Capacity for the management of kidney failure in the International Society of Nephrology Latin America region:Report from the 2023 ISN Global Kidney Health Atlas (ISN-GKHA)

Successful management of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in Latin America (LA) continues to represent a challenge due to high disease burden and geographic disparities and difficulties in terms of capacity, accessibility, equity, and quality of kidney failure care. Although LA has experienced significant social and economic progress over the past decades, there are still important inequities in healthcare access. Through this third iteration of the International Society of Nephrology Global Kidney Health Atlas, the indicators regarding kidney failure care in LA are updated. Survey responses were received from 22 (71%) of 31 countries in LA representing 96.5% of its total population. Median CKD prevalence was 10.2% (IQR 8.4 - 12.3), median CKD disability-adjusted life year (DALYs) were 753.4 days (IQR 581.3 -1,072.5), and median CKD mortality was 5.5% (IQR 3.2 - 6.3). Regarding dialysis modality, hemodialysis (HD) continued to be the most utilized therapy, while peritoneal dialysis (PD) reached a plateau and kidney transplantation increased steadily over the past 10 years. In 20 (91%) countries, >50% of people with kidney failure could access dialysis; and in only 2 (9%) countries, people who had access to dialysis could initiate dialysis with PD. A mix of public and private systems collectively funded most aspects of kidney replacement therapy (KRT; dialysis and transplantation) with many people incurring up to 50% of out-of-pocket costs. Few LA countries had CKD/KRT registries and almost no acute kidney injury (AKI) registries were reported. There was large variability in the nature and extent of kidney failure care in LA mainly related to countries’ funding structures and limited surveillance and management initiatives

Incidence, Clinical Characteristics and Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Spain : Large-Scale Epidemiological Study

(1) Aims: To assess the incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in Spain, to describe the main epidemiological and clinical characteristics at diagnosis and the evolution of the disease, and to explore the use of drug treatments. (2) Methods: Prospective, population-based nationwide registry. Adult patients diagnosed with IBD-Crohn's disease (CD), ulcerative colitis (UC) or IBD unclassified (IBD-U)-during 2017 in Spain were included and were followed-up for 1 year. (3) Results: We identified 3611 incident cases of IBD diagnosed during 2017 in 108 hospitals covering over 22 million inhabitants. The overall incidence (cases/100,000 person-years) was 16 for IBD, 7.5 for CD, 8 for UC, and 0.5 for IBD-U; 53% of patients were male and median age was 43 years (interquartile range = 31-56 years). During a median 12-month follow-up, 34% of patients were treated with systemic steroids, 25% with immunomodulators, 15% with biologics and 5.6% underwent surgery. The percentage of patients under these treatments was significantly higher in CD than UC and IBD-U. Use of systemic steroids and biologics was significantly higher in hospitals with high resources. In total, 28% of patients were hospitalized (35% CD and 22% UC patients, p < 0.01). (4) Conclusion: The incidence of IBD in Spain is rather high and similar to that reported in Northern Europe. IBD patients require substantial therapeutic resources, which are greater in CD and in hospitals with high resources, and much higher than previously reported. One third of patients are hospitalized in the first year after diagnosis and a relevant proportion undergo surgery

Correction : Chaparro et al. Incidence, Clinical Characteristics and Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Spain: Large-Scale Epidemiological Study. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 2885

The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper [...]

Hybrid therapies for supporting critically Ill patients with acute kidney injury: when, how, and for whom?

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in critically ill patients. There is no specific pharmacological treatment for established severe AKI. Therefore, the conventional therapeutic strategy is limited to the use of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) to maintain homeostasis. Hybrid therapies optimize the advantages of intermittent and continuous modalities of KRT, combining lower hourly efficiency, longer application time, at lesser cost, but also adding different physicochemical principles of extracorporeal clearance. The sum of convection and diffusion, with or without adsorption or apheresis, and in different time combinations gives hybrid techniques great flexibility in prescribing a personalized treatment adapted to the needs of each patient at any given time. Hybrid therapies are increasingly being used due to their flexibility, which is determined by the combination of equipment, membranes, and available resources (machines and health-care personnel experience). The required technology is widely available in most intensive care units and uses low-cost consumables compared to other types of AKI treatment modalities, favoring its widespread use. Hybrid therapies are feasible and provide a viable form of KRT, either alone or as a transition therapy from continuous kidney replacement therapy to intermittent hemodialysis

Treatment of Slow‐Flow After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Flow‐Mediated Hyperemia: The Randomized RAIN‐FLOW Study

Background ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction complicated with no reflow after primary percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with adverse outcomes. Although several hyperemic drugs have been shown to improve the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow, optimal treatment of no reflow remains unsettled. Saline infusion at 20 mL/min via a dedicated microcatheter causes (flow‐mediated) hyperemia. The objective is to compare the efficacy of pharmacologic versus flow‐mediated hyperemia in patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction complicated with no reflow. Methods and Results In the RAIN‐FLOW (Treatment of Slow‐Flow After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Flow‐Mediated Hyperemia) study, 67 patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction and no reflow were randomized to receive either pharmacologic‐mediated hyperemia with intracoronary adenosine or nitroprusside (n=30) versus flow‐mediated hyperemia (n=37). The angiographic corrected Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction frame count and the minimal microcirculatory resistance, as assessed with intracoronary pressure‐thermistor wire, dedicated microcatheter, and thermodilution techniques, were compared after study interventions. Both Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction frame count(40.2±23.1 versus 39.2±20.7; P=0.858) and minimal microcirculatory resistance (753.6±661.5 versus 993.3±740.8 Wood units; P=0.174) were similar between groups. Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 3 flow was observed in 26.7% versus 27.0% (P=0.899). Flow‐mediated hyperemia showed 2 different thermodilution patterns during saline infusion indicative of the severity of the no reflow phenomenon. In‐hospital death and nonfatal heart failure were observed in 10.4% and 26.9%, respectively. Conclusions Both treatments showed similar (and limited) efficacy restoring coronary flow. Flow‐mediated hyperemia with thermodilution pattern assessment allowed the simultaneous characterization of the no reflow degree and response to hyperemia. No reflow was associated with a high rate of adverse outcomes. Further research is warranted to prevent and to treat no reflow in patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04685941

Recommendations on the vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in patients on dialysis and on the kidney transplant waiting list

Contexto: las personas con diálisis se consideran una población de alto riesgo de infección por SARS-CoV-2, complicaciones y muerte. En Colombia, cerca del 44 % de la población en diálisis es menor de 60 años, adicionalmente, por los mismos retos que ha impuesto la pandemia a los programas de trasplantes, se ha incrementado notoriamente la población joven que debe seguir en diálisis al no tener opción a corto plazo de un trasplante renal, por lo tanto, las limitaciones en el acceso temprano a la vacunación contra SARS-CoV-2 agudizarían los problemas de esta población, provocando pérdidas considerables en años de vida que la vacuna podría salvar. Objetivo: el objetivo del presente documento es sintetizar los principales motivos por los que se recomienda la priorización de la vacunación de los pacientes en diálisis crónica y lista de espera para trasplante renal. Métodología: se realizó una búsqueda rápida de información sobre la vacunación en pacientes con ERC en diálisis o en espera de trasplante renal. La información resultante fue analizada críticamente por expertos en nefrología para la formulación de recomendaciones. Los resultados de la búsqueda se presentan a manera de síntesis narrativa. Resultados: a partir de la información revisada y discutida por los expertos en nefrología se proponen 4 recomendaciones para la vacunación contra el virus SARS-Cov-2. Conclusiones: la Asociación Colombiana de Nefrología e Hipertensión Arterial, la Asociación Colombiana de Nefrología Pediátrica y la Asociación Colombiana de Trasplante de Órganos, comprometidos con la salud de los pacientes con enfermedad renal en diálisis y listas de espera de trasplantes en Colombia, se unen a la solicitud mundial de generar recomendaciones para la vacunación contra SARS-CoV-2.Background: People on dialysis are considered a high-risk population for SARS-CoV-2 infection, complications, and death. In Colombia, about 44 % of the population on dialysis is under 60 years of age. In addition, due to the same challenges that the pandemic has imposed on transplant programs, the young population that must continue on dialysis has increased markedly, as they have no option in the short term of a kidney transplant, therefore, the limitations in early access to vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 would exacerbate the problems of this population, causing considerable losses in years of life that the vaccine could save. Purpose: The objective of this document is to summarize the main reasons why the prioritization of vaccination of patients on chronic dialysis and on the kidney transplant waiting list is recommended. Methodology: A rapid search for information on vaccination in patients with CKD on dialysis or awaiting kidney transplantation was performed. The resulting information was critically analyzed by experts in nephrology for the formulation of recommendations. The search results are presented as a narrative synthesis. Results: Based on the information reviewed and discussed by nephrology experts, 4 recommendations are proposed for vaccination against the SARS-Cov-2 virus. Conclusions: The Colombian Association of Nephrology and Arterial Hypertension (ASOCOLNEF), the Colombian Association of Pediatric Nephrology (ACONEPE) and the Colombian Association of Organ Transplantation (ACTO), committed to the health of patients with kidney disease on dialysis and transplant waiting lists in Colombia, join to generate recommendations for prioritization and vaccination against SARS-CoV-