention helps patients complete more steps toward receiving a kidney transplant.Clinicaltrials.gov; identifier: NCT03329521.Plusieurs patients atteints d’insuffisance rénale vivront plus longtemps et en meilleure santé s’ils reçoivent une greffe de rein plutôt que des traitements de dialyze. De nombreux obstacles empêchent cependant les patients d’accéder à la transplantation.Déterminer si une intervention visant l’amélioration de la qualité menée dans les programs d’insuffisance rénale chronique (IRC) permettrait à davantage de patients sans contre-indications à une greffe d’aller plus loin (comparativement aux soins habituels) dans le processus menant à la transplantation.Ce protocole décrit un essai clinique pragmatique ouvert, à deux bras, en groupes parallèles, à répartition aléatoire en grappes et fondé sur un registre — l’essaiLes 26 programs d’IRC de l’Ontario (Canada). L’essai a débuté le 1er novembre 2017 et devait initialement se terminer le 31 mars 2021 (3,4 ans); cette date a été reportée au 31 décembre 2021 (4,1 ans) en raison de la pandémie de COVID-19.Au cours de l’essai, on estime que les 26 programs d’IRC prendront en charge plus de 10 000 adultes atteints d’IRC (y compris des patients approchant le besoin de dialyze et des patients dialysés) sans contre-indications à une greffe.Les programs ont été répartis aléatoirement pour intégrer une intervention d’amélioration de la qualité ou pour prodiguer les soins habituels. L’intervention consiste en quatre composantes principales: (1) des équipes locales d’amélioration de la qualité et de soutien administratif; (2) de l’information et des ressources sur mesure pour le personnel, les patients et les donneurs vivants; (3) du soutien pour les receveurs et les donneurs vivants; et (4) des rapports sur le rendement au niveau du program et une surveillance assurée par les chefs de program.Le principal critère d’évaluation est le nombre d’étapes clés complétées en vue de la réception d’une greffe de rein tel qu’analysé au niveau de la grappe (program d’IRC). Pour chaque patient, quatre étapes spécifiques seront comptabilisées: (I) le patient est aiguillé vers un center de transplantation pour évaluation; (II) au moins un donneur vivant de rein contacte un center de transplantation pour un receveur en particulier et amorce son évaluation en remplissant un questionnaire sur ses antécédents médicaux; (III) le patient est ajouté à la liste d’attente pour une transplantation d’un donneur décédé, et (IV) le patient reçoit une greffe de rein d’un donneur vivant ou décédé.Les données sont tirées des bases de données administratives du système de santé ontarien. Une analyze en intention de traiter sera effectuée en comparant le principal critère d’évaluation entre les groupes répartis aléatoirement à l’aide d’une approche en deux étapes. Première étape: obtention de valeurs résiduelles en adaptant un modèle de régression aux variables de niveau individuel et en ignorant les effets de l’intervention et du regroupement. Deuxième étape: les valeurs résiduelles de la première étape agrégées au niveau du groupe constitueront le résultat.Il pourrait ne pas être possible d’isoler les effets indépendants de chaque composante de l’intervention. L’équipe prodiguant les soins habituels pourrait adopter des composantes de l’intervention menant à un biais de contamination. Le nombre relativement faible de groupes pourrait signifier que les deux bras ne sont pas équilibrés sur tous les facteurs pronostiques de base.L’essai EnAKT LKD fournira des données de haute qualité sur la question de savoir si une intervention à composantes multiples visant l’amélioration de la qualité aide effectivement les patients à franchir davantage d’étapes vers une transplantation rénale.

Background Comparisons between frailty assessment tools for waitlist candidates are a recognized priority area for kidney transplantation. We compared the prevalence of frailty using three established tools in a cohort of waitlist candidates. Methods Waitlist candidates were prospectively enrolled from 2016 to 2020 across five centers. Frailty was measured using the Frailty Phenotype (FP), a 37-variable frailty index (FI), and the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). The FI and CFS were dichotomized using established cutoffs. Agreement was compared using κ coefficients. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to compare the FI and CFS (treated as continuous measures) with the FP. Unadjusted associations between each frailty measure and time to death or waitlist withdrawal were determined using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazards model. Results Of 542 enrolled patients, 64% were male, 80% were White, and the mean age was 54±14 years. The prevalence of frailty by the FP was 16%. The mean FI score was 0.23±0.14, and the prevalence of frailty was 38% (score of ≥0.25). The median CFS score was three (IQR, 2–3), and the prevalence was 15% (score of ≥4). The κ values comparing the FP with the FI (0.44) and CFS (0.27) showed fair to moderate agreement. The area under the ROC curves for the FP and FI/CFS were 0.86 (good) and 0.69 (poor), respectively. Frailty by the CFS (HR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.04 to 4.24) and FI (HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.00 to 3.21) was associated with death or permanent withdrawal. The association between frailty by the FP and death/withdrawal was not statistically significant (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 0.79 to 3.71). Conclusion Frailty prevalence varies by the measurement tool used, and agreement between these measurements is fair to moderate. This has implications for determining the optimal frailty screening tool for use in those being evaluated for kidney transplant.

Consider a theoretical situation in which 2 patients with similar baseline characteristics receive a kidney transplant on the same day: 1 from a standard criteria deceased donor, the other from a living donor. Which kidney transplant will last longer?We conducted a population-based cohort study using linked administrative healthcare databases from Ontario, Canada, from January 1, 2005, to March 31, 2014, to evaluate several posttransplant outcomes in individuals who received a kidney transplant from a standard criteria deceased donor (n = 1523) or from a living donor (n = 1373). We used PS weighting using overlap weights, a novel weighting method that emphasizes the population of recipients with the most overlap in baseline characteristics.Compared with recipients of a living donor, the rate of all-cause graft failure was not statistically higher for recipients of a standard criteria deceased donor (hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-1.6). Recipients of a standard criteria deceased donor, compared with recipients of a living donor had a higher rate of delayed graft function (23.6% versus 18.7%; odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.6) and a longer length of stay for the kidney transplant surgery (mean difference, 1.7 d; 95% CI, 0.5-3.0).After accounting for many important donor and recipient factors, we failed to observe a large difference in the risk of all-cause graft failure for recipients of a standard criteria deceased versus living donor. Some estimates were imprecise, which meant we could not rule out the presence of smaller clinically important effects.

Kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment for an individual requiring kidney replacement therapy, resulting in improved survival and quality of life while costing the health care system less than maintenance dialysis. Achieving and maintaining a kidney transplant requires extensive coordination of several different health care services. To improve the quality of kidney transplant care, quality metrics or indicators that encompass all aspects of the individual's journey to transplant should be measured in a standardized fashion.To identify, categorize, and evaluate strengths and weaknesses of kidney transplant quality indicators currently being used across Canada.An environmental scan of quality indicators being used by kidney organizations and programs.A 16-member volunteer pan-Canadian panel with expertise in nephrology, transplant, and quality improvement.Transplant programs, as well as provincial transplant and kidney agencies across Canada.Indicators were first categorized based on the period of transplant care and then using the Institute of Medicine and Donabedian frameworks. A 4-member subcommittee rated each indicator using a modified version of the Delphi consensus technique based on the American College of Physician/Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality criteria. Consensus ratings were subsequently shared with the entire 16-member panel for additional comments.We identified 46 measures related to transplant care across 7 Canadian provinces (9 referral and evaluation, 9 waitlist activity and outcomes, 6 hospitalization for transplant surgery, 12 posttransplant care, 6 organ utilization, 4 living donor). We rated 24 indicators (52%) as necessary to distinguish high-quality from low-quality care, most of which measured effective (n = 10) or efficient (n = 6) care. Only 7 (15%) of 46 indicators evaluated person-centered or equitable care. Fourteen common indicators were measured by 5 of 7 provinces, 10 of which were deemed "necessary," measuring safe (n = 2), effective (n = 5), efficient (n = 2), and equitable (n = 1) care.The panel lacked patient and allied health representation.There are a large number of kidney transplant quality indicators currently being used in Canada, some of which are common across provinces and focus primarily on measuring effective care. Person-centered and equitable care indicators were lacking, and only half of these indicators were deemed "necessary" for quality improvement. Our results should complement ongoing work to achieve national consensus on the standardization of quality indicators in kidney transplantation.La transplantation rénale constitue le traitement optimal pour une personne nécessitant une thérapie de remplacement rénal. La greffe améliore la survie et la qualité de vie du patient, tout en s’avérant moins coûteuse pour le système de santé que la dialyse d’entretien. La réussite et le maintien d’une transplantation rénale requièrent la parfaite coordination de plusieurs services de santé différents. L’amélioration des soins entourant la greffe passe donc par la mesure normalisée des indicateurs de qualité qui englobent tous les aspects du cheminement du patient vers la transplantation.Identifier, classer et évaluer les forces et faiblesses des indicateurs actuellement utilisés au Canada pour mesurer la qualité des soins entourant la transplantation rénale.Analyse contextuelle des indicateurs de la qualité utilisés par les organismes et programmes de néphrologie.Un comité bénévole pancanadien composé de 16 personnes détenant une expertise en néphrologie, en transplantation et en amélioration de la qualité.Les programmes de transplantation et les organismes provinciaux de transplantation et de néphrologie partout au Canada.Les indicateurs ont d’abord été catégorisés selon le moment des soins, puis avec les modèles de l’Institute of Medicine et de Donabedian. Un sous-comité de quatre personnes a évalué les indicateurs à l’aide d’une version modifiée de la méthode Delphi basée sur les critères de l’American College of Physicians/Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Les évaluations consensuelles ont ensuite été partagées avec les 16 membres du comité afin de recueillir d’autres commentaires.Nous avons recensé 46 mesures liées aux soins de transplantation dans sept provinces canadiennes (9 aiguillages et évaluations, 9 activités et résultats liés à la liste d’attente, 6 hospitalisations en vue d’une greffe, 12 soins post-transplantation, 6 utilisations d’organes et 4 donneurs vivants). Nous avons évalué 24 indicateurs (52 %) comme étant nécessaires pour départager les soins de haute qualité des soins de mauvaise qualité, la plupart mesurant l’efficacité (n = 10) ou l’efficience (n = 6). Seuls 7 indicateurs sur 46 (15 %) évaluaient des soins équitables ou axés sur la personne. Quatorze indicateurs communs étaient mesurés par cinq des sept provinces. Parmi eux, dix mesurant des soins sûrs (n = 2), efficaces (n = 5), efficients (n = 2) et équitables (n = 1) ont été jugés « nécessaires ».Le comité manquait de représentation parmi les patients et les professionnels paramédicaux.Un grand nombre d’indicateurs de la qualité de la transplantation rénale sont utilisés au Canada, certains sont communs à plusieurs provinces et mettent principalement l’accent sur l’efficacité des soins. Mais seulement la moitié de ceux-ci sont jugés « nécessaires » pour améliorer la qualité. De plus, des indicateurs quant aux soins équitables et axés sur la personne manquaient. Nos résultats devraient compléter les travaux en cours visant l’obtention d’un consensus national sur la normalisation des indicateurs de qualité en transplantation rénale.

Many patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) do not appreciate how their survival may differ if treated with a kidney transplant compared with dialysis. A risk calculator (iChoose Kidney) developed and validated in the United States provides individualized mortality estimates for different treatment options (dialysis vs living or deceased donor kidney transplantation). The calculator can be used with patients and families to help patients make more educated treatment decisions.To validate the iChoose Kidney risk calculator in Ontario, Canada.External validation study.We used several linked administrative health care databases from Ontario, Canada.We included 22 520 maintenance dialysis patients and 4505 kidney transplant recipients. Patients entered the cohort between 2004 and 2014.Three-year all-cause mortality.We assessed model discrimination using the C-statistic. We assessed model calibration by comparing the observed versus predicted mortality risk and by using smoothed calibration plots. We used multivariable logistic regression modeling to recalibrate model intercepts using a correction factor, when appropriate.In our final version of the iChoose Kidney model, we included the following variables: age (18-80 years), sex (male, female), race (white, black, other), time on dialysis (6 months, 6-12 months,12 months), and patient comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, and/or cardiovascular disease). Over the 3-year follow-up period, 33.3% of dialysis patients and 6.2% of kidney transplant recipients died. The discriminatory ability was moderate (C-statistic for dialysis: 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-0.70, and C-statistic for transplant: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.69-0.75). The 3-year observed and predicted mortality estimates were comparable and even more so after we recalibrated the intercepts in 2 of our models (dialysis and deceased donor kidney transplantation). As done in the United States, we developed a Canadian Web site and an iOS application called Dialysis vs. Kidney Transplant- Estimated Survival in Ontario.Missing data in our databases precluded the inclusion of all variables that were in the original iChoose Kidney (ie, patient ethnicity and low albumin). We were unable to perform all preplanned analyses due to the limited sample size.The original iChoose Kidney risk calculator was able to adequately predict mortality in this Canadian (Ontario) cohort of ESKD patients. After minor modifications, the predictive accuracy improved. The Dialysis vs. Kidney Transplant- Estimated Survival in Ontario risk calculator may be a valuable resource to help ESKD patients make an informed decision on pursuing kidney transplantation.Plusieurs patients atteints d’insuffisance rénale terminale (IRT) ignorent à quel point leurs chances de survie varient selon qu’ils sont traités par dialyse ou par une greffe rénale. Un modèle de prévision des risques (l’outil de calculValider l’outil de calculUne étude de validité externe.Plusieurs bases de données couplées du système de santé ontarien (Canada).Un total de 22 520 patients dialysés et de 4 505 receveurs d’une greffe de rein ont été inclus entre 2004 et 2014.La mortalité toutes causes sur une période de trois (3) ans.Nous avons évalué le pouvoir discriminant du modèle à l’aide de la statistique C. L’étalonnage du modèle a été établi en comparant les risques de mortalité observé et prédit, et à l’aide de courbes d’étalonnage lissées. Des modèles de régression logistique multivariés ont été employés pour réétalonner les valeurs à l’origine en utilisant au besoin un facteur de correction.Notre version définitive du modèle de prévision inclut les variables suivantes : l’âge du patient (18 à 80 ans), son genre, sa race (blanc, noir, autre), son expérience en dialyse (moins de 6 mois, entre 6 et 12 mois, plus de 12 mois) et ses comorbidités (hypertension, diabète et maladies cardiovasculaires). Au cours des trois ans de suivi, 33,3 % des patients dialysés et 6,2 % des receveurs d’une greffe sont décédés. Le pouvoir discriminant s’est avéré modéré avec une valeur de statistique C de 0,70 (IC 95 % : 0,69-0,70) pour la dialyse et de 0,72 (IC 95 % : 0,69-0,75) pour les greffes. Les taux de mortalité observé et estimé au cours des trois ans étaient comparables, et davantage après le réétalonnage des valeurs à l’origine dans deux de nos modèles (dialyse et receveur d’un rein d’un donneur décédé). Comme aux États-Unis, nous avons développé un site Web et une application iOS canadiens nommésDes informations manquantes dans les bases de données consultées nous ont empêchés de tenir compte de toutes les variables incluses dans le modèleLa version originale du modèle de prévision des risques

Background and objectives Neutral-pH, low–glucose degradation products solutions were developed in an attempt to lessen the adverse effects of conventional peritoneal dialysis solutions. A systematic review was performed evaluating the effect of these solutions on residual renal function, urine volume, peritoneal ultrafiltration, and peritoneal small-solute transport (dialysate to plasma creatinine ratio) over time. Design, setting, participants, & measurements Multiple electronic databases were searched from January of 1995 to January of 2013. Randomized trials reporting on any of four prespecified outcomes were selected by consensus among multiple reviewers. Results Eleven trials of 643 patients were included. Trials were generally of poor quality. The meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. The use of neutral-pH, low-glucose degradation products solutions resulted in better preserved residual renal function at various study durations, including >1 year (combined analysis: 11 studies; 643 patients; standardized mean difference =0.17 ml/min; 95% confidence interval, 0.01 to 0.32), and greater urine volumes (eight studies; 598 patients; mean difference =128 ml/d; 95% confidence interval, 58 to 198). There was no significant difference in peritoneal ultrafiltration (seven studies; 571 patients; mean difference =−110; 95% confidence interval, −312 to 91) or dialysate to plasma creatinine ratio (six studies; 432 patients; mean difference =0.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.00 to 0.06). Conclusions The use of neutral-pH, low–glucose degradation products solutions results in better preservation of residual renal function and greater urine volumes. The effect on residual renal function occurred early and persisted beyond 12 months. Additional studies are required to evaluate the use of neutral-pH, low–glucose degradation products solutions on hard clinical outcomes.

Chloroquine-resistant Plasmodium falciparum (CRPF) malaria isolates in Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa share the same Plasmodium falciparum chloroquine resistance transporter (PfCRT) haplotype (CVIET; amino acids 72 to 76). It is believed that CRPF malaria emerged in Southeast Asia and spread to sub-Saharan Africa via the Indian subcontinent. Based on this assumption, we hypothesized that CRPF isolates in India should possess the same drug resistance haplotype (PfCRT haplotype CVIET) as P. falciparum isolates in Southeast Asia and Africa and that the prevalence of CRPF may be higher and more widespread in India than appreciated. To test this postulate, we utilized a standardized real-time PCR assay to assess the prevalence and distribution of PfCRT haplotypes in P. falciparum isolates ( n = 406) collected from Western, Central, and Eastern states in India and compared them to isolates from South America and Africa. Based on the proportion of isolates possessing the molecular marker K76T, the prevalence of chloroquine resistance was high in all five regions of India studied (91%), as well as in Uganda (98%) and Suriname (100%). All isolates from Suriname contained the chloroquine-resistant SVMNT haplotype typical of South American isolates, and 98% of isolates from Uganda possessed the chloroquine-resistant CVIET haplotype characteristic of Southeast Asian/African strains. However, of 246 P. falciparum isolates from across India that contained the molecular marker for chloroquine resistance, 81% contained the SVMNT haplotype. In conclusion, the prevalence of CRPF malaria was high in geographically dispersed regions of India, and the primary haplotype observed, SVMNT, did not support a presumed geographic spread from contiguous Southeast Asia.

Background International travel is associated with increased risk of vector-borne illnesses, particularly malaria. The objective of this study was to prospectively assess the relative frequency of parasitic diseases in Canadian travelers and to characterize demographic and travel-related predictors of these infections. Methods Data on Canadians and new immigrants who crossed international borders and were seen in the Tropical Disease Unit of Toronto General Hospital between November 1997 and June 2003 were prospectively collected and entered into the GeoSentinel Surveillance Network database. Results Of 3,528 returned Canadian travelers and new immigrants in the database, 1,010 had a parasitic infection diagnosed. Mean age of the 3,528 travelers was 37.3 years, and 42.6% were male. Those diagnosed with parasitic infections were more likely than the remaining cohort to have been traveling for the purpose of immigration (21.1% vs 7.1%, p < 0.001), or visiting friends and relatives (VFR) (17.9% vs 11.8%, p < 0.01). Common parasitic infections included nonhistolytica amebiasis (N= 209), malaria (N= 143), cutaneous larva migrans (N= 105), giardiasis (N= 74), and schistosomiasis (N= 48). Conclusions Parasitic infections occurred in 29% of Canadian travelers. New immigrants and VFRs are at increased risk for malaria, as well as protozoal and helminthic infections.