Wars, disasters and kidneys

Biodefense Implications of New-World Hantaviruses

Hantaviruses, part of the Bunyaviridae family, are a genus of negative-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses that cause two major diseases: New-World Hantavirus Cardiopulmonary Syndrome and Old-World Hemorrhagic Fever with Renal Syndrome. Hantaviruses generally are found worldwide with each disease corresponding to their respective hemispheres. New-World Hantaviruses spread by specific rodent-host reservoirs and are categorized as emerging viruses that pose a threat to global health and security due to their high mortality rate and ease of transmission. Incidentally, reports of Hantavirus categorization as a bioweapon are often contradicted as both US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention refer to them as Category A and C bioagents respectively, each retaining qualitative levels of importance and severity. Concerns of Hantavirus being engineered into a novel bioagent has been thwarted by Hantaviruses being difficult to culture, isolate, and purify limiting its ability to be weaponized. However, the natural properties of Hantaviruses pose a threat that can be exploited by conventional and unconventional forces. This review seeks to clarify the categorization of Hantaviruses as a bioweapon, whilst defining the practicality of employing New-World Hantaviruses and their effect on armies, infrastructure, and civilian targets.

Acute Kidney Injury in Active Wars and Other Man-Made Disasters

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is frequent during wars and other man-made disasters, and contributes significantly to the overall death toll. War-related AKI may develop as a result of polytrauma, traumatic bleeding and hypovolemia, chemical and airborne toxin exposure, and crush syndrome. Thus, prerenal, intrinsic renal, or postrenal AKI may develop at the battlefield, in field hospitals, or tertiary care centers, resulting not only from traumatic, but also nontraumatic, etiologies. The prognosis usually is unfavorable because of systemic and polytrauma-related complications and suboptimal therapeutic interventions. Measures for decreasing the risk of AKI include making preparations for foreseeable disasters, and early management of polytrauma-related complications, hypovolemia, and other pathogenetic mechanisms. Transporting casualties initially to field hospitals, and afterward to higher-level health care facilities at the earliest convenience, is critical. Other man-made disasters also may cause AKI; however, the number of patients is mostly lower and treatment possibilities are broader than in war. If there is no alternative other than prolonged field care, the medical community must be prepared to offer health care and even perform dialysis in austere conditions, which in that case, is the only option to decrease the death toll resulting from AKI.

Nephrology in Bosnia and Herzegovina: impact of the 1992-95 war

It has now been more than two decades since the end of the 1992–95 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This may well be the proper time to provide the nephrology community with an appraisal of the care of patients with chronic kidney disease in the pre-war, war and post-war periods in the European transitional country. This report on nephrology in Bosnia and Herzegovina draws attention to the hurdles faced for three turbulent years on that burdensome path of providing quality care, and the chance it offered in developing a successful transplant programme while facing the dreadful chaos of war and a migrant crisis. The perception of war and natural disasters is quite different, from the victim’s point of view, from the standardized and well-arranged healthcare systems in the developed world. The guidelines, written in peace, are extremely useful, but are often hard to follow during natural disasters or barbarous wars. Each of the periods described had its specificities as well as its good and bad sides. Despite the unquestionable destructive nature of the war, it was a catalyst for nephrology in Bosnia and Herzegovina to move forward.

A historical perspective on crush syndrome: the clinical application of its pathogenesis, established by the study of wartime crush injuries

Crush syndrome is a fine example of how pathology can play a direct role in revealing the best treatment and management for diseases. It can occur when crush injuries are sustained. Skeletal muscle becomes damaged under the weight of a heavy object, and victims experience severe shock and renal failure. The discovery of the pathology of crush syndrome belongs to two individuals: Seigo Minami and Eric Bywaters. They separately helped to define the pathogenesis of crush syndrome during World Wars I and II. Seigo Minami is believed to have been the first to record the pathogenesis of crush syndrome. In 1923, he described the cases of three soldiers who died of renal failure caused by crush injury during World War I. Using microscopic studies to investigate the pathology of their kidneys, he found the soldiers had died due to 'autointoxication' caused by rhabdomyolysis. This discovery was not known to Eric Bywaters, who described crush syndrome in 1941, having studied victims of the London Blitz during World War II. He defined the 'autointoxication' as the release of rhabdomyolysis products via reperfusion. He therefore established the need for emergency fluid replacement to treat crush syndrome. The findings made by Minami and Bywaters highlight a remarkable achievement in clinical pathology, despite the adversity of war. It is these findings on which current guidelines are based. By reviewing their work, it is hoped that the role of pathology can be better appreciated as a valuable resource for delineating the treatment and management of diseases.