A Quality Improvement Intervention to Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD) in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: Clinical Research Protocol of a Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Many patients with kidney failure will live longer and healthier lives if they receive a kidney transplant rather than dialysis. However, multiple barriers prevent patients from accessing this treatment option. Objective: To determine if a quality improvement intervention provided in chronic kidney disease (CKD) programs (vs. usual care) enables more patients with no recorded contraindications to kidney transplant to complete more steps toward receiving a kidney transplant. Design: This protocol describes a pragmatic 2-arm, parallel-group, open-label, registry-based, cluster-randomized clinical trial—the Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD) trial. Setting: All 26 CKD programs in Ontario, Canada, with a trial start date of November 1, 2017. The original end date of March 31, 2021 (3.4 years) has been extended to December 31, 2021 (4.1 years) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants: During the trial, the 26 CKD programs are expected to care for more than 10 000 adult patients with CKD (including patients approaching the need for dialysis and patients receiving dialysis) with no recorded contraindications to a kidney transplant. Intervention: Programs were randomly allocated to provide a quality improvement intervention or usual care. The intervention has 4 main components: (1) local quality improvement teams and administrative support; (2) tailored education and resources for staff, patients, and living kidney donor candidates; (3) support from kidney transplant recipients and living kidney donors; and (4) program-level performance reports and oversight by program leaders. Primary Outcome: The primary outcome is the number of key steps completed toward receiving a kidney transplant analyzed at the cluster level (CKD program). The following 4 unique steps per patient will be counted: (1) patient referred to a transplant center for evaluation, (2) at least one living kidney donor candidate contacts a transplant center for an intended recipient and completes a health history questionnaire to begin their evaluation, (3) patient added to the deceased donor transplant wait list, and (4) patient receives a kidney transplant from a living or deceased donor. Planned Primary Analysis: Study data will be obtained from Ontario’s linked administrative healthcare databases. An intent-to-treat analysis will be conducted comparing the primary outcome between randomized groups using a 2-stage approach. First stage: residuals are obtained from fitting a regression model to individual-level variables ignoring intervention and clustering effects. Second stage: residuals from the first stage are aggregated at the cluster level as the outcome. Limitations: It may not be possible to isolate independent effects of each intervention component, the usual care group could adopt intervention components leading to contamination bias, and the relatively small number of clusters could mean the 2 arms are not balanced on all baseline prognostic factors. Conclusions: The EnAKT LKD trial will provide high-quality evidence on whether a multi-component quality improvement intervention helps patients complete more steps toward receiving a kidney transplant. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov; identifier: NCT03329521. </jats:sec

Risks and Benefits of Consumption of Great Lakes Fish

Background: Beneficial effects of fish consumption on early cognitive development and cardiovascular health have been attributed to the omega-3 fatty acids in fish and fish oils, but toxic chemicals in fish may adversely affect these health outcomes. Risk–benefit assessments of fish consumption have frequently focused on methylmercury and omega-3 fatty acids, not persistent pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls, and none have evaluated Great Lakes fish consumption

Effect of methylprednisolone on acute kidney injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with a cardiopulmonary bypass pump: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Perioperative corticosteroid use may reduce acute kidney injury. We sought to test whether methylprednisolone reduces the risk of acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery. METHODS: We conducted a prespecified substudy of a randomized controlled trial involving patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (2007–2014); patients were recruited from 79 centres in 18 countries. Eligibility criteria included a moderate-to-high risk of perioperative death based on a preoperative score of 6 or greater on the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation I. Patients (n = 7286) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous methylprednisolone (250 mg at anesthetic induction and 250 mg at initiation of cardiopulmonary bypass) or placebo. Patients, caregivers, data collectors and outcome adjudicators were unaware of the assigned intervention. The primary outcome was postoperative acute kidney injury, defined as an increase in the serum creatinine concentration (from the preoperative value) of 0.3 mg/dL or greater (≥ 26.5 µmol/L) or 50% or greater in the 14-day period after surgery, or use of dialysis within 30 days after surgery. RESULTS: Acute kidney injury occurred in 1479/3647 patients (40.6%) in the methylprednisolone group and in 1426/3639 patients (39.2%) in the placebo group (adjusted relative risk 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.11). Results were consistent across several definitions of acute kidney injury and in patients with preoperative chronic kidney disease. INTERPRETATION: Intraoperative corticosteroid use did not reduce the risk of acute kidney injury in patients with a moderate-to-high risk of perioperative death who had cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Our results do not support the prophylactic use of steroids during cardiopulmonary bypass surgery

Fluid intake and hydration status in obese vs normal weight children

Background/Objectives:Little is known on the relationship between obesity and hydration levels in children. This study assessed whether and by which mechanisms hydration status differs between obese and non-obese children.Subjects/Methods:Hydration levels of 86 obese and 89 normal weight children (age: 7-11 years) were compared. Hydration was measured as the average free water reserve (FWR=urine output/24 h minus the obligatory urine output total 24 h excreted solutes/97th percentile of urine osmolality of children with adequate water intake, that is, 830 mOsm/kg) over 2 days. Three days of weighed dietary and fluid intakes were recorded. Non-parametric tests were used to compare variables that were skewed and to assess which variables correlated with hydration. Variables mediating the different hydration levels of obese and normal weight children were assessed by co-variance analysis.Results:Obese children were less hydrated than normal weight peers FWR=median (IQR): 0.80 (-0.80-2.80) hg/day vs 2.10 (0.10-4.45) hg/day, P&lt;0.02; 32% of obese children vs 20% of non-obese peers had negative FWR, P&lt;0.001. Body mass index (BMI) z-score (z-BMI) and water intake from fluids correlated with FWR (ρ=-0.18 and 0.45, respectively, both P&lt;0.05). Water intake from fluids completely explained the different hydration between obese and normal weight children FWR adjusted for water from fluids and z-BMI=2.44 (0.44) hg vs 2.10 (0.50) hg, P=NS; B coefficient of co-variation between FWR (hg/day) and water intake from fluids (hg/day)=0.47, P&lt;0.001.Conclusions:Obese children were less hydrated than normal weight ones because, taking into account their z-BMI, they drank less. Future prospective studies are needed to explore possible causal relationships between hydration and obesity

Effect of a Perioperative Hypotension-Avoidance Strategy Versus a Hypertension-Avoidance Strategy on the Risk of Acute Kidney Injury: A Clinical Research Protocol for a Substudy of the POISE-3 Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND: Most patients who take antihypertensive medications continue taking them on the morning of surgery and during the perioperative period. However, growing evidence suggests this practice may contribute to perioperative hypotension and a higher risk of complications. This protocol describes an acute kidney injury substudy of the Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3) trial, which is testing the effect of a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy versus a hypertension-avoidance strategy in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a substudy of POISE-3 to determine whether a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy reduces the risk of acute kidney injury compared with a hypertension-avoidance strategy. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial with 1:1 randomization to the intervention (a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy) or control (a hypertension-avoidance strategy). INTERVENTION: If the presurgery systolic blood pressure (SBP) is <130 mmHg, all antihypertensive medications are withheld on the morning of surgery. If the SBP is ≥130 mmHg, some medications (but not angiotensin receptor blockers [ACEIs], angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], or renin inhibitors) may be continued in a stepwise manner. During surgery, the patients' mean arterial pressure (MAP) is maintained at ≥80 mmHg. During the first 48 hours after surgery, some antihypertensive medications (but not ACEIs, ARBs, or renin inhibitors) may be restarted in a stepwise manner if the SBP is ≥130 mmHg. CONTROL: Patients receive their usual antihypertensive medications before and after surgery. The patients' MAP is maintained at ≥60 mmHg from anesthetic induction until the end of surgery. SETTING: Recruitment from 108 centers in 22 countries from 2018 to 2021. PATIENTS: Patients (~6800) aged ≥45 years having noncardiac surgery who have or are at risk of atherosclerotic disease and who routinely take antihypertensive medications. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome of the substudy is postoperative acute kidney injury, defined as an increase in serum creatinine concentration of either ≥26.5 μmol/L (≥0.3 mg/dL) within 48 hours of randomization or ≥50% within 7 days of randomization. METHODS: The primary analysis (intention-to-treat) will examine the relative risk and 95% confidence interval of acute kidney injury in the intervention versus control group. We will repeat the primary analysis using alternative definitions of acute kidney injury and examine effect modification by preexisting chronic kidney disease, defined as a prerandomization estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. RESULTS: Substudy results will be analyzed in 2022. LIMITATIONS: It is not possible to mask patients or providers to the intervention; however, objective measures will be used to assess acute kidney injury. CONCLUSIONS: This substudy will provide generalizable estimates of the effect of a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy on the risk of acute kidney injury