Lung ultrasonography performed by nephrologist: COVID-19 as an opportunity to reveal ultrasound's full potential and usefulness in the dialysis room.

Background: Interest in point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) and lung ultrasound (LUS) is growing in the nephrology and dialysis field, and the number of nephrologists skilled in what is proving to be the "5th pillar of bedside physical examination" is increasing. Patients on hemodialysis (HD) are at high risk of contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) and developing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serious complications. Despite this, to our knowledge there are no studies to date that show the role of LUS in this setting, while there are many in the emergency room, where LUS proved to be an important tool, providing risk stratification and guiding management strategies and resource allocation. Therefore, it is not clear whether the usefulness and cut-offs of LUS highlighted in studies in the general population are reliable in dialysis, or whether variations, precautions and adjustments to this specific situation are necessary. Methods: This was a 1-year monocentric prospective observational cohort study of 56 HD patients with COVID-19. Patients underwent a monitoring protocol that included at first evaluation bedside LUS, using a 12-scan scoring system, by the same nephrologist. All data were prospectively and systematically collected. Outcomes. hospitalization rate, combined outcome [non-invasive ventilation (NIV + death)], mortality. Descriptive variables are presented as medians (interquartile range), or percentage. Univariate and multivariate analysis, as well as Kaplan-Meier (K-M) survival curves, were carried out. P was fixed at .05. Results: Median age was 78 years, 90% had at least one comorbidity (46% diabetics), 55% were hospitalized and 23% deaths. Median duration of disease was 23 days (14-34). A LUS score ≥11 represented a 13-fold risk of hospitalization, a 16.5-fold risk of combined outcome (NIV + death) vs risk factors such as age [odds ratio (OR) 1.6], diabetes (OR 1.2), male sex (OR 1.3) and obesity (OR 1.25), and a 7.7-fold risk of mortality. In the logistic regression, LUS score ≥11 is associated with the combined outcome with a hazard ratio (HR) of 6.1 vs inflammations indices such as CRP ≥9 mg/dL (HR 5.5) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) ≥62 pg/mL (HR 5.4). In K-M curves, survival drops significantly with LUS score above 11. Conclusions: In our experience of COVID-19 HD patients, LUS appeared to be an effective and easy tool, predicting the need for NIV and mortality better than "classic" known COVID-19 risk factors such as age, diabetes, male sex and obesity, and even better than inflammations indices such as CRP and IL-6. These results are consistent with those of the studies in the emergency room setting, but with a lower LUS score cut-off (11 vs 16-18). This is probably due to the higher global frailty and peculiarity of HD population, and emphasizes how nephrologists should themselves use LUS and POCUS as a part of their everyday clinical practice, adapting it to the peculiarity of the HD ward.

Increase of continuous treatments and regional citrate anticoagulation during renal replacement therapy in the ICUs of the North-West of Italy from 2007 to 2015.

BACKGROUND: Few reports have addressed the change in renal replacement therapy (RRT) management in the Intensive care Units (ICUs) over the years in western countries. This study aims to assess the trend of dialytic practice in a 4.5-million population-based study of the northwest of Italy. METHODS: A nine-year survey covering all the RRT provided in the ICUs. Consultant nephrologists of the 26 Nephrology and Dialysis centers reported their activities in the years 2007, 2009, 2012, and 2015. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2015 the patients treated increased from 1042 to 1139, and the incidence of RRT from 254 to 263 cases/10^6 inhabitants. The workload for dialysis center was higher in the larger hub hospitals. RRT for acute kidney injury (AKI), continuation of treatment in chronically dialyzed patients, or extrarenal indications accounted for about the stable rate of 70, 25 and 5% of all RRT sessions, respectively. Continuous modality days increased from 2731 days (39.5%) in 2007 to 5076 (70.6%) in 2015, when the continuous+prolonged treatment days were 6880/7196 (95.6% of total days). As to RRT timing, in 2015 only the classical clinical criteria, and no K-DIGO stage were adopted by most Centers. As to RRT interruption, in 2015 urine volume was the first criterion. Implementation of citrate anticoagulation (RCA) for RRT patients significantly increased from 2.8% in 2007 to 30.9% in 2015, when it was applied in all 26 Centers. CONCLUSIONS: From 2007 to 2015, current practice has changed towards shared protocols, with increasing continuous modality and RCA implementation.

[COVID-19 recurrence due to reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 in a hemodialysis patient: there and back again].

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused millions of infections and deaths so far. After recovery, the possibility of reinfection has been reported. Patients on hemodialysis are at high risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 and developing serious complications. Furthermore, they are a relatively hypo-anergic population, in which the development and duration of the immune and antibody response is still partially unknown. This may play a role in the possible susceptibility to reinfection. To date, only 3 cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection from strains prior to the Omicron variant in patients on chronic hemodialysis have been reported in literature. In all of them, the first infection was detected by screening in the absence of symptoms, potentially indicating a poor immune response, and there are no data about the antibody titre developed. We report a case of recurrence of COVID-19 in 2020 - first infection likely from Wuhan strain; reinfection likely from English variant (Alpha) after 7 months - in a hemodialysis patient with clinical symptoms and pulmonary ultrasound abnormalities. Swabs were negative in the interval between episodes (therefore excluding any persistence of positivity) and the lack of antibody protection after the first infection was documented by the serological test. The role of the potential lack - or rapid loss - of immune protection following exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in hemodialysis patients needs to be better defined, also in consideration of the anti-COVID vaccination campaign and the arrival of the Omicron variant, which appears to elude the immunity induced by vaccines and by previous variants. For this purpose, prospective multicenter studies are in progress in several European countries. This case also highlights the need for a careful screening with nasopharyngeal swabs in dialysis rooms, even after patients overcome infection and/or are vaccinated.

[Severe hyperkalemia in patients referred to an emergency departement: the role of antialdosterone drugs and of renin-angiotensin system blockers]. / Iperpotassiemia severa in pazienti afferenti ad un pronto soccorso: ruolo degli antagonisti dell'aldosterone e dei modulatori del sistema renina-angiotensina.

We analyzed the clinical features and the factors associated with the presence of hyperkalemia (serum potassium >5.3 mmol/L) in a cohort of patients presenting to an Emergency Department. A total of 168 cases were observed (89 males and 79 females), mean age 77.512 years. Fifty-six patients were diabetics (33.3%), 51 patients had chronic kidney disease (30%) and 36 patients with cardiac failure (21.4%). Sixty-nine patients (41%) were treated with RAS-blockers (ACE-I n = 50; ARBs, n = 19). 65 subjects were taking loop diuretics (39%), 17 (10%) thiazides. Thirty-one (18%) were assuming antialdosterone drugs; 16 (52%) out of these had a positive history of heart failure and 14 (41%) had a positive history of chronic kidney disease. In 85 cases (51%) patients were receiving an ACE/ARB or an antialdosterone drug. In 125 patients (74%) eGFR at presentation was <60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Serum potassium values were significantly higher in patients treated with both ACE/ARB and antialdosterone drugs. In 20 cases (12%) serum potassium was 6.5 mmol/L; these patients assumed antialdosterone drugs more frequently, alone and mostly in association with ACE-I/ARBs (65% vs 7%; p<0.0001). The simultaneous assumption of ACE-I/ARBs and antialdosterone drugs emerges as the major cause of severe hyperkalemia in our cases, thus confirming the warnings about this association in the presence of advanced age and reduced glomerular filtration rate.

Hemodynamic response to coupled plasmafiltration-adsorption in human septic shock.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to examine the effect of repeated applications of coupled plasmafiltration-adsorption on the hemodynamic response in septic shock patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs). DESIGN: Prospective, intention-to-treat. SETTING: General ICU of a tertiary care, non-teaching, 400-bed, city hospital. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Twelve consecutive mechanically ventilated septic shock patients, with or without concomitant acute renal failure (ARF). INTERVENTION: A median of 10 consecutive sessions (prescribed treatment time: 10 h/session; delivered duration: 8.43+/-1.37 h/min) of coupled plasmafiltration-adsorption for each patient. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Mean arterial pressure (77.2+/-12.5 [CI 95%; 74.5-79.8] vs. 83.3+/-14.1 [CI 95%; 80.3-86.3] mm Hg; [ p<0.001]), cardiac index (4.03+/-0.89 [CI 95%; 3.83-4.22] vs. 3.46+/-0.82 [CI 95%; 3.28-3.64] L/m(2)/min; [ p<0.001]), systemic vascular resistance index (1,388+/-496 [CI 95%; 1,278-1,497] vs. 1,753+/-516 [CI 95%; 1,639-1,867] dynes x s/cm(5); [ p<0.001]), PO2/FIO2 ratio (204+/-87 [CI 95%; 185-223] vs. 238+/-82 [CI 95%; 220-256]; [ p<0.001]), significantly improved during 100 global treatments (pre- vs. post-treatment values). Intra-thoracic blood volume and extra-vascular lung water did not change across treatments. Vasopressor requirement was reduced: norepinephrine decrease from an infusion rate of 0.13+/-0.07 (CI 95%; 0.06-0.16) to 0 gamma/kg/min after a mean of 5.3+/-2.7 sessions. C reactive protein (CRP) significantly decreased (from 29.3+/-7.3 vs. 7.9+/-4.8; p<0.0001) during treatment. Survival was 90% at day 28 and 70% at day 90. CONCLUSION: Coupled plasmafiltration-adsorption was a feasible and safe extracorporeal treatment and exerted a remarkable improvement in the hemodynamics, the pulmonary function, and the outcome in septic shock patients with or without concomitant ARF.