dialysis Archivi - Page 3 of 3

Covid-19 and its impact on nephropathic patients: the experience at Ospedale “Guglielmo da Saliceto” in Piacenza

Posted on Wednesday April 1st, 2020Scarica PDF Download PDF (english version)

Roberto Scarpioni

Roberto Scarpioni, Alessandra Manini, Teresa Valsania, Sara De Amicis, Vittorio Albertazzi, Luigi Melfa, Marco Ricardi, Chiara Rocca

UOC Nefrologia Dialisi, Ospedale AUSL “Guglielmo da Saliceto” Piacenza, Italia

Correspondence:
Roberto Scarpioni
Direttore UOC Nefrologia e Dialisi
Ospedale AUSL “Guglielmo da Saliceto”
Piacenza, Italia
Tel +39 0523 302176
Fax +39 05823 302232
Mail: r.scarpioni@ausl.pc.it

Abstract

Roberto Scarpioni and colleagues recount their experience with the Covid-19 epidemic at the Nephrology and Dialysis Center of the “Guglielmo da Saliceto” Hospital in Piacenza, where everybody is still fighting to this moment to contain the spread of the disease and face an increasingly unsustainable clinical situation. Piacenza is only 15 km away from the main cluster of cases in the country (Codogno, in the Lodi province) and, after the closure of the Hospital in Codogno, saw an escalation in the number of patients testing positive to Covid-19.

The authors describe their efforts and the practices they adopted to contain the spread of the disease among inpatients visiting the hospital’s Hemodialysis Clinic. They also reflect on some of the data available on the 25/03/2020, such as the number of patients testing positive and the mortality rate, unfortunately very high. Their aim is to help all colleagues that have yet to face this epidemic in its full force.

Keywords: Covid-19, coronavirus, nephropatic patients, dialysis, kidneys, Piacenza, Emilia Romagna

A cluster of cases of a new unknown type of pneumonia was first signalled in Wuhan, China, on the 31^st December. Chinese researchers later identified the cause of the infection as a novel coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2 o Covid-19 [1]. Exactly one month later, in Rome, two Chinese tourists from Wuhan were the first to test positive to the virus in Italy. The first Italian case of Covid-19 was hospitalised on the 21^st February in Codogno (Lodi province), only 15 km away from Piacenza [2]. The following weeks saw an exponential increase in the number of infections, to the point that Italy is now the country that has been most heavily hit by the pandemic after China. We have more than 57.521 confirmed cases, with more than 8.256 in the Emilia Romagna region alone, where 1.077 patients have died and 721 have recovered [3].

Here we describe our own experience with the Covid-19 epidemic at the Nephrology and Dialysis Center of the “Guglielmo da Saliceto” Hospital in Piacenza, where everybody is still fighting to this moment to contain the spread of the disease and face an increasingly unsustainable clinical situation. We hope this will be useful to all colleagues that have yet to face this epidemic in its full force, as it has already happened in Emilia Romagna and Lombardia. Piacenza is only 15 km away from the main cluster of cases in Codogno and, after the closure of the Hospital there, saw an escalation in the number of patients presenting to the A&E testing positive to Covid-19 (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Number of patients presenting to the A&E testing positive to Covid-19

The exponential growth in the number of nephropathic patients with a Covid-19 infection forced us straight away to adopt measures to contain the spread of the disease among inpatients visiting the hospital’s Hemodialysis Clinic. Starting from day 3 and 4 we adopted very strict measures, both when dealing with patients and between colleagues. Fortunately to date (25/03/2020) none of the doctors has been found positive to the virus, while three nurses have been found positive and have isolated at home, in good general conditions.

Inpatients’ body temperature was measured before they entered the ward; they were invited to wear face masks, wash their hands with an alcohol-based sanitizer and change their clothes and shoes. The personnel wore face masks, protective glasses and gloves, and disinfected rooms and machinery at the start of each shift [4].

At first, patients needing chronic hemodialysis were treated within the ward using CRRT (Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy) or high-volume hemofiltration (6 L/hr), with adsorbent membranes to remove inflammatory cytokines (IL-6) and endotoxins. In order to avoid contacts as much as possible, we treated two patients at a time, under the supervision of a single nurse and in the same room, separate from the rest and with its own transport system. Later, however, the high volume of patients forced us to move outside the ward to set up a new space devoted to quarantined patients. While waiting for the test results, all patients were treated as positive by medical personnel wearing face masks, goggles, gloves and overcoats. We insured a distance of at least 1-1,5 m between the beds by emptying the room of all that was not immediately necessary. One of the most difficult tasks was organising a separate transportation system, devoted solely to patients positive to Covid-19 and disinfected after each round. As for us, apart from wearing the protective gear describe above, we decided to avoid holding any staff meetings indoors.

As of today, it is extremely clear how dangerous Covid-19 is for fragile nephropathic patients: 41 of our patients on hemodialysis have been infected, 16% of the total (mean age 73±11, range 52-90 years, all white Caucasian, 31 men/10 women). The diagnosis was based on the results of the oro-rino-pharyngeal swab, wherever possible, or on the findings of the pulmonary CT. It is surprising to note that the rate of infection is the same recorded at the Renmin Hospital in Wuhan (16%) [5]; we have to consider, however, that over the first few says only symptomatic patients were tested for the virus.

Of these patients, those with a temperature and/or struggling to breathe were empirically treated with 5-OH-chloroquine and antiretroviral therapies, when considered appropriate by the infectologist. Due to the patients’ age and previous comorbidities, the mortality rate has unfortunately been very high: to date, half of the infected patients have died (18/41, 41% raw mortality). This is way higher than the rate among non-nephropathic patients in Italy (around 10%) – and an unacceptable price to pay [6].

All transplanted patients in home care (118) and those treated with peritoneal dialysis (34) were discouraged from visiting the hospital but were contacted via telephone on a daily basis by our doctors and nurses. We have currently 4 transplanted patients who tested positive to Covid-19; two of them are hospitalised at the Transplant Center in Bologna, while the others are quarantined at home and are being monitored very closely for any pharmacological interactions. Luckily, only one PD patient has tested positive so far and is also at home, closely monitored.

In line with what has been reported by a few other authors, we observed only a small percentage of Covid-19-related cases of acute kidney injury (AKI) (<3%) [7]. To date, we have 5 AKI patients that have required intensive care treatment with CRRT; 4 of them, all men with existing comorbidities whose average age is 60 and age range is 39-71, are still being treated.

Looking back, the strict containment measures that we have adopted early on have certainly helped minimise the spread of the disease, although the mortality rate has remained unacceptably high among nephropathic patents. We are now waiting for new results to shed light on the renin-angiotensin blockade as a potential functional receptor for the virus [8, 9], on the use of immunomodulating drugs inhibiting IL-6 as a mean to reduce the progression of respiratory failure and inflammation, and on the use of other antiviral medications (or perhaps even a vaccine) that may reduce the rate of infection and the prognosis, which is currently extremely negative in 8-10% of cases. While we wait to know more, however, we must invest in preventing the spread of Covid-19. Prevention through social distancing is imperative, especially for older patients with renal disease, but cannot be enforced in all cases as many of them need to come to the Center for life-saving treatment up to three times per week. The low rate of infection among patients in home care further confirms the effectiveness of self-isolation.

Bibliography

An account of the first hours of the Covid-19 epidemic at the Nephrology Unit in Lodi (Lombardy)

Posted on Wednesday April 1st, 2020Scarica PDF Download PDF (english version)

Marco Farina

Marco Farina, Francesco Barbisoni, Silvia Bertacchini, Ilaria Borettaz, Raffaella Bucci, Milena Maggio, Chiara Ronga

Struttura Complessa di Nefrologia e Dialisi, ASST di Lodi, Ospedale Maggiore di Lodi (LO)

Correspondence:
Marco Farina
Struttura Complessa di Nefrologia e Dialisi
ASST di Lodi
Ospedale Maggiore di Lodi
Largo Donatori del Sangue, 1
26900 Lodi (LO)
Marco.Farina@asst-lodi.it

Abstract

Marco Farina and colleagues give us their account of the first days of the Covid-19 epidemic in the Nephrology Unit of the Ospedale Maggiore in Lodi. From the news trickling through from Codogno on the 20^th of February to the hospitalization, the following day, of the first dialytic patient with signs of pneumonia, who later tested positive to the virus.

They tell us of how the hospital has been completely restructured in the wake of the epidemic, at remarkable speed and providing an example for others to follow, and the great sense self-sacrifice displayed by all medical personnel. After an overview of the clinical conditions of the 7 patients positive to the virus hospitalised in the following few days, they describe in some detail how symptomatic Covid+ patients are currently managed at the Ospedale Maggiore in Lodi.

Keywords: Covid-19, Ospedale Maggiore di Lodi, nephrology, dialysis

Introduction

The Covid-19 epidemic suddenly hit us on the 20^th of February, the day the news started trickling through that the first case of SARS-CoV-2 had been isolated in Codogno, far out in the province. After being all over the news because of a nasty high-speed train accident only a few days before, the Lodi area was once again in the spotlight as the theatre, this time, of a health emergency.

In those first confusing hours we spent plenty of time and energy trying to find the case 1 and case 0, and doing all we could to pinpoint the starting point of the epidemic — apparently a dinner between co-workers, one of which had just returned from China. Both patient 1 and his pregnant wife, for whom we were all particularly worried, had just been hospitalised. It was then clear that the virus had arrived in Italy, in all likelihood destined to spread from our own region to the rest of the country, and that there was no point in trying to find links between infected people and China any longer. We have since been witnessing an exponential growth that, up to this day, has not shown any signs of a slowdown.

The first case

When I got to work on the 21^st I was told that our Nephrology department had just received a 62-year-old hemodialysis patient showing signs of pneumonia at a chest X-rays. Showing a commendable insight, our local Health Care System had published on the 5^th of February a detailed plan on how to identify, signal and manage either potential, probable or confirmed cases of Covid-19. This is not to say we were ready for what was to come – who could have been? – but at least we had criteria in place to recognise and assess the problem. The patient described above, who had arrived from the small town that would soon become the main cluster of cases in the country, was immediately isolated and we all started using the protective equipment described in detail in the management plan. We sent blood samples and a nasopharyngeal swab to the Microbiology Lab at the Sacco Hospital in Milan and we waited the results with apprehension; as it was still early days, we received them the same evening: positive. We alerted the Crisis Unit created by the Region for this purpose and, in the night between the 21^st and the 22^nd, the patient was transferred to the Infective Disease Unit at S. Anna Hospital in Como. He was then transferred to the Intensive Care Unit not because of any worsening of his conditions (he did not need a ventilator during transfer) but because he needed dialysis, which cannot be administered in Infective Disease wards. However, within a day, we witnessed a sudden worsening of the patient’s respiratory conditions (something we have grown accustomed to seeing in this type of patients), followed by death. This announcement, that reached our Nephrology Unit through mainstream news channels, was met with bewilderment: we all knew that the patient, albeit young, had several comorbidities but we were nonetheless greatly distressed to learn of his death; as a pre-emptive measure we had to quarantine the entire medical personnel, as the very first contacts with the patient had, quite understandably, taken place without the necessary protections.

Re-structuring the Hospital

This is our account of the first hours of this ordeal; the rest, the local and national directives that have been published in quick succession and that keep being fine-tuned hour by hour, is well known to all of us. From the creation of the “red zone” in Lodi, later extended to the entire Lombardy area, to the strict quarantine measures required across the entire Region (DPCM 21 February, 8 March and 11 March, respectively).

Since the spike in the infection rate has started (as we write there has been no inversion in this trend, and we wait for it anxiously) our Hospital in Lodi has undergone a complete overhaul and its re-structuring has been used as a model by other institutes. On the 26^th of February the “blue area” was created, with 18 hospital beds previously belonging to Neurology, to hold Covid+ patients necessitating ventilation; on the 28^th the “yellow area” was opened, allowing for 37 additional beds for Covid+ patients without the need for ventilation or simply requiring oxygen therapy. On the 4^th of March we opened an “orange area” (previously General Medicine) with 38 more beds; on the same date we started setting up a hemodialysis room devoted to patients positive to Covid+. On the 6^th we opened, within Nephrology, a “red area” with 13 beds and a drywall-delimited space devoted exclusively to the dressing and undressing of healthcare personnel. On the 7^th of March Covid+ pneumonia cases started being hospitalised in the Orthopedics Unit, under supervision of the surgeon.

Doctors and nurses have been assigned to any type of duty according to pressing and ever-changing needs, impossible to predict. At the helm, a multi-disciplinary team composed by the Directors of critical care, resuscitation, pneumology and infectiology and by a number of nurses; working closely with the Biochemical and Microbiology Labs, they constituted the Hospital’s Crisis Unit, gathered in a virtually permanent assembly. Everybody has been displaying a great sense self-sacrifice, working incredibly long shifts, often in silence. This same situation seems to repeat in most of Lombardy, but also in Veneto and in many other places.

Other cases

By looking at preliminary data, we clearly have yet to see the huge wave of hospitalizations described by initial projections (this, however, may change or might have already changed since I wrote this piece). Patients arriving from the “red zone” have been immediately treated with the utmost care and attention, and all necessary protections have been used both in local health care facilities and in hospitals. Those of them needing dialysis have been treated in a separate room, used exclusively to this purpose, and they have been closely monitored through anamnesis and the measuring of saturation and body temperature. Of the 18 tests administered to all patients who had been in contact with the first Covid+ case deceased at S. Anna Hospital only 3 turned out positive (about 15%); the rate is actually unexpectedly good, although in the present situation it is very difficult to make any statements with an acceptable degree of confidence.

As I write, there are 7 dialytic patients who resulted positive to SARS-CoV-2, although this number is certainly destined to go up; as we have a total of 162 patients in hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis, the current number of infections accounts for around 4%. In addition to the case described above, where the patient was initially in good conditions but presented several comorbidities, 2 more have died. An 84-year-old patient, also with many underlying conditions, that had been hospitalized for other reasons but started testing positive during his hospital stay; X-rays showed signs of pneumonia, to be added to a recent diagnosis of pulmonary neoplasms. Then a female patient with stage 5 kidney disease who was not in dialysis but presented severe cardiac problems. She also caught the infection during the hospital stay; palliative care was the only viable option, as general conditions were already heavily compromised.

In the table below we try to summarise the clinical characteristics and outcomes of the patients who tested positive to the virus, while we wait to be able to collect and publish more precise data.

Table I: Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients positive to the virus

Addendum and conclusions

We have been the first to be hit by the epidemic and, as such, we have also been the first to put in place stringent protocols and regulations. Although we have been doing our absolute best, there is sometimes a mismatch between the regulations and the actual situation on the ground. Until now, all nurses have been using FFP2 masks, counted and distributed at the beginning of the shift. Nurses assisting the dialysis of patients that are not confirmed cases wear single use garments and, in one of the two centers in the “red area”, also a waterproof vest. All nurses wear a hat and, since the FFP2 mask can be an obstacle to the use of the visor, we have equipped each room with goggles that are sanitized with 70% alcohol at the end of each shift. Leaving aside the FFP2 mask and the waterproof vest, these are for the most part standard sanitary measures.

Patients, on the other hand, wear a chirurgical mask that is changed at the beginning of each new shift. Most of them also use it during transportation, although it is probably the same one they were given the night before. While waiting, all patients are invited to stand at least a meter apart from each other and wash thoroughly their hands and the arm where the vascular access is located.

To date, at our Hospital in Lodi, patients testing positive to the virus and showing symptoms are treated in one of the following ways (as decided by the multidisciplinary team we have previously described):

If invasive ventilation is needed, they are transferred to Intensive Care, where CRRT or hemodialysis is started immediately; a portable osmosis filtration system is also available.
If non-invasive ventilation is needed, they are transferred to the “yellow area”, where CPAP is available, as well as water filtration systems.
Regardless of ventilation needs they can also be assigned to the “red area” created within our Nephrology, where we have 3 rooms with 3 beds each that have also been fitted with systems to filtrate water.

We have very recently implemented a new water management system that allows for two patients to undergo dialysis at the same time. Together with the system available in the yellow area, which caters for one patient at the time, is therefore possible to dialyse 3 patients at the time, maintaining the ratio between nurses and patients to 1:3.

If the patient is a suspected case but has no symptoms, the hemodialysis can be carried out in a hospital room specifically set up for this purpose. It now has 2 beds that could easily become 6 with very minor changes to the set-up.

All considered, the system we have put in place seems currently up to the task. However, as the epidemiological landscape keeps changing, this evaluation could suddenly turn out to be wrong.

Managing patients in dialysis and with kidney transplant infected with Covid-19

Posted on Wednesday April 1st, 2020Scarica PDF

Federico Alberici

Federico Alberici^1,2, Elisa Del Barba², Chiara Manenti², Laura Econimo², Francesca Valerio², Alessandra Pola², Camilla Maffei², Stefano Possenti², Paola Gaggia², Ezio Movilli², Sergio Bove³, Fabio Malberti⁴, Marco Farina⁵, Martina Bracchi⁶, Ester Maria Costantino⁷, Nicola Bossini², Mario Gaggiotti², Francesco Scolari^1,2, a nome della “Brescia Renal Covid Task Force”

1 Università degli Studi di Brescia, Dipartimento di Specialità Medico-Chirurgiche, Scienze Radiologiche e Sanità Pubblica, Brescia, Italia
2 ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Brescia, Italia
3 ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Montichiari (BS), Italia
4 ASST Cremona, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Cremona, Italia
5 ASST Lodi, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Lodi, Italia
6 ASST Franciacorta, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Chiari (BS), Italia
7 ASST del Garda, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Manerbio (BS), Italia

Corrispondenza a:
Federico Alberici
Professore Associato - Dirigente Medico di I livello
Università di Brescia - ASST Spedali Cvili
Piazzale Spedali Civili 1
25125 Brescia
Tel 0303996880
Tel 0303995621
Tel 0303995626
Fax 0303996024
e-mail: federico.alberici@unibs.it

Abstract

We are in the midst of a health emergency that is totally new for us all and that requires a concerted effort, especially when it comes to safeguarding patients on hemodialysis, and kidney transplant recipients. Brescia is currently a very active cluster of infections (2918 cases on the 17/03/2020), second only to Bergamo. The way our structure is organised has allowed us to treat nephropathic patients directly within the Nephrology Unit, following of course a great deal of reshuffling; at the moment, we are treating 21 transplanted patients and 17 on hemodialysis. This has led us to adopt a systematic approach to handling this emergency, not only in managing inpatients, but also in researching the
new disease. Our approach is mirrored in the guidelines attached to this article, originally intended for internal use only but potentially very useful to our colleagues, as they face the same exact problems.
We have also started collecting data on our positive patients with the aim of understanding better the functioning of this disease and how best to manage it. If anyone is interested, we ask you to please get in touch with us, so we can coordinate our efforts.

Keywords: Covid-19, Brescia, nephrology, dialysis, transplants, guidelines

Sorry, this entry is only available in Italian.

Introduzione

L’epidemia da Covid-19 in Lombardia richiede la messa a punto di un protocollo nei pazienti nefropatici, in particolare nei pazienti in trattamento dialitico e in quelli portatori di trapianto renale.

Recentemente, il China CDC ha pubblicato la più ampia casistica di Covid-19, che includeva 44672 casi; da questo studio emerge una mortalità totale del 2.3%. I fattori di rischio principali sembrano essere, oltre all’età (mortalità dell’1.3% nella fascia 50-59, 3.6% nella fascia 60-69, 8% nella fascia 70-79 e 14.8% nella fascia ≥80 anni), la presenza di malattie cardiovascolari (mortalità 10.5%), diabete (mortalità 7.3%), malattie respiratorie croniche (mortalità 6.3%), ipertensione arteriosa (mortalità 6%) e neoplasie (mortalità 5.6%) [1,2]. Nella regione Lombardia, tuttavia, la malattia sembra avere una mortalità decisamente maggiore di quella riportata in Cina, e questo deve indurci a studiare con attenzione tutti i fattori potenzialmente responsabili di questo andamento.

Le comorbidità associate ad aumentata mortalità in corso d’infezione da Covid-19 sono molto frequenti nei pazienti affetti da Insufficienza Renale Cronica (IRC) e nei pazienti in corso di terapia sostitutiva della funzione renale mediante emodialisi. Non esistono inoltre, al momento, dati solidi sui pazienti Covid-19 positivi in trattamento dialitico e nei portatori di trapianto di rene in cui, oltre ai vari fattori di rischio cardiovascolare, esiste una condizione di ridotta immunocompetenza.

Al momento della prima stesura di questo documento (17/03/2020) abbiamo seguito presso la nostra struttura di Brescia e l’annessa rete territoriale 20 pazienti trapiantati e 17 pazienti dializzati; la nostra preliminare esperienza suggerisce che la malattia ha un decorso severo, con outcome potenzialmente fatale, soprattutto nel sottogruppo di pazienti portatore di trapianto renale. Inoltre, un numero consistente di pazienti nefropatici con Covid-19 sono stati seguiti preso i centri di Lodi, Cremona, Manerbio, Montichiari e Chiari, che aderiscono alla task force di Brescia. L’esperienza cinese suggerisce che la malattia abbia un andamento meno severo nei pazienti dializzati, non solo rispetto ai pazienti con trapianto renale, ma anche ai pazienti non nefropatici. Questa è anche l’esperienza iniziale di Brescia, ma non è confermata da tutti i centri partecipanti alla nostra task force. Ovviamente, in assenza di dati adeguati sia nella popolazione generale (percentuale di asintomatici) che nei pazienti nefropatici, non è possibile formulare riflessioni conclusive. Proprio per questo, stiamo raccogliendo in dettaglio dati clinici e di laboratorio nei nostri pazienti, per poter condividere con la comunità nefrologica le caratteristiche cliniche e di outcome della malattia nei nefropatici.

In generale, l’ottimale gestione della patologia è ancora dibattuta e l’approccio terapeutico è privo di significative evidenze. L’indicazione alla terapia anti-retrovirale è dubbia e, ad oggi, non esiste alcun farmaco registrato per il trattamento di infezioni da Covid-19 [3]. Tuttavia, ci si può avvalere dell’esperienza derivante dall’uso di agenti anti-virali su virus appartenenti alla medesima famiglia di Beta-coronavirus (SARS e MERS); bisogna comunque considerare come la condizione di emergenza fornisca una buona ragione per l’utilizzo di antivirali, nonostante la mancanza di evidenze scientifiche preliminari. Nei pazienti affetti da IRC avanzata si pone inoltre la problematica dell’aggiustamento della terapia per il grado di funzione renale e, nei pazienti portatori di trapianto renale, la necessità di un’attenta modulazione della terapia immunosoppressiva; al momento non esistono chiare linee guida per la gestione di questi pazienti [4].

Al momento, Brescia rappresenta il secondo focolaio in Italia dopo Bergamo (2918 casi al 17/03/2019). Un gruppo di lavoro formato da infettivologi e intensivisti lombardi ha messo a punto un protocollo di terapia nei pazienti con Covid-19, sulla base della severità di malattia: le Linee guida sulla gestione terapeutica e di supporto per pazienti con infezione da coronavirus COVID-19. Edizione 2.0, del 12 marzo 2020. Mutuando in parte il background infettivologico ed intensivista del protocollo, abbiamo adattato questo approccio ai nostri pazienti in trattamento dialitico e con trapianto di rene, creando questa Proposta di schema di gestione terapeutica di pazienti emodializzati e trapiantati affetti da Covid-19 (cliccando questo link è possibile scaricare il documento in questione). Di seguito, forniremo inoltre alcune considerazioni logistiche derivanti dalla nostra esperienza diretta sulla gestione dei flussi di pazienti in corso di epidemia da Covid-19.

Trattamento farmacologico

Clorochina e idrossiclorochina: evidenze sperimentali supporterebbero un ruolo anti-virale in vitro e nel modello animale per la clorochina nei confronti del virus SARS e dell’influenza aviaria. Un panel di esperti cinesi supporta l’utilizzo del farmaco in ragione di un beneficio in termini di ospedalizzazione e outcome generale del paziente [5].

Lopinavir/ritonavir: evidenze aneddotiche supporterebbo un possibile ruolo di questo antiretrovirale di seconda generazione in corso di infezione da Covid-19.

Darunavir/ritonavir e darunavir/cobicistat: potenziali alternative al Lopinavir/ritonavir in ragione del meccanismo d’azione analogo.

Remdesivir: è un analogo nucleotidico il cui meccanismo d’azione consiste nell’incorporazione del farmaco nelle catene di RNA neosintetizzate. Viene proposto, in modelli animali e in vitro, un suo possibile ruolo nel ridurre la carica virale e nel migliorare i parametri di funzionalità polmonare [6,7]. Due trials clinici sono attualmente in corso in Cina.

Corticosteroidi: l’utilizzo dei corticosteroidi sarebbe controindicato nelle fasi iniziali della patologia. Dati suggeriscono tuttavia un loro ruolo nella gestione della sindrome da distress respiratorio acuto (ARDS), con un impatto significativo sulle curve di sopravvivenza dei pazienti trattati [8].

Tocilizumab: sulla scorta del ruolo centrale che l’IL6, in associazione ad altre citochine pro-infiammatorie, sembrerebbe avere nello sviluppo di ARDS indotta da Covid-19, il Tocilizumab potrebbe aver un ruolo nella gestione di casi selezionati, in assenza di controindicazioni maggiori.

Considerazioni logistiche

Riteniamo assolutamente necessaria un’adeguata pianificazione logistica nella gestione di questa emergenza sanitaria. Nel trattare questi pazienti si devono conciliare protocolli infettivologici (es. isolamento) con necessità intrinseche alla nostra specialità, come quella di movimentare i pazienti per l’emodialisi. La nostra esperienza, se pur ancora limitata, sembra suggerire un outcome migliore nei pazienti trapiantati gestiti direttamente in un reparto nefrologico rispetto al gruppo gestito in altre aree Covid generali e valutati dal nefrologo solo in consulenza.

La peculiare organizzazione logistica della nostra struttura ci ha in questo senso consentito un modello organizzativo efficiente. Riportiamo qui uno schema della nostra struttura:

Piano 1:

Piano 2:

A partire dal 27-28 febbraio abbiamo impostato una riduzione dei posti letto del Reparto femminile e un aumento delle dimissioni nel reparto maschile con successivo trasferimento delle pazienti donna non dimissibili nel lato maschile. Nella notte tra il 27 e 28 febbraio abbiamo ricoverata la prima paziente portatrice di trapianto di rene e positiva al virus, successivamente trasferita in terapia intensiva per deterioramento clinico. Al 28 febbraio, la situazione logistica era la seguente; da notare che nell’area COVID erano disponibili attrezzature ed impianti per l’eventuale effettuazione di emodialisi.

Piano 1:

Piano 2:

Tra il 2 e il 4 marzo abbiamo ricoverato i primi pazienti positivi nell’area COVID; in questa fase, la necessità era rivolta quasi esclusivamente ai pazienti trapiantati, avendo il nostro centro un grosso bacino d’utenza che include anche le aree di Lodi e Codogno. Il progressivo afflusso di pazienti positivi presso il nostro ospedale, unito alla necessità di accogliere pazienti emodializzati, ha quindi portato allo spostamento del reparto maschile e femminile al piano 2, alla chiusura del centro trapianti e alla rimodulazione degli spazi centrali del reparto in sale da emodialisi, in parte destinate a pazienti Covid positivi, in parte destinate a pazienti negativi.

Piano 1:

Piano 2:

In conclusione, ricordiamo nuovamente che le nostre linee guida per la gestione terapeutica dei pazienti emodializzati e trapiantati può essere scaricata qui.

La “Brescia Renal Covid Task Force”

Federico Alberici, Università degli Studi di Brescia, Dipartimento di Specialità Medico-Chirurgiche, Scienze Radiologiche e Sanità Pubblica; ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Brescia, Italia

Elisa Del Barba, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Brescia, Italia

Chiara Manenti, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Brescia, Italia

Laura Econimo, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Brescia, Italia

Francesca Valerio, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Brescia, Italia

Alessandra Pola, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Brescia, Italia

Camilla Maffei, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Brescia, Italia

Possenti Stefano, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Brescia, Italia

Nicole Zambetti, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Brescia, Italia

Margherita Venturini, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Brescia, Italia

Stefania Affatato, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Brescia, Italia

Paola Piarulli, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Brescia, Italia

Mattia Zappa, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Brescia, Italia

Guerini Alice, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Brescia, Italia

Fabio Viola, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Brescia, Italia

Ezio Movilli, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Brescia, Italia

Paola Gaggia, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Brescia, Italia

Sergio Bove, ASST Brescia, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Montichiari (BS), Italia

Marina Foramitti, ASST Cremona, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Cremona, Italia

Paola Pecchini, ASST Cremona, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Cremona, Italia

Raffaella Bucci, ASST Lodi, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Lodi, Italia

Marco Farina, ASST Lodi, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Lodi, Italia

Martina Bracchi, ASST Franciacorta, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Chiari (BS), Italia

Ester Maria Costantino, ASST del Garda, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Manerbio (BS), Italia

Fabio Malberti, ASST Cremona, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Cremona, Italia

Nicola Bossini, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Brescia, Italia

Mario Gaggiotti, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Brescia, Italia

Francesco Scolari, Università degli Studi di Brescia, Dipartimento di Specialità Medico-Chirurgiche, Scienze Radiologiche e Sanità Pubblica; ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Unità Operativa di Nefrologia, Brescia, Italia

Bibliografia

Salivary creatinine and urea in patients with end-stage chronic kidney disease could not be used as diagnostic biomarkers for the effectiveness of dialysis treatment

Posted on Tuesday November 27th, 2018Download PDF (english version)

Petia Pechalova

Anna Nenova Nogalcheva¹, Desislava Konstantinova², Petia Pechalova³

¹ Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental medicine, Medical University - Varna, Bulgaria
²Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dental medicine, Medical University - Varna, Bulgaria
³Department of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Dental medicine, Medical University - Plovdiv, Bulgaria

Corresponding Author:
Assoc. Prof. Petia Pechalova, DDS, MD, PhD
Department of oral surgery,
Faculty of dental medicine,
Medical University, Plovdiv, Bulgaria
“Hristo Botev” 3 Blv,
Plovdiv 4000,
Bulgaria
Phone: 0898468948
Email: pechalova@abv.bg

Abstract

Introduction. End-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) is characterized by kidney failure with the organ’s functions reduced or lost completely, where the kidneys are incapable of filtering excess fluids. Renal replacement therapy may be provided by peritoneal dialysis, hemodialysis or renal transplantation. Among the key indicators for tracking patients’ current status are urea and creatinine levels.

Aim. The study analyzed saliva as a medium to detect and measure urea and creatinine levels in end-stage CKD patients as well as to use it as criteria for the effectiveness of the dialysis treatment by comparing salivary urea and creatinine levels with their blood levels.

Material and methods. The study targeted 70 end-stage CKD patients from northeastern Bulgaria undergoing hemodialysis treatment. The urea in blood serum was carried out using the UV kinetic method. Creatinine levels were measured using Jaffe reaction colorimetric method without deproteinezation, adapted on an Olympus AU 400 automated biochemical analyzer (Beckman Coulter Inc., USA). Samples from whole unstimulated saliva were collected in a 15 ml sterile test tube as per Navazesh method. The qualitative determination of salivary urea was performed using the UV kinetic method. Creatinine levels in whole unstimulated saliva were measured using Jaffe reaction colorimetric method.

Results. There was a statistically significant reduction in blood urea levels (P=0.000) and in blood creatinine levels (P = 0.000) following hemodialysis. The results revealed that there was no statistically significant dependence between both, the urea levels (P=0.240) and the creatinine levels (P=0.065) in whole unstimulated saliva obtained prior to and after a hemodialysis.

Conclusion. Despite the parallel increase of the urea and creatinine levels in blood serum and in whole unstimulated saliva in end-stage CKD, salivary urea and creatinine levels could notbe used as diagnostic biomarkers for the effectiveness of dialysis treatment.

Key words: end-stage chronic kidney disease, dialysis, salivary urea, salivary creatinine

Introduction

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is recognised as a health concern globally, leading to ever-increasing rates of morbidity [1]. End-stage renal disease is characterized by kidney failure with the organ’s functions reduced or lost completely, where the kidneys are incapable of filtering excess fluids.

La visualizzazione dell’intero documento è riservata a Soci attivi, devi essere registrato e aver eseguito la Login con utente e password.

La Nefrologia nella Regione Sicilia

Posted on Tuesday November 27th, 2018Scarica PDF

Ruggero Razza

Avv. Ruggero Razza

Intervento a cura dell'Assessore alla Salute Regione Sicilia

Sorry, this entry is only available in Italian.

In Sicilia come anche in altre Regioni d’Italia, la sanità è in una fase di profonda trasformazione strutturale di natura organizzativa volta a ridurre gli sprechi, le inefficienze e a migliorare l’accoglienza, non solo alberghiera, ma anche e soprattutto umana al fine di garantire ai pazienti un rapido e qualificato accesso alle strutture sanitarie dell’Isola e rispondere così, al meglio, ai bisogni di Salute dei Siciliani.

La visualizzazione dell’intero documento è riservata a Soci attivi, devi essere registrato e aver eseguito la Login con utente e password.

The contribution to nephrology of Professor Josef Erben (1926 – 2015)

Posted on Friday January 26th, 2018Download PDF (english version)

Katarína Derzsiová

Katarína Derzsiová and Miroslav Mydlík

IVth Internal Clinic University Hospital of L. Pasteur Košice, Slovak Republic

Corresponding Author
Dipl. Ing. Katarína Derzsiová
Rastislavova 43, 041 90 Košice
Slovak Republic
E-mail: katka.derzsiova@gmail.com
Tel 00421 907914205

Abstract

Professor Josef Erben, MD, DSc. died on May 24, 2015 in Hradec Králové, Czech Republic. He was one of the most outstanding Czechoslovak medical personalities who lived in the 20^th and at the beginning of the 21^st century. His work significantly influenced the development of general internal medicine and clinical nephrology, especially renal replacement therapy and kidney transplantation. He finished his medical studies at the Medical School of Charles University in Hradec Králové in 1951. From 1956 to 1993 he worked at the 1^st Internal Clinic in Hradec Králové. From 1990 to 1993 he was the Head of this Clinic. Professor Erben’s principal contributions were at the national level: 1) He was a founder of regular dialysis treatment of chronic renal failure in Czechoslovakia; 2) He designed the project and production of the Hradec hemodialysis system; and at the international level: 3) Using the Subclavian vein, as vascular access for hemodialysis; 4) The development of a hemodialysis coil of Czechoslovak production of the Chiradis type for hemodialysis.

Keywords: clinical nephrologist, dialysis; subclavian vein catheterization; simultaneous hemodialysis system, scientist and organizer

The life of Josef Erben

Josef Erben was born on May 24, 1926 in Nova Paka, Czechoslovakia, and he died on May 24, 2015 in Hradec Králové, Czech Republic (Figure 1). He completed his medical study at the Medical School of Charles University in Hradec Králové in 1951. After the graduation he began to work at the Hospital in Nova Paka until 1956. From 1956 to 1993 he worked at the 1st Internal Clinic of the Faculty Hospital in Hradec Králové. At first he was an internist charged for the development of nephrology, from 1961 he was the Deputy Head of the Clinic, and from 1990 to 1993 he was the Head of this Clinic. Professor Erben defended his academic title “Doctor of Medical Sciences” (DSc) in 1982 on the thesis of “Residual renal function in chronic renal insufficiency during regular dialysis treatment”. He became Associate Professor in 1990, 25 years after the defense of his habilitation thesis because of his past political positions in 1968. In 1991 he was appointed as the full professor of Internal Medicine.

In 1958 he performed the first hemodialysis in Hradec Králové, which was the second in the former Czechoslovakia. The first clinical kidney transplantation in Czechoslovakia was carried out with a team of physicians together with Professor Erben on November 29, 1961 in Hradec Králové. Coincidentally, it was in the 16-year old girl from Košice, after removal of the right kidney for stones in the presence of a non-functional left kidney. The donor was her mother.

At the initiative of Professor Jan Brod MD, DSc., the Head of the “Institute of Cardiovascular Research” in Prague, Professor Erben completed a one-year internship at the “Cleveland Clinic Foundation” in the United States. He worked at the Department of Artificial Organs of Professor William J. Kolff, the “father of artificial kidney”, in 1966 (Figure 2). Here he was exposed to the problems of regular dialysis treatment and kidney transplantation.

After completing the Examinations for Educational Council for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG), he was also allowed to work at the bedside of dialysed and transplanted patients. He also worked in the “emergency rooms” where patients were admitted for hemodialysis or for evaluation for kidney transplantation in the State of Ohio.

After one year he returned to Czechoslovakia. Under his leadership a project was created as “Hradec simultaneous hemodialysis system (HSHS)” with central distribution of dialysis solution and with the central control units of 6 monitors, which allowed for the simultaneous hemodialysis of 6 patients (1st contribution of Professor Erben) (1). Professor Erben was involved into research on using his own method of determination the active dialysis area using the Berlin blue (2). Together with J. Macek, MD, they developed a hemodialyzer coil of Czechoslovak production of the Chiradis type (3). The coil was inserted into the metal cylinder with an active recirculation of the dialysate using an electric pump (Figure 3). Hydrostatic pressure was used for the distribution of dialysis solution to each dialyzer using the elevation of two 300-liter reservoirs of dialysis solution above the level of dialysis beds. Hradec simultaneous hemodialysis system was successfully used in many dialysis facilities in Czechoslovakia and abroad (Hungary and German Democratic Republic). At the 1st and later at the IV^th Internal Clinic of the Faculty Hospital in Košice HSHS was used from 1972 to 1990. Professor Erben was a founder of regular dialysis treatment of chronic renal failure in Czechoslovakia. His proposal for this treatment was accepted by the Advisory council of the Ministry of Health in 1967. It was not easy to introduce this concept into practice, because it was a financially demanding program.

In 1969 at the VIth EDTA Congress in Stockholm Professor Erben lectured about using the Subclavian vein for vascular access in hemodialysis therapy, first in the world. Catheterization of the subclavian vein was performed by the Seldinger technique (4, 5). This world contribution of Professor Erben was recognized by Professor Scribner at the EDTA Congress in Madrid, 1990. He was awarded many honors, the most important being the award of the State Prize for contribution in the field of kidney transplantation in 1979. From 1980 to 1990 he served as an expert consultant to the Ministry of Health for Nephrology. Professor Erben published more than 260 scientific papers, including 48 in international journals. He was the author of 13 scientific patents, in five as the first author. He organized The First National Nephrology Conference in Hradec Králové, 1969.

Professor Erben became the undisputed leader of Czechoslovak clinical nephrology.

Summary

Professor Erben was a founder of regular dialysis treatment for chronic renal failure in Czechoslovakia. A contribution of Professor Erben to international nephrology was using the subclavian vein for vascular access in hemodialysis (1969). The scientific and research work that Professor Erben performed during his active life will remain the stimulus of the contributions of the next generation of nephrologists. His impact on the field of nephrology in Czechoslovakia was manifold. It included his work in clinical nephrology, his teaching activities, and last but not least his excellent organizing and research abilities. He left a historical impact in the international medical and scientific community.

References

Erben J, Máša J, Macek J et al. A new modification of a monitoring unit with a single pass system for simultaneous hemodialysis. Proc Europ Dial Transplant Ass 1969; 6: 328 -332.
Erben J, Kvasnička J, Groh J, Rose F, Kolff WJ. Colorimetric determination of effective dialysis area of artificial kidney. (Letter to editor). J Amer Med Ass 1967; 202: 166.
Macek J, Erben J, Šidák Z. Consumer hemodialysis coils of Czechoslovak production. Služ Zdravot 1969; 10: 231.
Erben J, Kvasnicka J, Bastecky J et al. Experience with routine use of subclavian vein cannulation in haemodialysis. Proc Europ Dial Transplant Ass 1969; 6: 59-64.
Erben J, Kvasnicka J, Bastecky J et al. Long-term experience with the technique of subclavian and femoral vein cannulation in hemodialysis. Artif Organs. 1979; 3: 241–244.