Screening of vascular calcifications in patients with end-stage renal diseases

Abstract. Vascular calcifications (VC) are a major contributor to the massively increased mortality in hemodialysis (HD) patients. The present study aimed to detect arterial media and intima calcifications in HD patients and to evaluate potential risk factors. 214 patients aged 59.0 ± 11.0 years on HD for 6.39 ± 4.59 years were studied. VC were scored based on to plain radiographs. Potential risk factors were assessed. Out of the 214 patients studied, only 14% did not display any detectable VC. Using plain radiographs calcifications could be detected in 136 (63.6%) patients. Calcified plaques on carotid arteries were detected in 168 (78.4%) patients. There was the highest frequency of patients with the most pronounced calcifications. Calcifications of heart valves were detected in 89 (44.1%) patients. Univariante analysis indicate that risk to develop VC is present in older patients, patients with longer dialysis vintage, thicker intima media, higher lumen diameter and mitral valve calcifications. Multivariate multinomial logistic regression analysis revealed these factors as independent predictors of VC in dialysis patients. Our data confirm a high prevalence of VC in HD patients, their association with older ages, longer dialysis vintage, and presence of valvular calcifications and early markers of atherosclerosis

Renoprotective effect of calcium channel blockers

The advancing chronic renal failure is at most the consequence of secondary haemodynamic and metabolic factors as intraglomerular hypertension and glomerular hypertrophy. Although tight blood pressure control is the major preventive mechanism for progressive renal failure, ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers have some other renoprotective mechanisms beyond the blood pressure control. That is why these two groups of antihypertensive drugs traditionally have advantages in treating renal patients especially those with proteinuria over 400-1000 mg/day. Even if earlier experimental studies have shown renoprotective effect of calcium channel blockers, later clinical studies did not prove that calcium channel blockers have any advantages in renal protection over ACE inhibitors given as monotherapy or in combination with ACE inhibitors. It was explained by action of calcium channel blockers on afferent but not on efferent glomerular arterioles; a well known mechanism that leads to intraglomerular hypertension. New generations of dihydropiridine calcium channel blockers can dilate even efferent arterioles not causing unfavorable haemodynamic disturbances. This finding was confirmed in clinical studies which showed that renoprotection established by calcium channel blockers was not inferior to that of ACE inhibitors and that calcium channel blockers and ACE inhibitors have additive effect on renoprotection. Newer generation of dihydropiridine calcium channel blockers seem to offer more therapeutic possibilities in renoprotection by their dual action on afferent and efferent glomerular arterioles and, possibly by other effects beyond the blood pressure control

The effects of colestilan versus placebo and sevelamer in patients with CKD 5D and hyperphosphataemia: a 1-year prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND: This study compared the effects of short-term titrated colestilan (a novel non-absorbable, non-calcium, phosphate binder) with placebo, and evaluated the safety and efficacy of colestilan over 1 year compared with sevelamer, in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) 5D. METHODS: This prospective multicentre study comprised a 4-week phosphate binder washout period, a 16-week short-term, flexible-dose, treatment period (including a 4-week placebo-controlled withdrawal period) and a 40-week extension treatment phase. RESULTS: At Week 16 (the end of the 4-week placebo-controlled withdrawal period), serum phosphorus level was 0.43 mmol/L (1.32 mg/dL) lower with colestilan than placebo (P < 0.001; primary end point). Serum LDL-C level was also lower with colestilan than with placebo (P < 0.001). Both colestilan and sevelamer produced significant reductions from baseline in serum phosphorus levels (P < 0.001), maintained for 1 year, and the proportion of patients achieving target levels of ≤1.78 mmol/L (5.5 mg/dL) or ≤1.95 mmol/L (6.0 mg/dL) at study end were similar (65.3 and 73.3%, respectively, for colestilan, and 66.9 and 77.4%, respectively, for sevelamer). Serum calcium level remained stable in the colestilan group but tended to increase slightly in the sevelamer group (end-of-study increase of 0.035 mmol/L over baseline). Both binders produced similar reductions from baseline in LDL-C level (P < 0.001), and responder rates after 1 year, using a target of <1.83 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) or <2.59 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) were similar in both groups (50.7 and 85.3% for colestilan and 54.0 and 80.6% for sevelamer). Colestilan was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Colestilan is effective and safe for the treatment of hyperphosphataemia in patients with CKD 5D, and affords similar long-term phosphorus and cholesterol reductions/responder rates to sevelamer

Treatment of uraemia with dialysis in elderly patients

C