Kidney transplant in diabetic patients: modalities, indications and results

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Diabetes is a disease of increasing worldwide prevalence and is the main cause of chronic renal failure. Type 1 diabetic patients with chronic renal failure have the following therapy options: kidney transplant from a living donor, pancreas after kidney transplant, simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant, or awaiting a deceased donor kidney transplant. For type 2 diabetic patients, only kidney transplant from deceased or living donors are recommended. Patient survival after kidney transplant has been improving for all age ranges in comparison to the dialysis therapy. The main causes of mortality after transplant are cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, infections and neoplasias. Five-year patient survival for type 2 diabetic patients is lower than the non-diabetics' because they are older and have higher body mass index on the occasion of the transplant and both pre- and posttransplant cardiovascular diseases prevalences. The increased postransplant cardiovascular mortality in these patients is attributed to the presence of well-known risk factors, such as insulin resistance, higher triglycerides values, lower HDL-cholesterol values, abnormalities in fibrinolysis and coagulation and endothelial dysfunction. In type 1 diabetic patients, simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant is associated with lower prevalence of vascular diseases, including acute myocardial infarction, stroke and amputation in comparison to isolated kidney transplant and dialysis therapy.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Type 1 and 2 diabetic patients present higher survival rates after transplant in comparison to the dialysis therapy, although the prevalence of cardiovascular events and infectious complications remain higher than in the general population.</p

The BARRIERS scale -- the barriers to research utilization scale: A systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A commonly recommended strategy for increasing research use in clinical practice is to identify barriers to change and then tailor interventions to overcome the identified barriers. In nursing, the BARRIERS scale has been used extensively to identify barriers to research utilization.</p> <p>Aim and objectives</p> <p>The aim of this systematic review was to examine the state of knowledge resulting from use of the BARRIERS scale and to make recommendations about future use of the scale. The following objectives were addressed: To examine how the scale has been modified, to examine its psychometric properties, to determine the main barriers (and whether they varied over time and geographic locations), and to identify associations between nurses' reported barriers and reported research use.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Medline (1991 to September 2009) and CINHAL (1991 to September 2009) were searched for published research, and ProQuest^®digital dissertations were searched for unpublished dissertations using the BARRIERS scale. Inclusion criteria were: studies using the BARRIERS scale in its entirety and where the sample was nurses. Two authors independently assessed the study quality and extracted the data. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Sixty-three studies were included, with most using a cross-sectional design. Not one study used the scale for tailoring interventions to overcome identified barriers. The main barriers reported were related to the setting, and the presentation of research findings. Overall, identified barriers were consistent over time and across geographic locations, despite varying sample size, response rate, study setting, and assessment of study quality. Few studies reported associations between reported research use and perceptions of barriers to research utilization.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The BARRIERS scale is a nonspecific tool for identifying general barriers to research utilization. The scale is reliable as reflected in assessments of internal consistency. The validity of the scale, however, is doubtful. There is no evidence that it is a useful tool for planning implementation interventions. We recommend that no further descriptive studies using the BARRIERS scale be undertaken. Barriers need to be measured specific to the particular context of implementation and the intended evidence to be implemented.</p