Early ultrasound surveillance of newly-created haemodialysis arteriovenous fistula

IntroductionWe assess if ultrasound surveillance of newly-created arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) can predict nonmaturation sufficiently reliably to justify randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluation of ultrasound-directed salvage intervention.MethodsConsenting adults underwent blinded fortnightly ultrasound scanning of their AVF after creation, with scan characteristics that predicted AVF nonmaturation identified by logistic regression modeling.ResultsOf 333 AVFs created, 65.8% matured by 10 weeks. Serial scanning revealed that maturation occurred rapidly, whereas consistently lower fistula flow rates and venous diameters were observed in those that did not mature. Wrist and elbow AVF nonmaturation could be optimally modeled from week 4 ultrasound parameters alone, but with only moderate positive predictive values (PPVs) (wrist, 60.6% [95% confidence interval, CI: 43.9–77.3]; elbow, 66.7% [48.9–84.4]). Moreover, 40 (70.2%) of the 57 AVFs that thrombosed by week 10 had already failed by the week 4 scan, thus limiting the potential of salvage procedures initiated by that scan’s findings to alter overall maturation rates. Modeling of the early ultrasound characteristics could also predict primary patency failure at 6 months; however, that model performed poorly at predicting assisted primary failure (those AVFs that failed despite a salvage attempt), partly because patency of at-risk AVFs was maintained by successful salvage performed without recourse to the early scan data.ConclusionEarly ultrasound surveillance may predict fistula maturation, but is likely, at best, to result in only very modest improvements in fistula patency. Power calculations suggest that an impractically large number of participants (>1700) would be required for formal RCT evaluation

Outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy in a renal transplant population: A single-center experience

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is a well-established method in medical specialties. Its use in renal transplant recipients has not been thoroughly explored. No guidelines within this patient subset exist. This study describes OPAT outcomes within a UK teaching hospital renal transplant population. Renal function, mapped by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and clinical response to infection were collected retrospectively. A total of 635 antimicrobial episodes were administered to nine renal transplant patients over 12 discrete OPAT courses during the study period. Eleven of 12 OPAT courses (91.67%) produced a clinical improvement in infection. One course was terminated due to immunosuppressive-related neutropenia. No patient required admission due to failure of OPAT or adverse events. There was no significant change in graft function throughout the OPAT courses compared with baseline renal function (ANOVA, P = 0.06). One minor line infection was reported. This was treated conservatively and did not interrupt the OPAT. OPAT is safe and clinically effective in our renal transplant recipients with no significant deterioration in eGFR. The incidence of adverse events, specifically line complications, was lower in our population than those reported in the literature. Future work should develop OPAT guidelines designed for transplant recipients to outline the degree of monitoring required

Thigh-length compression stockings and DVT after stroke

Controversy exists as to whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients with invasive bladder cancer, despite randomised controlled trials of more than 3000 patients. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of such treatment on survival in patients with this disease

Azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatory actions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once per day by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment and were twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) were eligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was 65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomly allocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall, 561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median 10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, no significant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24). Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restricted to patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication. Funding UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research