Chronic Kidney Disease-Associated Pruritus and Quality of Life: Learning from Our Patients

Chronic kidney disease-associated pruritus is itching directly related to kidney disease that cannot be explained by any other condition. Despite technological advances in the different aspects of dialysis sessions and the best treatment for chronic kidney disease patients, it is still a common problem in our patients. The many complex physiological mechanisms involved, the different hypotheses made over the years on the aetiology of the condition, and the great clinical variability may partially explain the limited knowledge about this problem and the difficulties in treating it. The presence of all these factors leads to the persistence of unpleasant symptoms, which must affect the disease burden and quality of life of kidney patients. Through the presentation of an illustrative clinical case, the aim of this review article is to highlight the need for adequate diagnosis and an improved approach to all aspects of chronic kidney disease-associated pruritus, in view of the heavy burden of the disease and the huge impact on the patient's quality of life.

Strategies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission in hemodialysis centres across Europe - Lessons for the future

Background

Early reports on the pandemic nature of COVID-19 directed the nephrology community to develop infection prevention and control guidance. We aimed to make an inventory of strategies that dialysis centres followed to prevent infection with COVID-19 in the first pandemic wave.

Methods

We analyzed IPC measures taken by hemodialysis centres treating patients presenting with COVID-19 between March 1, 2020 and July 31, 2020 and that completed the European Renal Association COVID-19 Database centre questionnaire. Additionally, we made an inventory of guidelines published in European countries to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2 in dialysis centres.

Results

Data from 73 dialysis units located in and bordering Europe were analyzed. All participating centres implemented IPC measures to mitigate the impact of SARS-CoV-2 during the first pandemic wave. Measures mentioned most often included triage with questions before entering the dialysis ward, measuring body temperature, hand disinfection, masking for all patients and staff, and personal protective equipment for staff members. These measures were also recommended in most of the 14 guidelines that were identified in the inventory of national guidelines and were also scored as being among the most important measures by the authors of this paper. Heterogeneity existed between centres and national guidelines regarding the minimal distance between dialysis chairs and recommendations regarding isolation and cohorting.

Conclusions

Although variation existed, measures to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 were relatively similar across centres and national guidelines. Further research is needed to assess causal relationships between measures taken and spread of SARS-CoV-2.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of the introduction of a specialised consultation with duplex ultrasound assessment prior to vascular access surgery for haemodialysis

INTRODUCTION

Duplex ultrasound (DUS) is increasingly used before vascular access (VA) surgery for haemodialysis. However, the cost-effectiveness of this approach is unknown. Our objective was to assess whether the introduction of a specialised consultation with DUS assessment modifies the cost and the time delay to achieve a first VA valid for haemodialysis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective cohort of patients undergoing a first VA (June 2014-July 2017) after a specialised consultation with DUS (ECO group). They were compared with a historical cohort (January 2012-May 2014) where VA was indicated exclusively by clinical evaluation (CLN group). We analysed the cost related to visits, DUS assessments, interventions, hospital admissions and graft materials to achieve a first VA valid for haemodialysis at least during 1 month.

RESULTS

86 patients in the CLN group were compared with 92 in the ECO group. Patients in the ECO group were younger (68.4 vs. 64.0 years; P=.038) but no other differences were seen among groups. The average cost to achieve a first AV valid for haemodialysis was significantly lower in the ECO group (2707 vs. 3347€; P=.024). There was a higher cost associated with DUS assessments in the ECO group yet the CLN group had a higher cost related to follow-up visits, successive surgical interventions, prosthetic material, days of hospital admission and catheters. The mean time needed to achieve a first AV valid for haemodialysis was also shorter in the ECO group (49.9 vs. 82.9 days, P=.002).

CONCLUSION

The introduction of a specialised vascular access consultation with DUS prior to VA surgery has reduced the cost necessary to achieve a first VA valid for haemodialysis. From the patient's point of view this has meant less interventions and hospital admissions and a shortening of the time delay.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of the introduction of a specialised consultation with duplex ultrasound assessment prior to vascular access surgery for haemodialysis

INTRODUCTION

Duplex ultrasound (DUS) is increasingly used before vascular access (VA) surgery for haemodialysis. However, the cost-effectiveness of this approach is unknown. Our objective was to assess whether the introduction of a specialised consultation with DUS assessment modifies the cost and the time delay to achieve a first VA valid for haemodialysis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective cohort of patients undergoing a first VA (June 2014-July 2017) after a specialised consultation with DUS (ECO group). They were compared with a historical cohort (January 2012-May 2014) where VA was indicated exclusively by clinical evaluation (CLN group). We analysed the cost related to visits, DUS assessments, interventions, hospital admissions and graft materials to achieve a first VA valid for haemodialysis at least during 1 month.

RESULTS

Eighty-six patients in the CLN group were compared with 92 in the ECO group. Patients in the ECO group were younger (68.4 vs. 64.0 years; P=.038) but no other differences were seen among groups. The average cost to achieve a first AV valid for haemodialysis was significantly lower in the ECO group (2707 vs. 3347€; P=.024). There was a higher cost associated with DUS assessments in the ECO group yet the CLN group had a higher cost related to follow-up visits, successive surgical interventions, prosthetic material, days of hospital admission and catheters. The mean time needed to achieve a first AV valid for haemodialysis was also shorter in the ECO group (49.9 vs. 82.9 days, P=.002).

CONCLUSION

The introduction of a specialised vascular access consultation with DUS prior to VA surgery has reduced the cost necessary to achieve a first VA valid for haemodialysis. From the patient's point of view this has meant less interventions and hospital admissions and a shortening of the time delay.