Sudden Death in End Stage Renal Disease : Comparing Hemodialysis versus Peritoneal Dialysis

Background/Aims: This study aimed to evaluate total and sudden death (SD) in a cohort of dialysis patients, comparing hemodialysis (HD) vs. peritoneal dialysis (PD). Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Results: Deaths were 626 out of 1,823 in HD and 62 of 249 in PD patients. HD patients had a greater number of comorbidities (p < 0.05). PD patients had a lower risk of death than HD patients (p < 0.001); however, the advantage decreased with time (p < 0.001). Mortality predictors were left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) \ue2\u89\ua435%, older age, ischemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus, previous stroke, and atrial fibrillation (p < 0.03). SDs were 84:71 in HD and 13 in PD population (12.1 and 22.8% of all causes of death, respectively). A non-significant risk of SD among PD compared to HD patients was detected. SD predictors were older age, ischemic heart disease, and LVEF \ue2\u89\ua435% (p < 0.05). Conclusions: HD patients showed a greater presence of comorbidities and reduced survival compared to PD patients; however, the incidence of SD does not differ in the 2 populations. Video Journal Club "Cappuccino with Claudio Ronco" at http://www.karger.com/?doi=464347

Micromechanical Properties of Injection-Molded Starch–Wood Particle Composites

The micromechanical properties of injection molded starch–wood particle composites were investigated as a function of particle content and humidity conditions. The composite materials were characterized by scanning electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction methods. The microhardness of the composites was shown to increase notably with the concentration of the wood particles. In addition,creep behavior under the indenter and temperature dependence were evaluated in terms of the independent contribution of the starch matrix and the wood microparticles to the hardness value. The influence of drying time on the density and weight uptake of the injection-molded composites was highlighted. The results revealed the role of the mechanism of water evaporation, showing that the dependence of water uptake and temperature was greater for the starch–wood composites than for the pure starch sample. Experiments performed during the drying process at 70°C indicated that the wood in the starch composites did not prevent water loss from the samples.Peer reviewe

Mortality, sudden death and indication for cardioverter defibrillator implantation in a dialysis population

BACKGROUND: The incidence of sudden death among dialysis patients is high, but end stage renal disease was an exclusion criterion in the trials that demonstrated the benefit of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for sudden death prevention. METHODS: Dialysis patients alive on January 2010 or starting dialysis between January 2010 and January 2013 were enrolled and retrospectively evaluated. Patients were divided into three groups: No-Indication, Indication-With ICD and Indication-Without ICD. Cox and Fine and Gray regression models were used to estimate the total and cause-specific (sudden or non-sudden) mortality hazard ratio (HR, HRcpRisk), respectively. Survival was defined as the time from start of dialysis to the time of death. RESULTS: 154/2072 patients (7.4%) had indication for ICD implantation and 52 (33.8%) of them received the device; 688 (33.2%) deaths were recorded. Mortality was different among groups [Indication-With ICD vs No-Indication: HR 1.59 (95% CI 1.06-2.38) and Indication-Without ICD vs No-Indication: HR 2.67 (95% CI 2.09-3.39, p<0.001)]. 84/688 (12.2%) were sudden deaths. The cumulative incidence of sudden death was higher in patients with ICD indication [Indication-With ICD vs No-Indication HRcpRisk 3.21 (95% CI 1.38-7.40) and Indication-Without ICD vs No-Indication: HRcpRisk 4.19 (95% CI 2.38-7.39), p<0.001], but also No-Indication patients showed a high rate of sudden death [8.5% (95% CI.6.5-10.9) at 8years of follow-up]. CONCLUSIONS: Dialysis patients with ICD indication had a worse survival than No-Indication subjects and the prognosis was particularly poor for the Indication-Without ICD group. Sudden death incidence was much higher than in the general population, even among No-Indication subjects

Supplementary Material for: Sudden Death in End Stage Renal Disease: Comparing Hemodialysis versus Peritoneal Dialysis

<p><b><i>Background/Aims:</i></b> This study aimed to evaluate total and sudden death (SD) in a cohort of dialysis patients, comparing hemodialysis (HD) vs. peritoneal dialysis (PD). <b><i>Methods:</i></b> This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Deaths were 626 out of 1,823 in HD and 62 of 249 in PD patients. HD patients had a greater number of comorbidities (<i>p</i> < 0.05). PD patients had a lower risk of death than HD patients (<i>p</i> < 0.001); however, the advantage decreased with time (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Mortality predictors were left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%, older age, ischemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus, previous stroke, and atrial fibrillation (<i>p</i> < 0.03). SDs were 84:71 in HD and 13 in PD population (12.1 and 22.8% of all causes of death, respectively). A non-significant risk of SD among PD compared to HD patients was detected. SD predictors were older age, ischemic heart disease, and LVEF ≤35% (<i>p</i> < 0.05). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> HD patients showed a greater presence of comorbidities and reduced survival compared to PD patients; however, the incidence of SD does not differ in the 2 populations. Video Journal Club “Cappuccino with Claudio Ronco” at http://www.karger.com/?doi=464347.</p

Ramipril and cardiovascular outcomes in patients on maintenance hemodialysis. The ARCADIA multicenter randomized controlled trial

Background and objectives Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with CKD. We evaluated the cardioprotective effects of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril in patients on maintenance hemodialysis.Results At comparable BP control, 23 participants on ramipril (16%) and 24 on non-RAS inhibitor therapy (19%) reached the primary composite end point (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 1.64; P=0.80). Ramipril reduced cardiac mass index at 1 year of follow-up (between-group difference in change from baseline:-16.3 g/m2; 95% confidence interval,-29.4 to-3.1), but did not significantly affect the other secondary outcomes. Hypotensive episodes were more frequent in participants allocated to ramipril than controls (41% versus 12%). Twenty participants on ramipril and nine controls developed cancer, including six gastrointestinal malignancies on ramipril (four were fatal), compared with none in controls. Conclusions Ramipril did not reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events in patients on maintenance hemodialysis. Clinical Trial registry name and registration number: ARCADIA, NCT00985322 and European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database number 2008–003529–17. Design, setting, participants, &amp; measurements In this phase 3, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end point, parallel,multicenter trial, we recruited patients on maintenance hemodialysis with hypertension and/or left ventricular hypertrophy from 28 Italian centers. Between July 2009 and February 2014, 140 participants were randomized to ramipril (1.25–10 mg/d) and 129 participants were allocated to non-RAS inhibition therapy, both titrated up to the maximally tolerated dose to achieve predefined target BP values. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Secondary end points included the single components of the primary end point, new-onset or recurrence of atrial fibrillation, hospitalizations for symptomatic fluid overload, thrombosis or stenosis of the arteriovenous fistula, and changes in cardiac mass index. All outcomes were evaluated up to 42 months after randomization