Red Nacional de reconocedores de suelos.

Los relevamientos sistemáticos de suelos en Argentina comenzaron en la década de 1960, en el marco del Plan Mapa de Suelos. Dicho plan, desarrollado y liderado por el INTA, dio impulso a la formación de especialistas y a la producción de cartografía de suelos a diferentes escalas. Sin embargo, a partir del año 2000 las actividades se redujeron notablemente y gran parte de los equipos provinciales formados hasta ese momento se desarticularon. Desde entonces los relevamientos continuaron de manera aislada sólo en aquellas provincias donde se mantuvieron los grupos de trabajo. Este hecho condujo a que actualmente diferentes regiones del país no cuenten con información acerca de las propiedades y distribución de suelos a una escala adecuada para la toma de decisiones. En este contexto, en el 2018 se crea la Red Nacional de Reconocedores de Suelos (RNRS) que organiza las capacidades técnicas y operativas a nivel nacional para dar pronta respuesta a la creciente demanda de cartografía. Se trata de un equipo interinstitucional e interdisciplinario de especialistas distribuidos por todo el país, que realiza tareas de relevamiento, produce y difunde cartografía básica y utilitaria de suelos, ofrece capacitación y genera espacios de discusión y actualización metodológica. A la fecha, la RNRS ha relevado aproximadamente 760.000 ha en el sur de Córdoba, estimando completar durante el presente año el relevamiento del departamento Río Cuarto. Esta estrategia organizacional permitirá avanzar en el mapeo semidetallado de suelos en nuestro país, estableciendo vinculaciones sinérgicas entre profesionales de diferentes instituciones a fin de fortalecer y potenciar los equipos de trabajo en cada región. El motivo de esta contribución es presentar la RNRS, sus objetivos, avances a la fecha y desafíos a futuro, haciendo una breve revisión del estado actual de los relevamientos a escala semidetallada en nuestro país.Fil: Moretti, Lucas M. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Cerro Azul; ArgentinaFil: Rodriguez, Darío M. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos; ArgentinaFil: Schulz, Guillermo A. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos; ArgentinaFil: Kurtz, Ditmar Bernardo. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Corrientes; ArgentinaFil: Altamirano D. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Manfredi; ArgentinaFil: Amin, S. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Angelini, Marcos Esteban. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos; Argentina. Wageningen University. Soil Geography and Landscape group; Holanda. International Soil Reference and Information Centre. World Soil Information; HolandaFil: Babelis, German Claudio. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Juan; ArgentinaFil: Becerra, Alejandra Gabriela. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Bedendo, Dante Julian. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Paraná; ArgentinaFil: Boldrini, C. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Marcos Juárez. Agencia de Extensión Rural Río Cuarto; AgentinaFil: Bongiovanni, C. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Bozzer, S. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Cabrera, A. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Canale, A. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Marcos Juárez. Agencia de Extensión Rural Río Cuarto; AgentinaFil: Chilano, Y. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Cholaky, Carmen. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto. Facultad de Agronomía y Veterinaria; ArgentinaFil: Cisneros; José Manuel. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto. Cátedra de Uso y Manejo de Suelos; ArgentinaFil: Colazo, Juan Cruz. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Luis; ArgentinaFil: Corigliano, J. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Degioanni, Américo José. Universidad Nacional Río Cuarto. Facultad de Agronomía y Veterinaria. Departamento de Ecología Agraria; ArgentinaFil: de la Fuente, Juan Carlos Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos; ArgentinaFil: Escobar, Dardo. Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca; ArgentinaFil: Faule, L. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Manfredi. Córdoba. ArgentinaFil: Galarza, Carlos Martin. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Marcos Juárez; ArgentinaFil: González, J. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Holzmann, R. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Alto Valle; ArgentinaFil: Irigoin, Julieta. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Luján. Departamento Tecnología; ArgentinaFil: Lanfranco, M. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Manfredi; ArgentinaFil: León Giacosa, C. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Rafaela; ArgentinaFil: Matteio, J.P. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos; ArgentinaFil: Márquez, C. Gobierno de Córdoba. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería; ArgentinaFil: Marzari, R. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Mattalia, M.L. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Morales Poclava, P.C. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Salta; ArgentinaFil: Muñoz, S. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Marcos Juárez; ArgentinaFil: Paladino, Ileana Ruth. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Lomas de Zamora. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; ArgentinaFil: Parra, B. Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Pérez, M. Gobierno de Córdoba. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería; ArgentinaFil: Pezzola, A. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Hilario Ascasubi; ArgentinaFil: Perucca, S. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Marcos Juárez. Agencia de Extensión Rural Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Porcel de Peralta, R. Gobierno de Córdoba. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería; ArgentinaFil: Renaudeau, S. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Corrientes; ArgentinaFil: Salustio, M. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Marcos Juárez. Agencia de Extensión Rural Río Cuarto; ArgentinaFil: Sapino, V. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Rafaela; ArgentinaFil: Tenti Vuegen, L.M. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos. ArgentinaFil: Tosolini, R. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Rafaela; ArgentinaFil: Vicondo, M.E. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Manfredi; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. ArgentinaFil: Vizgarra, L.A. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Quimili; ArgentinaFil: Ybarra, D.D. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Corrientes; ArgentinaFil: Winschel, C. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Hilario Ascasubi; ArgentinaFil: Zamora, E. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Corrientes; Argentin

Canagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy

BACKGROUND Type 2 diabetes mellitus is the leading cause of kidney failure worldwide, but few effective long-term treatments are available. In cardiovascular trials of inhibitors of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2), exploratory results have suggested that such drugs may improve renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS In this double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and albuminuric chronic kidney disease to receive canagliflozin, an oral SGLT2 inhibitor, at a dose of 100 mg daily or placebo. All the patients had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 30 to <90 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area and albuminuria (ratio of albumin [mg] to creatinine [g], >300 to 5000) and were treated with renin–angiotensin system blockade. The primary outcome was a composite of end-stage kidney disease (dialysis, transplantation, or a sustained estimated GFR of <15 ml per minute per 1.73 m2), a doubling of the serum creatinine level, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes. Prespecified secondary outcomes were tested hierarchically. RESULTS The trial was stopped early after a planned interim analysis on the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring committee. At that time, 4401 patients had undergone randomization, with a median follow-up of 2.62 years. The relative risk of the primary outcome was 30% lower in the canagliflozin group than in the placebo group, with event rates of 43.2 and 61.2 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.82; P=0.00001). The relative risk of the renal-specific composite of end-stage kidney disease, a doubling of the creatinine level, or death from renal causes was lower by 34% (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.81; P<0.001), and the relative risk of end-stage kidney disease was lower by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.86; P=0.002). The canagliflozin group also had a lower risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95; P=0.01) and hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80; P<0.001). There were no significant differences in rates of amputation or fracture. CONCLUSIONS In patients with type 2 diabetes and kidney disease, the risk of kidney failure and cardiovascular events was lower in the canagliflozin group than in the placebo group at a median follow-up of 2.62 years

Mortality from gastrointestinal congenital anomalies at 264 hospitals in 74 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study

Summary Background Congenital anomalies are the fifth leading cause of mortality in children younger than 5 years globally. Many gastrointestinal congenital anomalies are fatal without timely access to neonatal surgical care, but few studies have been done on these conditions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared outcomes of the seven most common gastrointestinal congenital anomalies in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries globally, and identified factors associated with mortality. Methods We did a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of patients younger than 16 years, presenting to hospital for the first time with oesophageal atresia, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, intestinal atresia, gastroschisis, exomphalos, anorectal malformation, and Hirschsprung’s disease. Recruitment was of consecutive patients for a minimum of 1 month between October, 2018, and April, 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, clinical status, interventions, and outcomes using the REDCap platform. Patients were followed up for 30 days after primary intervention, or 30 days after admission if they did not receive an intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause, in-hospital mortality for all conditions combined and each condition individually, stratified by country income status. We did a complete case analysis. Findings We included 3849 patients with 3975 study conditions (560 with oesophageal atresia, 448 with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, 681 with intestinal atresia, 453 with gastroschisis, 325 with exomphalos, 991 with anorectal malformation, and 517 with Hirschsprung’s disease) from 264 hospitals (89 in high-income countries, 166 in middleincome countries, and nine in low-income countries) in 74 countries. Of the 3849 patients, 2231 (58·0%) were male. Median gestational age at birth was 38 weeks (IQR 36–39) and median bodyweight at presentation was 2·8 kg (2·3–3·3). Mortality among all patients was 37 (39·8%) of 93 in low-income countries, 583 (20·4%) of 2860 in middle-income countries, and 50 (5·6%) of 896 in high-income countries (p<0·0001 between all country income groups). Gastroschisis had the greatest difference in mortality between country income strata (nine [90·0%] of ten in lowincome countries, 97 [31·9%] of 304 in middle-income countries, and two [1·4%] of 139 in high-income countries; p≤0·0001 between all country income groups). Factors significantly associated with higher mortality for all patients combined included country income status (low-income vs high-income countries, risk ratio 2·78 [95% CI 1·88–4·11], p<0·0001; middle-income vs high-income countries, 2·11 [1·59–2·79], p<0·0001), sepsis at presentation (1·20 [1·04–1·40], p=0·016), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score at primary intervention (ASA 4–5 vs ASA 1–2, 1·82 [1·40–2·35], p<0·0001; ASA 3 vs ASA 1–2, 1·58, [1·30–1·92], p<0·0001]), surgical safety checklist not used (1·39 [1·02–1·90], p=0·035), and ventilation or parenteral nutrition unavailable when needed (ventilation 1·96, [1·41–2·71], p=0·0001; parenteral nutrition 1·35, [1·05–1·74], p=0·018). Administration of parenteral nutrition (0·61, [0·47–0·79], p=0·0002) and use of a peripherally inserted central catheter (0·65 [0·50–0·86], p=0·0024) or percutaneous central line (0·69 [0·48–1·00], p=0·049) were associated with lower mortality. Interpretation Unacceptable differences in mortality exist for gastrointestinal congenital anomalies between lowincome, middle-income, and high-income countries. Improving access to quality neonatal surgical care in LMICs will be vital to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 of ending preventable deaths in neonates and children younger than 5 years by 2030

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Bariatric Surgery to Reverse Metabolic Syndrome in Adolescents

Adolescent obesity is a public health crisis with serious immediate and long-term health consequences. Currently, prevention is the best solution, but this may prove difficult in a world with a growing epidemic of childhood obesity. Bariatric surgery is the only proven intervention that provides sustained weight loss as well as improvement and resolution of obesity-related comorbidities. Prior to any surgical intervention, patients must go through a comprehensive evaluation phase. Available procedures are either restrictive or malabsorptive, with the most common being the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding. With the advent of laparoscopy, hospital stays have become short, but postoperative complications can still occur. The risks and benefits of operating on these obese adolescents with multiple comorbid conditions must be weighed and thoroughly discussed with patients and their families. According to published studies, there is a proven benefit to obese adolescents, even though most patients do not reach their ideal body weight. Almost all experience an improvement or resolution of comorbid conditions such as metabolic syndrome, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and sleep apnea. These results could have significant, long-lasting benefits on the adolescent patient. Given the young age of these patients, there should be an emphasis on a multidisciplinary approach in their treatment in order to improve compliance. Bariatric surgery appears to be the most effective means of achieving sustained weight loss with improvement or resolution of obesity-related comorbidities in the adolescent population

Successful laparoscopic bariatric surgery in peritoneal dialysis patients without interruption of their CKD6 treatment modality

During the past several decades, the conventional management of peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery required a transition to hemodialysis on a temporary basis. In recent years, that protocol has been challenged by various authors who successfully repaired hernias in such subjects without interruption of their PD modality. However, that new approach was reserved for abdominal wall procedures and was not used for intra-abdominal surgery. The rapid evolution of laparoscopic surgery and the development and refinement of minimally invasive surgical techniques have revolutionized the field of surgery by providing superior outcomes for an ever-increasing list of indications including morbid obesity. The present study, the first of its kind involving elective intra-abdominal surgery, sought to determine the safety of uninterrupted PD therapy in morbidly obese patients with stage 6 chronic kidney disease undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery as a precursor to transplantation