Cinacalcet may reduce arterial stiffness in patients with chronic renal disease and secondary hyperparathyroidism - results of a small-scale, prospective, observational study.

AIMS: This study evaluated the impact of cinacalcet on arterial stiffness, determined by pulse wave velocity (PWV), in patients with chronic renal disease and secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, observational study included, SHPT patients with chronic renal disease on dialysis undergoing cinacalcet treatment with a follow-up of 12 months. RESULTS: 21 patients, 62% males, with a mean age of 51.3 years (± 18.0) were included. Cinacalcet was given for at least a year with a mean daily dose of 35 mg (range 30-60 mg). Aortic PWV significantly decreased after 12 months of cinacalcet treatment (9.35 ± 1.83 m/sg vs. 8.66 ± 1.86 m/sg; p = 0.030). Additionally, there was a notable reduction trend in the left ventricular mass index (166.6 ± 39.4 g/m² vs. 156.1 ± 31.8 g/m²), although it did not achieve statistical significance (p = 0.063). Alkaline phosphatase and PTH were significantly decreased during the study. However, serum calcium, phosphorus and blood pressure remained stable. CONCLUSION: The results of this study support the possibility that cinacalcet reduces arterial stiffness of SHPT patients with chronic renal disease after 12 months of treatment. Prospective, randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these preliminary findings.

Resultados del proyecto de mejora de la calidad de la asistencia en hemodiálisis: estudio multicéntrico de indicadores de calidad de la Sociedad Española de Nefrología (SEN) / No disponible

Introducción: En el año 2002 se creó el grupo de trabajo sobre Calidad en Nefrología de la SEN (CNSEN). Los objetivos de este grupo han sido la identificación, difusión, implantación y consolidación de una herramienta de Gestión de la Calidad en Hemodiálisis, sistemática, objetiva y global, basada en la recopilación de Indicadores de Calidad, las estrategias de retroalimentación (Feedback) y Benchmarking,y el diseño de Planes de Mejora y Evaluación Global. El objetivo de este estudio es presentar los primeros resultados de los indicadores de calidad obtenidos en un grupo de centros españoles, así como evaluar la repercusión de la aplicación de las mencionadas técnicas en los resultados obtenidos. Métodos: Durante 2007 se ha ido incorporando al estudio un total de 28 unidades de hemodiálisis de todo el ámbito nacional. El número total de pacientes evaluados a lo largo del estudio ha sido 2516. Los indicadores han sido recogidos mediante un software informático específico de calidad, que permite calcularlos con facilidad. Los indicadores de cumplimiento se refieren a las siguientes áreas: adecuación de diálisis, anemia, metabolismo mineral y óseo, nutrición, enfermedades víricas, accesos vasculares, mortalidad, morbilidad (ingresos hospitalarios) y trasplante. Cada tres meses los centros reciben sus datos comparados con los del resto del grupo. Resultados: Se detectó una mejora de los resultados a nivel global, excepto en los niveles de hemoglobina. El porcentaje de centros que alcanzaron los estándares definidos por el CNSEN pasó del 65% al 90,9% en el caso del estándar de Kt/V Daugirdas II (> 1,3 en > del 80% de sus pacientes); del 71,4 % al 77,2 % en el caso del estándar de PTH (> 30% de sus pacientes con PTH entre 150 y 300 pg/ml); y del 42,8% al 63,5% en el caso del estándar de fósforo (> 75% de sus pacientes con fósforo < 5,5 mg/dl). Más del 50% de los centros mejoraron sus resultados con respecto al inicio del estudio en todas las áreas analizadas. Los centros que no obtuvieron una mejora en sus resultados partían de porcentajes de cumplimiento de los indicadores significativamente más altos que aquellos que si lograron mejorarlos (80,6 ± 15,4 versus 71,8 ± 16,6 respectivamente; p < 0,001). Conclusiones: Estamos avanzando en lo referente al conocimiento de los resultados de la hemodiálisis, aunque el trabajo pendiente todavía es extenso. La monitorización de indicadores de calidad respecto a un estándar, y su puesta en común con otros centros puede contribuir a la mejora de resultados y a la disminución en la variabilidad entre centros (AU)

Introduction: The Spanish Society of Nephrology «Quality in Nephrology Working Group» (QNWG) was created in 2002. The aims of this group are the identification, diffusion, implementation and consolidation of a systematic, objective and comprehensive set of quality performance measures (QPMs) to help along the improvement of patient care and outcomes on hemodialysis, by means of strategies of feedback and benchmarking, and the design of quality improvement projects. The objective of this study is to present the preliminary results of a set of quality performance measures obtained in a group of Spanish hemodialysis centers, as well as to evaluate the repercussion of the application of the aforementioned thecniques on the observed results. Methods: During 2007 a total of 28 hemodialysis units participated in the study; 2,516 patients were evaluated. A specific software was designed and used to facilitate the calculation of CPMs in each unit. The clinical indicators used refered to dialysis adequacy; anemia; mineral metabolisme; nutrition; viral infections; vascular access; mortality, morbidity (number and days of hospital admissions); and renal transplant. Every three months each center received its own data and its comparison with the rest of the group. Results: Except for hemoglobin levels we observed a global improvement. The percentage of centers reaching the stablished standards defined by the QNWG passed from 65% to 90.9% for Kt/V Daugirdas II (> 1.3 in > that 80% of the patients); from 71.4% to 77.2% for PTH (> 30% of patients with serum PTH between 150 and 300 pg/ml); and from 42.8% to 63.5% for phosphate (> 75% of patients with a serum phsphate < 5.5 mg/dl). More than 50% of centers showed an improvement in their final results as compared with their own initial results in all analyzed CPMs. Those centers that did not obtained an improvement in their results started the study with better percentages of acomplishment than those that showed a significant improvement in QPMs. (80.6 ± 15.4 versus 71.8 ± 16.6 respectively; p < 0.001). Conclusions: We are starting to make progresses in our knowledge of clinical results in our hemodialysis units, although there is still a long way to go over. To monitor and share CPMs results within hemodialysis centers might help to improve their results as well as to reduce intecenters variability (AU)

[Preliminary results of the Spanish Society of Nephrology multicenter study of quality performance measures: hemodialysis outcomes can be improved]. / Resultados del proyecto de mejora de la calidad de la asistencia en hemodiálisis: estudio multicéntrico de indicadores de calidad de la Sociedad Española de Nefrología (SEN).

INTRODUCTION: The Spanish Society of Nephrology "Quality in Nephrology Working Group" (QNWG) was created in 2002. The aims of this group are the identification, diffusion, implementation and consolidation of a systematic, objective and comprehensive set of quality performance measures (QPMs) to help along the improvement of patient care and outcomes on hemodialysis, by means of strategies of feedback and benchmarking, and the design of quality improvement projects. The objective of this study is to present the preliminary results of a set of quality performance measures obtained in a group of Spanish hemodialysis centers, as well as to evaluate the repercussion of the application of the aforementioned thecniques on the observed results. METHODS: During 2007 a total of 28 hemodialysis units participated in the study; 2516 patients were evaluated. A specific software was designed and used to facilitate the calculation of CPMs in each unit. The clinical indicators used refered to dialysis adequacy; anemia; mineral metabolisme; nutrition; viral infections; vascular access; mortality, morbidity (number and days of hospital admissions); and renal transplant. Every three months each center received its own data and its comparison with the rest of the group. RESULTS: Except for hemoglobin levels we observed a global improvement. The percentage of centers reaching the stablished standards defined by the QNWG passed from 65% to 90,9% for Kt/V Daugirdas II (> 1,3 in > that 80% of the patients); from 71,4 % to 77,2 % for PTH (> 30 % of patients with serum PTH between 150 and 300 pg/ml); and from 42,8 % to 63,5 % for phosphate (> 75 % of patients with a serum phsphate < 5,5 mg/dl). More than 50% of centers showed an improvement in their final results as compared with their own initial results in all analyzed CPMs. Those centers that did not obtained an improvement in their results started the study with better percentages of acomplishment than those that showed a significant improvement in QPMs. (80,6+/-15,4 versus 71,8+/-16,6 respectively; p<0,001) CONCLUSIONS: We are starting to make progresses in our knowledge of clinical results in our hemodialysis units, although there is still a long way to go over. To monitor and share CPMs results within hemodialysis centers might help to improve their results as well as to reduce intecenters variability.

Metabolic index in peritoneal dialysis.

To define protein anabolism or catabolism in our patients we retrospectively studied the 24-hour balances (B24 h), dietary protein intake (DPI), anthropometric parameters [body mass index (BMI), tricipital skin fold thickness (TF), and muscular arm circumference (MAC), using the rating scheme: undernourished (U): percentile (pc) < 15; normal (N): pc > 15 to pc < 85; obese (O): pc > 85], and urea kinetics (protein equivalent of nitrogen appearance) [PNA = PCR according to the Gotch-Borah (G), Blumenkrantz (B), and Randerson (R) formulas]. Nitrogen-balance [N-B = DPI(N)-PNA(N)], metabolic ratio (MR = DPI/PNA), and metabolic index (MI = IDPI/nPNA) were calculated as metabolic indicators. There were 215 evaluations (B24 h) in 44 patients, of whom 29 were male and 15 female, 35 on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (PD), 9 on automated PD, age 58.2 +/- 15.6 years, followed-up for 15.3 +/- 10.2 months. Undernourished patients (BMI) showed higher N-B, MR, and MI irrespective of the formula used, but MR was only significant using the Blumenkrantz formula. For N-balance and metabolic index, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was significant with all formulas. The mean metabolic index (Randerson) in subgroups was: U: 1.09 +/- 0.27, n = 54; N: 0.90 +/- 0.25, n = 135; O: 0.87 +/- 0.27, n = 26 (ANOVA: P < 0.0001). The U-N and U-O subgroup comparison was significant (Newman-Keuls P < 0.01). We concluded that: (1) The metabolic index is more discriminating for protein metabolism than N-balance or metabolic ratio. (2) Most of the undernourished patients (BMI) are anabolic according to metabolic index and N-balance, and this indicates recovery. (3) Undernourished (low BMI) patients with metabolic index < 1 deserve special attention due to the risk of remaining malnourished.