UNASSIGNED: Current guidelines recommend that living kidney donors receive lifelong annual follow-up care to monitor kidney health. In the United States, the reporting of complete clinical and laboratory data for kidney donors has been mandated for the first 2 years post-donation; however, the long-term impact of early guideline-concordant care remains unclear.
UNASSIGNED: The primary objective of this study was to compare long-term post-donation follow-up care and clinical outcomes of living kidney donors with and without early guideline-concordant follow-up care.
UNASSIGNED: Retrospective, population-based cohort study.
UNASSIGNED: Linked health care databases were used to identify kidney donors in Alberta, Canada.
UNASSIGNED: Four hundred sixty living kidney donors who underwent nephrectomy between 2002 and 2013.
UNASSIGNED: The primary outcome was continued annual follow-up at 5 and 10 years (adjusted odds ratio with 95% confidence interval, LCLaORUCL). Secondary outcomes included mean change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over time and rates of all-cause hospitalization.
UNASSIGNED: We compared long-term follow-up and clinical outcomes for donors with and without early guideline-concordant care, defined as annual physician visit and serum creatinine and albuminuria measurement for the first 2 years post-donation.
UNASSIGNED: Of the 460 donors included in this study, 187 (41%) had clinical and laboratory evidence of guideline-concordant follow-up care throughout the first 2 years post-donation. The odds of receiving annual follow-up for donors without early guideline-concordant care were 76% lower at 5 years (aOR 0.180.240.32) and 68% lower at 10 years (aOR 0.230.320.46) compared with donors with early care. The odds of continuing follow-up remained stable over time for both groups. Early guideline-concordant follow-up care did not appear to substantially influence eGFR or hospitalization rates over the longer term.
UNASSIGNED: We were unable to confirm whether the lack of physician visits or laboratory data in certain donors was due to physician or patient decisions.
UNASSIGNED: Although policies directed toward improving early donor follow-up may encourage continued follow-up, additional strategies may be necessary to mitigate long-term donor risks.
UNASSIGNED: Les lignes directrices actuelles recommandent que les donneurs de rein vivants soient suivis annuellement, et ce, à vie, afin de surveiller leur santé rénale. Aux États-Unis, la déclaration des données cliniques et des données de laboratoire complètes pour les donneurs de rein est exigée pour les deux premières années suivant le don. On ignore cependant les répercussions à long terme pour ceux qui reçoivent des soins précoces conformes aux lignes directrices.
UNASSIGNED: Le principal objectif de cette étude était de comparer les soins de suivi post-don à long terme et les résultats cliniques des donneurs de rein vivants, selon qu’ils avaient reçu ou non des soins de suivi précoces conformes aux recommandations.
UNASSIGNED: Étude de cohorte rétrospective basée sur une population.
UNASSIGNED: Les banques de données couplées du système de santé ont été utilisées pour identifier les donneurs de rein de l’Alberta (Canada).
UNASSIGNED: L’étude porte sur 460 donneurs de rein vivants ayant subi leur néphrectomie entre 2002 et 2013.
UNASSIGNED: Le principal critère d’évaluation était un suivi annuel continu à 5 et à 10 ans post-don (rapport de cotes corrigé avec intervalle de confiance de 95 % [LICRRcLSC]). Les résultats secondaires comprenaient la variation moyenne du débit de filtration glomérulaire estimé (DFGe) au fil du temps et les taux d’hospitalisation toutes causes confondues.
UNASSIGNED: Nous avons comparé le suivi à long terme et les résultats cliniques de donneurs qui avaient reçu ou non des soins précoces conformes aux directives, définis par une visite annuelle chez le médecin et des mesures de la créatinine sérique et de l’albuminurie pour les deux premières années post-don.
UNASSIGNED: Des 460 donneurs inclus à l’étude, 187 (41 %) disposaient de preuves de suivi conformes aux directives, soit de données cliniques et de laboratoire, pour les deux premières années post-don. Les chances d’avoir un suivi annuel pour les donneurs qui n’avaient pas reçu de soins précoces conformes aux directives étaient de 76 % inférieures à 5 ans (RRc: 0,180,240,32) et de 68 % inférieures à 10 ans (RRc: 0,230,320,46) par rapport aux donneurs qui en avaient reçu. Les chances de poursuivre le suivi sont demeurées stables au fil du temps pour les deux groupes. Le fait d’avoir reçu des soins de suivi précoces conformes aux recommandations ne semble pas avoir eu d’incidence importante sur les mesures de DFGe ou les taux d’hospitalisation à long terme.
UNASSIGNED: Nous n’avons pas été en mesure de confirmer si l’absence de visites chez le médecin ou le manque de données de laboratoire chez certains donneurs était dû à des décisions du médecin ou du patient.
UNASSIGNED: Bien que les politiques visant à améliorer le suivi précoce des donneurs d’organes puissent encourager la poursuite du suivi, des stratégies supplémentaires pourraient être nécessaires pour atténuer les risques à long terme pour ces personnes.

UNASSIGNED: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2012 guidelines classify chronic kidney disease (CKD) risk or prognosis using estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). We assessed patient characteristics and outcomes according to the KDIGO classification, using data from DISCOVER CKD (NCT04034992).
UNASSIGNED: Data were extracted from the US integrated Limited Claims and Electronic Health Record Dataset and TriNetX databases, and the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and Office for National Statistics databases. Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years with CKD, and identified by 2 consecutive eGFR measures (5 to <75 ml/min/1.73 m2; ≥90 days apart [maximum 730]) from January 2008. Index date was the second eGFR measurement; patients were categorized using the UACR measure closest to the index. Outcomes included patient characteristics, eGFR or UACR measurement frequency, and clinical outcomes per baseline KDIGO classification.
UNASSIGNED: Across databases, only 8.6% of patients with 2 eGFR measures had ≥1 UACR measures. Among 123,807 eligible patients, prevalence of heart failure, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes increased with increasing albuminuria. Incidence rates of mortality and adverse cardiovascular and renal outcomes increased with declining baseline eGFR, and particularly with increasing albuminuria. Median number of eGFR and UACR tests per year post-index ranged from 1.6 to 2.5 and 0.5 to 0.6, respectively, across databases; there was no clear increase in UACR testing frequency following the KDIGO 2012 guidelines.
UNASSIGNED: Albuminuria monitoring is critical for optimal risk stratification in CKD, and our findings highlight an imperative for more regular UACR testing in clinical practice.

Patients with heart failure (HF) and associated chronic kidney disease (CKD) are a population less represented in clinical trials; additionally, subjects with more severe estimated glomerular filtration rate reduction are often excluded from large studies. In this setting, most of the data come from post hoc analyses and retrospective studies. Accordingly, in patients with advanced CKD, there are no specific studies evaluating the long-term effects of the traditional drugs commonly administered in HF. Current concerns may affect the practical approach to the traditional treatment, and in this setting, physicians are often reluctant to administer and titrate some agents acting on the renin angiotensin aldosterone system and the sympathetic activity. Therefore, the extensive application in different HF subtypes with wide associated conditions and different renal dysfunction etiologies remains a subject of debate. The role of novel drugs, such as angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitors and sodium glucose linked transporters 2 inhibitors seems to offer a new perspective in patients with CKD. Due to its protective vascular and hormonal actions, the use of these agents may be safely extended to patients with renal dysfunction in the long term. In this review, we discussed the largest trials reporting data on subjects with HF and associated CKD, while suggesting a practical stepwise algorithm to avoid renal and cardiac complications.

UNASSIGNED: The aim of the study is to assess the degree of adherence of medical laboratories to Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2012 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) in laboratory practice in Czechia and Slovakia.
UNASSIGNED: An electronic questionnaire on adherence to KDIGO 2012 guideline was designed by an external quality assessment (EQA) provider SEKK spol. s.r.o. The questionnaire was placed and distributed through website to all medical biochemistry laboratories in Czechia and Slovakia (N = 396).
UNASSIGNED: A total of 212 out of 396 laboratories responded to the questions, though some laboratories only answered some questions, those applicable to their practice. A total of 48 out of 212 laboratories adopted the KDIGO 2012 guideline in full extent. The metrological traceability of creatinine measurement to standard reference material of SRM 967 was declared by 180 out of 210 laboratories (two of the responding laboratories did not measure creatinine). Thirty laboratories are not well educated on traceability of creatinine measurement and seven laboratories do not calculate estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Both urinary albumin concentration and albumin to creatinine ratio are reported by 144 out of 175 laboratories (37 of the responding laboratories did not measure urinary albumin).
UNASSIGNED: Majority of laboratories in Czechia and Slovakia adopted some parts of the KDIGO 2012 guideline in their practice, but only 23% of the laboratories apply them completely. Thus, further education and action should be conducted to improve its implementation.

UNASSIGNED: The prevalence, incidence and prognosis of chronic kidney disease (CKD) have not been fully understood in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective cohort study was performed in 1077 RA patients from July 2004 to June 2014. CKD was defined as either proteinuria ≥1+ or estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 or both, according to the current CKD classification with risk categories for future death, end-stage renal disease and cardiovascular disease. The cumulative incidence of mortality and CKD was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. The association of each outcome with known risk factors was analyzed using multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for mortality and incidence of CKD were calculated for estimation.
UNASSIGNED: The mean follow-up period was 51.5 ± 39.6 months, and the cumulative mortality was 20.6% over 10 years. The prevalence of any CKD was 24.5% at enrollment. Preexisting CKD was significantly associated with future death [HR 1.64 (95% CI 1.05-2.57)]. This association was the most robust in very-high-risk CKD [HR 4.76 (95% CI 2.24-9.51)]. The cumulative incidence of CKD over time was 59.5% in 813 patients who did not have prior CKD. Aside from the commonly known risk factors, the use of prednisolone and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs increased the likelihood of death [HR 1.75 (95% CI 1.11-2.79)] and incident CKD [HR 1.44 (95% CI 1.13-1.86)].
UNASSIGNED: The incidence of CKD increases over time among RA patients and prevalent CKD may be an insidious risk factor linked to increased mortality in RA patients.

Catheter-based radiofrequency ablation technology to disrupt both efferent and afferent renal nerves has recently been introduced to clinical medicine after the demonstration of significant systolic and diastolic blood pressure reductions. Clinical trial data available thus far have been obtained primarily in patients with resistant hypertension, defined as standardized systolic clinic blood pressure ≥ 160 mm Hg (or ≥ 150 mm Hg in patients with type 2 diabetes) despite appropriate pharmacologic treatment with at least 3 antihypertensive drugs, including a diuretic agent. Accordingly, these criteria and blood pressure thresholds should be borne in mind when selecting patients for renal nerve ablation. Secondary forms of hypertension and pseudoresistance, such as nonadherence to medication, intolerance of medication, and white coat hypertension, should have been ruled out, and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is mandatory in this context. Because there are theoretical concerns with regard to renal safety, selected patients should have preserved renal function, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 45 ml/min/1.73 m(2). Optimal periprocedural management of volume status and medication regimens at specialized and experienced centers equipped with adequate infrastructure to cope with potential procedural complications will minimize potential patient risks. Long-term safety and efficacy data are limited to 3 years of follow-up in small patient cohorts, so efforts to monitor treated patients are crucial to define the long-term performance of the procedure. Although renal nerve ablation could have beneficial effects in other conditions characterized by elevated renal sympathetic nerve activity, its potential use for such indications should currently be limited to formal research studies of its safety and efficacy.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this guideline is to provide a clinical framework for follow-up of clinically localized renal neoplasms undergoing active surveillance, or following definitive therapy.
METHODS: A systematic literature review identified published articles in the English literature between January 1999 and 2011 relevant to key questions specified by the Panel related to kidney neoplasms and their follow-up (imaging, renal function, markers, biopsy, prognosis). Study designs consisting of clinical trials (randomized or not), observational studies (cohort, case-control, case series) and systematic reviews were included.
RESULTS: Guideline statements provided guidance for ongoing evaluation of renal function, usefulness of renal biopsy, timing/type of radiographic imaging and formulation of future research initiatives. A lack of studies precluded risk stratification beyond tumor staging; therefore, for the purposes of postoperative surveillance guidelines, patients with localized renal cancers were grouped into strata of low- and moderate- to high-risk for disease recurrence based on pathological tumor stage.
CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation for patients on active surveillance and following definitive therapy for renal neoplasms should include physical examination, renal function, serum studies and imaging and should be tailored according to recurrence risk, comorbidities and monitoring for treatment sequelae. Expert opinion determined a judicious course of monitoring/surveillance that may change in intensity as surgical/ablative therapies evolve, renal biopsy accuracy improves and more long-term follow-up data are collected. The beneficial impact of careful follow-up will also need critical evaluation as further study is completed.