1
|
Boenink R, Kramer A, Vanholder RC, Mahillo B, Massy ZA, Bušić M, Ortiz A, Stel VS, Jager KJ, Idrizi A, Watschinger B, Neuwirt H, Eller K, Kalachik O, Leschuk S, Petkevich O, Abramowicz D, Hellemans R, Wissing KM, Colenbie L, Trnacevic S, Rebic D, Resic H, Filipov J, Megerov P, Bušić M, Žunec R, Markić D, Soloukides A, Savva I, Toumasi E, Viklicky O, Reischig T, Krejčí K, Sørensen SS, Bistrup C, Skov K, Lilienthal K, Ots-Rosenberg M, Helanterä I, Koivusalo A, Hourmant M, Essig M, Frimat L, Tomadze G, Banas B, Boletis I, Sándor M, Pálsson R, Plant W, Conlon P, Cooney A, Biancone L, Cardillo M, Ziedina I, Jusinskis J, Vaiciuniene R, Dalinkeviciene E, Delicata L, Farrugia E, Radunović D, Prelević V, Tomović F, Hilbrands L, Bemelman FJ, Schaefer B, Resisæter AV, Lien B, Skauby M, Dębska-Ślizień A, Durlik M, Wiecek A, Sampaio S, Romãozinho C, Jorge C, Rambabova-Bushljetikj I, Nikolov IG, Trajceska L, Tacu D, Elec A, Covic A, Zakharova E, Naumovic R, Lausevic M, Baltesová T, Žilinská Z, Dedinská I, Ponikvar JB, Arnol M, Valentín MO, Domínguez-Gil B, Crespo M, Mazuecos A, Wallquist C, Lundgren T, Dickenmann M, Toz H, Aki T, Keven K, Ravanan R, Geddes C. Factors influencing kidney transplantation rates: a study from the ERA Registry. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2023; 38:1540-1551. [PMID: 36626928 DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfad001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2022] [Indexed: 01/12/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Large international differences exist in kidney transplantation (KT) rates. We aimed to investigate which factors may explain the total, deceased donor, and living donor KT rates over the last decade. METHODS KT experts from 39 European countries completed the Kidney Transplantation Rate Survey on measures and barriers and their potential effect on the KT rate in their country. In the analyses, countries were divided into low, middle, and high KT rate countries based on the KT rate at the start of study period in 2010. RESULTS Experts from low KT rate countries reported more frequently to have taken measures regarding staff, equipment and facilities to increase total KT rate compared with middle and high KT rate countries. For donor type specific KT, the largest international differences in measures taken were reported for deceased donor KT, with middle and high KT rate countries taking more measures, such as the use of expanded criteria donor kidneys, the presence of transplantation coordinators, and (inter)national exchange of donor kidneys. Once a measure was taken, experts' opinion on its success was similar across the low, middle and high KT rate countries. Experts from low KT rate countries more often reported potential barriers, such as patients' lack of knowledge and distrust in the health care system. CONCLUSIONS In particular in low KT rate countries, KT rate might be stimulated by optimizing staff, equipment, and facilities. In addition, all countries may benefit from deceased and living donor specific measures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rianne Boenink
- ERA Registry, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Amsterdam Public Health, Quality of Care, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Anneke Kramer
- ERA Registry, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Amsterdam Public Health, Quality of Care, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Raymond C Vanholder
- Nephrology Section, Department of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.,European Kidney Health Alliance, Brussels, Belgium
| | | | - Ziad A Massy
- Paris-Saclay University, UVSQ, Inserm, CESP, team 5, Clinical Epidemiology, Villejuif 94800, France.,Paris-Saclay University, AP-HP, Ambroise Paré Hospital, Nephrology department Boulogne-Billancourt 92100, France
| | | | - Alberto Ortiz
- Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
| | - Vianda S Stel
- ERA Registry, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Amsterdam Public Health, Quality of Care, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Kitty J Jager
- ERA Registry, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Amsterdam Public Health, Quality of Care, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Ponikvar JB, Rus RR, Kenda RB, Bren AF, Ponikvar RR. Low-flux versus high-flux synthetic dialysis membrane in acute renal failure: prospective randomized study. Artif Organs 2001; 25:946-50. [PMID: 11843761 DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1594.2001.06753.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
The influence of dialyzer membrane on the morbidity and mortality of patients with acute renal failure remains a matter of debate. The aim of the prospective randomized clinical study was to assess the influence of the flux of a synthetic dialyzer membrane on patients' survival rate, restitution of renal function, and duration of hemodialysis treatment of patients with acute renal failure as a part of multiorgan failure. Seventy-two patients treated in intensive care units of the University Medical Center Ljubljana were randomized according to the dialyzer used throughout the duration of hemodialysis treatment. There were 38 patients in the low-flux group (dialyzer F6, low-flux polysuphone, Fresenius, Bad Homburg, Germany) and 34 patients in the high-flux group (dialyzer Filtral 12, sulphonated high-flux polyacrylonitrile, Hospal, Industrie Meyzieu, France). Both groups were balanced in terms of sex, age, APACHE II score, oliguria before dialysis, cause of acute renal failure, inotropic support, mechanical ventilation, and the number of failing organs. The patients' survival rate was 18.7% in the low-flux group and 20.6% in the high-flux group. Ten patients (26.3%) recovered their renal function in the low-flux group and 8 (23.5%) in the high-flux group. Hemodialysis treatment lasted 11.2 days in the low-flux and 10.7 days in the high-flux group. An analysis of subgroups with a lower mortality rate (subgroup of patients without oliguria and subgroup of patients with less than 4 failed organ systems) did not show significant differences between the low-flux and high-flux groups in terms of survival rate, recovery of renal function, and duration of hemodialysis treatment. In conclusion, no significant differences were found in the results of low-flux versus high-flux synthetic membrane dialyzer treatment in patients with acute renal failure as a part of multiorgan failure in terms of survival rate, recovery of renal function, incidence of oliguria during hemodialysis, and duration of hemodialysis treatment. The number of failing organs seems to be the most important single factor determining the survival of patients with acute renal failure as a part of multiorgan failure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J B Ponikvar
- Department of Nephrology, University Medical Center, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Kersnik Levart T, Kenig A, Buturović Ponikvar J, Ferluga D, Avgustin Cavić M, Kenda RB. Real-time ultrasound-guided renal biopsy with a biopsy gun in children: safety and efficacy. Acta Paediatr 2001; 90:1394-7. [PMID: 11853335 DOI: 10.1080/08035250152708789] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/30/2022]
Abstract
UNLABELLED Real-time ultrasound-guided renal biopsy (RB) with a biopsy gun has become a standard procedure in the treatment of children. The purpose of the study was to establish the complication rate after real-time ultrasound-guided RB with a biopsy gun, the adequacy of renal tissue samples for pathohistological tests, the rate of concurrence between clinical and pathohistological diagnoses, and the benefits of the procedure. From January 1994 to October 1999, 88 renal biopsies were performed on 82 children, 81 of whom (35M, 46F, aged 3-20 y) were included in this retrospective study. The nephrotic syndrome (in infants, older children, those with evidence of nephritis or failing corticosteroid therapy) was the most frequent indication of RB. Other indications were non-nephrotic proteinuria, nephritic syndrome, glomerular haematuria, renal allograft dysfunction, unexplained acute or chronic renal failure, and kidney disease progression monitoring. No serious complications were noted. The adequacy rate of renal tissue samples ranged from 93.1 to 96.6%, depending on which definition of the adequacy of renal tissue samples was used. Clinical and pathohistological diagnoses matched in 81.4% of the cases. Data obtained by RB were very beneficial to patients in terms of establishing, confirming or altering the diagnosis and, consequently, the treatment. CONCLUSION The results confirm that real-time ultrasound-guided RB with a biopsy gun is a safe procedure and provides information that is very beneficial to patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- T Kersnik Levart
- Department of Paediatric Nephrology, University Medical Centre, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Kenda RB, Kenig A, Novljan G, Ponikvar R, Ponikvar JB. Cyclic voiding urosonography for detecting vesicoureteric reflux in renal transplant recipients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001; 16:2229-31. [PMID: 11682672 DOI: 10.1093/ndt/16.11.2229] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The clinical significance of vesicoureteric reflux (VUR) in renal transplant recipients remains controversial. Voiding urosonography (VUS), a new modality for detecting VUR, can be used in these patients. The sensitivity of X-ray and radionuclide cystography for detecting VUR may be improved with cyclic procedures. The aim of our study was to evaluate whether cyclic VUS is superior to the single-cycle procedure. METHODS Cyclic VUS was performed in 27 renal transplant recipients. Eight were children or adolescents and the remaining 19 recipients were adults. VUS was performed according to accepted guidelines. After the first micturition, the catheter was left in place and the entire procedure was repeated under the same conditions. RESULTS Both initial cycle and cyclic VUS detected 17 out of 27 (63%) VURs in the same patients. The sensitivity was not improved by cyclic VUS. However, there were differences between the initial cycle and cyclic VUS (P=0.028) when comparing the number of negative results and the grades of VURs detected. This difference was even more pronounced when analysing only positive results. In the initial cycle, five out of 17 (29%) VURs were grade III, compared with 10 out of 17 (59%) grade III VURs in the same patients using the cyclic procedure (P=0.008). CONCLUSIONS Cyclic VUS did not improve the detection sensitivity for VUR in our study. However, given that VUR grade may be important for the management of renal transplant recipients, the use of cyclic VUS may provide a useful diagnostic tool for these patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R B Kenda
- Department of Pediatric Nephrology, University Medical Center Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|