Smart Flow for the evaluation of the hemodialysis arteriovenous fistula.

BACKGROUND: Smart Flow is an innovative tool available on the Carestream Touch Prime Ultrasound machines, which provides automated blood flow measurement and shows the vectors that form the blood flow in the vessel. We compared the use of Smart Flow with traditional Duplex Doppler Ultrasound to evaluate blood flow of arteriovenous fistulas in prevalent hemodialysis patients. METHODS: A total of 31 chronic patients on hemodialysis were enrolled. Blood flow was measured on the brachial artery with Smart Flow and duplex Doppler ultrasound. In a subset of 26 patients, a video of the juxta-anastomotic efferent vein was recorded and analyzed to calculate an index of flow turbulence. RESULTS: We enrolled 21 males and 10 females aged 68.52 ± 11.64 years at the time of evaluation with an average arteriovenous fistulas vintage of 50.23 ± 47.42 months and followed them up for 18.03 ± 5.18 months. Smart Flow and Duplex Doppler Ultrasound blood flow measurements positively correlated (p < 0.0001) in the same patient but Smart Flow gave higher blood flow values (995.0 vs 730.3 mL/min, p < 0.0001), and the Duplex Doppler Ultrasound blood flow standard deviation was similar to Smart Flow (125.4 vs 114.4 mL/min, p < 0.0001). The time needed to evaluate arteriovenous fistulas with Smart Flow was significantly shorter than Duplex Doppler Ultrasound (67.58 ± 19.89 vs 146.3 ± 26.35 s, p < 0.0001). No correlation was found between blood flow turbulence and the subsequent access failure. CONCLUSION: Smart Flow is reliable, reproducible, and faster than traditional duplex ultrasound. However, the additional information given by the Smart Flow technique does not seem to add any further benefits in terms of prediction of the access failure.

Safety and adequacy of percutaneous kidney biopsy performed by nephrology trainees.

BACKGROUND: Recently there has been a progressive loss of specialty related skills for nephrologists. Among the skills we find the kidney biopsy that has a central role in diagnosis of renal parenchymal disease. One of the causes might be the belief that the kidney biopsy should be performed only in larger Centers which can rely on the presence of a renal pathologist and on nephrologists with a large experience. This trend may increase in the short term procedural safety but may limit the chance of in training nephrologists to become confident with the technique. METHODS: We evaluated renal biopsies performed from May 2002 to October 2016 in our Hospital, a mid-sized facility to determine whether the occurrence of complications would be comparable to those reported in literature and whether the increase in the number of biopsy performing physicians including nephrology fellows which took place since January 2012, after our Nephrology Unit became academic, would be associated to an increase of complications or a reduction of diagnostic power of renal biopsies. Three hundred thirty seven biopsies were evaluated. Patients underwent ultrasound guided percutaneous renal biopsy using a 14 G core needle loaded on a biopsy gun. Observation lasted for 24 h, we evaluated hemoglobin levels 6 and 24 h and kidney ultrasound 24 h after the biopsy. RESULTS: Complications occurred in 18.7% of patients, of these only 1,2% were major complications. Complications were more common in female (28%) compared to male patients (14,8%) (p = 0.004). We found no correlation between diagnosis, kidney function and complication rates; hypertension was not associated to a higher risk in complications. The increase of biopsy performing personnel was not associated to an increase in complication rates (18,7% both pre and post 2012) or with an increase of major complications (1.2% vs 1,2%). CONCLUSIONS: Kidney biopsy can be safely performed in mid-sized hospitals. Safety and adequacy are guaranteed even if the procedure is performed by a larger number of less experienced nephrologists as long as under tutor supervision, thus kidney biopsy should become an integral part of a nephrology fellow training allowing more widespread diffusion of this technique.

Loss of renal function in the elderly Italians: a physiologic or pathologic process?

BACKGROUND: Nowadays it seems that chronic kidney disease (CKD) is outbreaking, mostly in the elderly participants. The aim of this study was to assess the progression of CKD in different ages. METHODS: We conducted a monocentric, retrospective, observational study enrolling 116 patients afferent to our outpatient clinic. INCLUSION CRITERIA: age >18 years, follow-up ≥5 years, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60mL/min/1.73 m(2), and/or diagnosed renal disease and/or presence of renal damage. Patients were divided into four groups according to their age: 25-55 years (n = 27), 56-65 (25), 66-75 (42), and 76-87 (22). eGFR was calculated using the modification of diet in renal disease and the CKD-epidemiology collaboration formulas. RESULTS: Younger patients had a significantly longer follow-up and less comorbidities, evaluated by the cumulative illness rating scale score, compared with the other groups. There was no difference between creatinine at baseline and at the end-of-follow-up period among the groups. Even though renal function significantly decreased in all groups, we noticed a slower progression as the age increased, and the difference between basal and end-of-follow-up eGFR was minimal in the group of patients aged 76-87 years. Analyzing the eGFR of every ambulatory control plotted against the year of follow-up, we showed a more rapid loss of filtrate in the younger group. Instead, loss of renal function decreased as the age of patients increased. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that, in elderly Italian participants, progression of CKD occurs more slowly than in younger patients. This implies that we may probably face an epidemic of CKD but that most of elderly patients diagnosed with CKD may not evolve to end-stage renal disease and require renal replacement therapy.