Outcomes of end-stage renal disease patients on the waiting list for deceased donor kidney transplantation: A single-center study

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation is an effective renal replacement therapy for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). In this study, we assessed the impact of the baseline characteristics and comorbidities of ESRD patients on the probability of deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) and evaluated the morbidity and mortality during the time spent waiting. METHODS: The study population consisted of 544 ESRD patients on the waiting list for DDKT at Chungnam National University Hospital in South Korea between February 2000 and October 2015. The patients were observed from the date of transplantation list registration to the date of transplantation. Baseline characteristics and comorbidities were investigated together with new-onset comorbidities that occurred during the waiting time. RESULTS: Diabetes mellitus (39.0%), hypertension (25.2%), and glomerulonephritis (21.3%) were the three most common causes of ESRD in this study, and coronary artery disease (9.4%) was the most common comorbidity. The 115 patients (19.3%) who underwent DDKT had a mean waiting time of 1,711 days (768–2,654 days or 4.68 years [2.10–7.27]). Blood groups other than type O, peritoneal dialysis, and nondiabetic ESRD were significantly associated with a higher likelihood of DDKT. Infection was the leading cause of death and the most common comorbidity that arose during the waiting time. Patients who experienced cardiovascular events during the waiting time showed a lower transplant rate compared with those who did not. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of comorbidities was high in renal transplantation candidates. During the often-long waiting time, new comorbidities may occur, with long-term sequelae limiting access to kidney transplantation or resulting in death.

A Case of Management for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Extrahepatic Metastasis by Autologous Natural Killer Cells Combined with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has extremely poor prognosis. Immunotherapy has emerged as a new treatment for a number of cancers. Adoptive immunotherapy is one of the important cancer immunotherapy, which relies on the various lymphocytes including cytotoxic T lymphocytes, natural killer (NK) and cytokine induced killer cells. Also, there has been advance in techniques of NK cell activation to more effectively kill the cancer cells. Of note, recently the blocking antibodies targeting programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) have shown promising results in diverse cancers including HCC. We report our recent experience of a patient accompanying advanced HCC with extrahepatic metastases. Disease progression had occurred after sorafenib administration, while the patient showed local tumor control and tumor marker decrease by NK cell immunotherapy combined with PD-1 inhibitor therapy. Though, there was no definite survival advantage due to impaired liver function, which might be caused by treatment related toxicities as well as cancer progression.

Rhabdomyolysis in a patient taking nebivolol

β Blockers such as propranolol and labetalol are known to induce toxic myopathy because of their partial β₂ adrenoceptor agonistic effect. Nebivolol has the highest β1 receptor affinity among β blockers, and it has never been reported to induce rhabdomyolysis until now. We report a patient who developed rhabdomyolysis after changing medication to nebivolol. A 75-year-old woman was admitted to our hospital because of generalized weakness originating 2 weeks before visiting. Approximately 1 month before her admission, her medication was changed from carvedilol 12.5 mg to nebivolol 5 mg. Over this time span, she had no other lifestyle changes causing rhabdomyolysis. Her blood chemistry and whole body bone scan indicated rhabdomyolysis. We considered newly prescribed nebivolol as a causal agent. She was prescribed carvedilol 12.5 mg, which she was previously taking, instead of nebivolol. She was treated by hydration and urine alkalization. She had fully recovered and was discharged.

Comparison of treatment delay associated with tunneled hemodialysis catheter placement between interventionists

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Fragmented care in nephrology can cause treatment delays. Nephrologists are qualified to perform vascular access-related procedures because they understand the pathophysiology of renal disease and perform physical examination for vascular access. We compared treatment delays associated with tunneled hemodialysis catheter (TDC) placement between interventional radiologists and nephrologists. METHODS: We collected data by radiologists from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011 and by nephrologists from since July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013. We compared the duration from the hemodialysis decision to TDC placement (D-P duration) and hemodialysis initiation (D-H duration), catheter success and the complication rate, and the frequency and the usage time of non-tunneled hemodialysis catheters (NDCs) before TDC placement. RESULTS: The study analyzed 483 placed TDCs: 280 TDCs placed by radiologists and 203 by nephrologists. The D-P durations were 319 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 180 to 1,057) in the radiologist group and 140 minutes (IQR, 0 to 792) in the nephrologist group. Additionally, the D-H durations were 415 minutes (IQR,260 to 1,091) and 275 minutes (IQR, 123 to 598), respectively. These differences were statistically significant (p = 0.00). The TDC success rate (95.3% vs. 94.5%, respectively; p = 0.32) and complication rate (16.2% vs. 11%, respectively; p = 0.11) did not differ between the groups. The frequency (24.5 vs. 26%, respectively; p = 0.72) and the usage time of NDC (8,451 vs. 8,416 minutes, respectively; p = 0.91) before TDC placement were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Trained interventional nephrologists could perform TDC placement safely, minimizing treatment delays.

Overhydration measured by bioimpedance analysis and the survival of patients on maintenance hemodialysis: a single-center study

BACKGROUND: Bioimpedance analysis (BIA) helps measuring the constituents of the body noninvasively. Prior studies suggest that BIA-guided fluid assessment helps to predict survival in dialysis patients. We aimed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of BIA for predicting the survival rate of hemodialysis patients in Korea. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective study. All patients were diagnosed with end-stage renal disorder and started maintenance hemodialysis between June 2009 and April 2014. BIA was performed within the 1st week from the start of hemodialysis. The patients were classified into 2 groups based on volume status measured by the body composition monitor (BCM; Fresenius): an overhydrated group [OG; overhydration/extracellular water (OH/ECW) >15%] and a nonoverhydrated group (NOG; OH/ECW < or =15%). RESULTS: A total of 344 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 252 patients (73.3%) were categorized into the OG and 92 patients (26.7%) into the NOG. Age- and sex-matching patients were selected with a rate of 2:1. Finally, 160 overhydrated patients and 80 nonoverhydrated patients were analyzed. Initial levels of hemoglobin and serum albumin were significantly lower in the OG. During follow-up, 43 patients from the OG and 7 patients from the NOG died (median follow-up duration, 24.0 months). The multivariate-adjusted all-cause mortality was significantly increased in the OG (odds ratio, 2.569; P = 0.033) and older patients (odds ratio, 1.072/y; P < 0.001). No significant difference of all-cause or disease-specific admission rate was observed between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: The ratio of OH/ECW volume measured with body composition monitor is related to the overall survival of end-stage renal disorder patients who started maintenance hemodialysis.