Evaluation of an electronic warfarin nomogram for anticoagulation of hemodialysis patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Warfarin nomograms to guide dosing have been shown to improve control of the international normalized ratio (INR) in the general outpatient setting. However, the effectiveness of these nomograms in hemodialysis patients is unknown. We evaluated the effectiveness of anticoagulation using an electronic warfarin nomogram administered by nurses in outpatient hemodialysis patients, compared to physician directed therapy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Hemodialysis patients at any of the six outpatient clinics in Calgary, Alberta, treated with warfarin anticoagulation were included. Two five-month time periods were compared: prior to and post implementation of the nomogram. The primary endpoint was adequacy of anticoagulation (proportion of INR measurements within range ± 0.5 units).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall, 67 patients were included in the pre- and 55 in the post-period (with 40 patients in both periods). Using generalized linear mixed models, the adequacy of INR control was similar in both periods for all range INR levels: in detail, range INR 1.5 to 2.5 (pre 93.6% (95% CI: 88.6% - 96.5%); post 95.6% (95% CI: 89.4% - 98.3%); p = 0.95); INR 2.0 to 3.0 (pre 82.2% (95% CI: 77.9% - 85.8%); post 77.4% (95% CI: 72.0% - 82.0%); p = 0.20); and, INR 2.5 to 3.5 (pre 84.3% (95% CI: 59.4% - 95.1%); post 66.8% (95% CI: 39.9% - 86.0%); p = 0.29). The mean number of INR measurements per patient decreased significantly between the pre- (30.5, 95% CI: 27.0 - 34.0) and post- (22.3, 95% CI: 18.4 - 26.1) (p = 0.003) period. There were 3 bleeding events in each of the periods.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>An electronic warfarin anticoagulation nomogram administered by nurses achieved INR control similar to that of physician directed therapy among hemodialysis patients in an outpatient setting, with a significant reduction in frequency of testing. Future controlled trials are required to confirm the efficacy of this nomogram.</p

Prevalence of dyslipidemic risk factors in hemodialysis and CAPD patients.

Prevalence of dyslipidemic risk factors in hemodialysis and CAPD patients.BackgroundDyslipidemic factors obviously contribute to the high cardiovascular risk in dialysis patients but are often an underestimated problem. Therefore, we determined the prevalence of dyslipidemic factors in a large group of unselected hemodialysis (N = 564) and CAPD (N = 168) patients.MethodsWe used the recently published recommendations of the Medical Experts Group concerning cardiovascular risk factors for the categorization of dyslipidemic factors. These were total cholesteroverline>200 mg/dL, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesteroverline>100 mg/dL, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol <40 mg/dL, triglycerides>180 mg/dL, and Lp(a)>30 mg/dL.ResultsCAPD patients had, in sum, a markedly worse lipid profile when compared with HD patients. They had higher frequencies of elevated total cholesterol (67% vs. 34%), triglycerides (47% vs. 28%), and Lp(a) concentrations (37% vs. 30%) when compared with HD patients. In both patient groups, about two thirds of the patients had LDL cholesterol above 100 mg/dL and HDL cholesterol below 40 mg/dL. When we analyzed the total frequency of dyslipidemic factors, we observed that the CAPD group included a markedly higher number of patients with three or four concurrent dyslipidemic factors than HD patients (P < 0.001). Furthermore, we analyzed apolipoprotein A-IV (apoA-IV), which was recently shown to be associated with cardiovascular disease, and which was about twice as high in both patient groups when compared with controls (P < 0.001).ConclusionsDyslipidemic risk factors are highly prevalent in dialysis patients, and the concomitant occurrence of several risk factors in a given patient is more often observed in CAPD than HD patients

Is it time to embrace haemodiafiltration for centre-based haemodialysis?

Improvements in survival in dialysis patients over the past few decades have been disappointing. Recent prospective trials such the haemodialysis study have not shown conclusive improvements. Two recent observational studies have found a striking survival advantage for haemodiafiltration (HDF). This review covers the differences between HDF and conventional haemodialysis (HD) and the history of the technological advances in the HDF technique. In addition, it explores the putative benefits of HDF over HD. While the observational studies provide a basis for optimism that HDF will provide benefit to dialysis patients, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn until the results of randomized controlled trials are available. While the evidence in favour of HDF at this stage is observational only, there are no studies suggesting that the treatment is detrimental. The use of HDF should probably be increased, particularly in centres where an increase in the frequency and duration of dialysis cannot be readily achieved