Chronic dialysis in the infant less than 1 year of age

Dialysis in the infant carries a mortality rate of 16%. Institution of dialysis may be the result of adequate nutritional intake, but avoidance of nutritional intake should never be seen as a way to prevent dialysis. Increased caloric intake, usually via enteral feeding tubes, is needed for optimal growth in the infant with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in order to attain adequate nutrition with resulting good growth. “Renal” formulae may be constituted as dilute (as in the polyuric infant) or concentrated (as in the anuric infant) to fit the infants needs. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is the usual mode of renal replacement therapy (97%), with access via a surgically placed cuffed catheter with attention to the placement of the exit site in order to avoid fecal or urinary contamination. PD volumes of 30–40 ml/kg per pass or 800–1,200 ml/m 2 per pass usually result in dialysis adequacy. Additional dietary sodium (3–5 mEq/kg per day) and protein (3–4 g/kg per day) are needed, due to sodium and protein losses in the dialysate. Protein losses are associated with significant infectious morbidity and nonresponsiveness to routine immunizations. Hemodialysis (HD) can be performed either as single- or dual-needle access that have minimal dead space (less then 2 ml) and recirculation rate (less then 5%). Attnetion to extracorporeal blood volume (<10% of intravascular volume), blood flow rates (3–5 ml/kg per min), heparinization (activated clotting times), ultrafiltration (ultrafiltration monitor), and temperature control is imperative during each treatment. Because infants' nutrition is mostly fluid, HD may be needed 4–6 days/week (especially in the oligoanuric infant) to avoid excessive volume overload between treatments. At the end of the treatment a slow blood return with minimal saline rinse is needed to avoid hemodynamic compromise. Infant dialysis, although technically challenging with a significant morbidity and mortality rate, can be safely carried out in the infant with ESRD but requires infant-specific equipment and trained personnel.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/47836/1/467_2004_Article_BF00867678.pd

Steroids in kidney transplant patients

Any evaluation of steroids in kidney transplantation is hampered by individual variability in metabolism, the lack of clinically available steroid blood levels, and overall little attention to steroid exposure. Many feel that steroids were an essential part of chronic immunosuppression in past decades but may no longer be necessary in low-risk populations when our newer and more potent drugs are used. Potential differences in long-term outcome will be unapparent in short-term antibody induction studies in low-risk patients, particularly with low on steroid doses, as may have happened in the recent, well-done Astellas trial. In many studies, the evidence for the superiority of mycophenolate (MMF) and tacrolimus (TAC) was not as strong as the evidence for the benefit of steroids in the Canadian cyclosporine study. As the practice of steroid withdrawal has increased, we have not seen the improvement in long-term graft survival that many expected with our newer agents. Steroids have immunosuppressive effects even in doses that are low by historic standards, and side effects may not justify their abandonment