[Risk factors and rejection frequency in patients undergoing penetrating keratoplasty]. / Factores de riesgo y frecuencia de rechazo en pacientes con queratoplastia penetrante.

BACKGROUND: Corneal transplantation is one of the surgical procedures most frequently performed worldwide and with better prognosis. Among its main indications include: keratoconus, bullous keratopathy, previous graft rejection, corneal dystrophy, and infection. The known risk factors for graft rejection are: recipient's age, presence of vessels in the recipient cornea, intraocular pressure, and retransplantation. The objective of this article is to determine the risk factors and frequency of corneal rejection in patients undergoing penetrant keratoplasty. METHODS: The study's design was descriptive, observational, transversal, analytical and retrospective. Patients operated of penetrating keratoplasty in cornea clinic with follow up during at least 6 months were studied. A review of the medical records of patients undergoing penetrating keratoplasty at the Hospital de Especialidades del Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI was performed. RESULTS: The 35.3 % of the transplanted patients had corneal transplant rejection. Corneal neovascularization of the recipient cornea previous to transplant was present in 21.3 %. CONCLUSIONS: In our study we found similar results to the reported in the literature, the most important risk factors for rejection was the use of threphine 7.50 mm, older patient with a history with previous corneal neovascularization, keratopathy and herpetic keratitis.

Introducción: el trasplante de córnea representa uno de los procedimientos quirúrgicos que con mayor frecuencia se realizan en todo el mundo y de los que tienen un mejor pronóstico. Dentro de sus principales indicaciones se encuentran: el queratocono, la queratopatía bullosa, el rechazo corneal previo, la distrofia corneal y la infección. Los factores de riesgo conocidos para rechazo del trasplante son: edad del receptor, presencia de vasos en la córnea receptora, presión intraocular y retrasplante. El objetivo de este artículo es determinar los factores de riesgo y la frecuencia de rechazo corneal en pacientes sometidos a queratoplastia penetrante. Métodos: el diseño del estudio fue descriptivo, observacional, transversal, retrospectivo y analítico. Se estudiaron los pacientes operados de queratoplastia penetrante en la consulta externa de córnea, con seguimiento mínimo de 6 meses. Se llevó a cabo una revisión de expedientes clínicos de pacientes operados de queratoplastia penetrante en Hospital de Especialidades del Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI del IMSS. Resultados: del total de los pacientes trasplantados 35.3 % presentaron rechazo del trasplante corneal. La neovascularización corneal previa al trasplante de la corona receptora estuvo presente en 21.3 %. Conclusiones: en nuestro estudio encontramos resultados similares a los reportados en la literatura, siendo los factores de riesgo más importantes para presentar rechazo: el uso de trépanos mayores a 7.50 mm, paciente con antecedentes de neovascularización corneal previa, queratopatía y queratitis herpética.

Volaemic status and dyspepsia in end-stage renal disease patients.

AIM: Studies in animals show a relationship between extracellular volume and gastrointestinal motility. End-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients present fluid overload and frequent dyspeptic symptoms. We looked for an association between volaemic status and dyspepsia among ESRD patients undergoing haemodialysis (HD). METHODS: We studied 155 ESRD patients on HD. Their volaemic status was evaluated using bioimpedance analysis. Fluid overload (FO) in litres and relative fluid overload (rFO) in percentage were calculated. rFO > 15% was classified as hypervolaemia. Dyspepsia was assessed through the Porto Alegre Dyspeptic Symptoms Questionnaire (PADYQ). PADYQ scores equal to or greater than 6 classified patients as dyspeptic. Characteristics of patients with and without dyspepsia were compared. Pearson's test was used to test the correlation between continuous variables. Multivariate linear and logistic regressions were performed to test FO as predictor of dyspepsia score and the presence of dyspepsia. RESULTS: There were 64 (41.2%) patients with dyspepsia. Dyspeptics presented higher FO (2.5 ± 1.8 L vs 1.0 ± 1.8 L; P < 0.001) and higher rFO (16 ± 9.9% vs 4.8 ± 12.0%; P < 0.001). Dyspepsia score was positively correlated with FO (r = 0.300; P < 0.001) and with rFO (r = 0.256; P = 0.001). There were more patients with hypervolaemia among dyspeptics compared to non-dyspeptics (65.6% vs 17.6%; P < 0.001). FO was an independent predictor of dyspepsia score (b = 1.036; P < 0.001) and the presence of dyspepsia (OR = 2.00, 95% CI = 1.55-2.50; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Hypervolaemia is associated with dyspepsia among ESRD patients on HD.

Comparison of baseline data between chronic kidney disease patients starting hemodialysis who live near and far from the dialysis center.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment offered to chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients before starting hemodialysis (HD) impacts prognosis. OBJECTIVE: We seek differences among incident HD patients according to the distance between home and the dialysis center. METHODS: We included 179 CKD patients undergoing HD. Patients were stratified in two groups: "living near the dialysis center" (patients whose hometown was in cities up to 100 km from the dialysis center) or as "living far from the dialysis center" (patients whose hometown was more than 100 km from the dialysis center). Socioeconomic status, laboratory results, awareness of CKD before starting HD, consultation with nephrologist before the first HD session, and type of vascular access when starting HD were compared between the two groups. Comparisons of continuous and categorical variables were performed using Student's t-test and the Chi-square test, respectively. RESULTS: Ninety (50.3%) patients were classified as "living near the dialysis center" and 89 (49.7%) as "living far from the dialysis center". Patients living near the dialysis center were more likely to know about their condition of CKD than those living far from the dialysis center, respectively 46.6% versus 28.0% (p = 0.015). Although without statistical significance, patients living near the dialysis center had more frequent previous consultation with nephrologists (55.5% versus 42.6%; p = 0.116) and first HD by fistula (30.0% versus 19.1%; p = 0.128) than those living far from the dialysis center. CONCLUSION: There are potential advantages of CKD awareness, referral to nephrologists and starting HD through fistula among patients living near the dialysis center.

Comparison of baseline data between chronic kidney disease patients starting hemodialysis who live near and far from the dialysis center / Comparação dos dados de base entre pacientes com doença renal crônica que iniciam hemodiálise que moram perto e longe da unidade de diálise

Introduction: The treatment offered to chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients before starting hemodialysis (HD) impacts prognosis. Objective: We seek differences among incident HD patients according to the distance between home and the dialysis center. Methods: We included 179 CKD patients undergoing HD. Patients were stratified in two groups: "living near the dialysis center" (patients whose hometown was in cities up to 100 km from the dialysis center) or as "living far from the dialysis center" (patients whose hometown was more than 100 km from the dialysis center). Socioeconomic status, laboratory results, awareness of CKD before starting HD, consultation with nephrologist before the first HD session, and type of vascular access when starting HD were compared between the two groups. Comparisons of continuous and categorical variables were performed using Student's t-test and the Chi-square test, respectively. Results: Ninety (50.3%) patients were classified as "living near the dialysis center" and 89 (49.7%) as "living far from the dialysis center". Patients living near the dialysis center were more likely to know about their condition of CKD than those living far from the dialysis center, respectively 46.6% versus 28.0% (p = 0.015). Although without statistical significance, patients living near the dialysis center had more frequent previous consultation with nephrologists (55.5% versus 42.6%; p = 0.116) and first HD by fistula (30.0% versus 19.1%; p = 0.128) than those living far from the dialysis center. Conclusion: There are potential advantages of CKD awareness, referral to nephrologists and starting HD through fistula among patients living near the dialysis center. .

Introdução: O tratamento da doença renal crônica (DRC) anterior ao início da hemodiálise (HD) tem impacto sobre o prognóstico. Objetivo: Comparar diferenças entre pacientes incidentes em HD de acordo com a distância entre moradia e a unidade de diálise. Métodos: Foram incluídos 179 pacientes com DRC em HD. Os pacientes foram divididos em dois grupos: "residentes perto da unidade de diálise" (moradia até 100 km da unidade de diálise) e "residentes longe da unidade de diálise" (moradia a mais de 100 km da unidade de diálise). Nível socioeconômico, resultados laboratoriais, conhecimento sobre DRC antes de iniciar HD, consulta com nefrologista antes da primeira sessão de HD e tipo de acesso vascular ao iniciar HD foram comparados entre os dois grupos. As comparações entre variáveis contínuas e categóricas foram feitas pelos testes t de Student e qui-quadrado, respectivamente. Resultados: Noventa (50,3%) pacientes foram classificados como "morando perto" e 89 (49,7%) "morando longe". Havia mais pacientes morando perto da unidade de diálise com conhecimento sobre DRC do que os pacientes morando longe, respectivamente, 46,6% versus 28,0% (p = 0,015). Mesmo sem significado estatístico, havia mais pacientes morando perto da unidade de diálise que se consultaram previamente com nefrologista (55,5% versus 42,6%; p = 0,116) e que iniciaram HD por fístula (30,0% versus 191,1%; p = 0,128) do que os pacientes morando longe. Conclusão: Existem vantagens potenciais em relação ao conhecimento da DRC, encaminhamento ao nefrologista e início de HD por fístula entre os pacientes que moram perto da unidade de diálise. .

Estudio comparativo entre el tratamiento de la uveítis autoinmune con prednisona y con ciclofosfamida y azatioprina / Conparative study between the treatment of the autoimune uveitis with prednisona and with ciclofosfamida and azatioprina

Antecedentes: la uveítis es una enfermedad autoinmune que compromete cualquier estructura interna del globo ocular; su característica principal es la inflamación intraocular. Objetivo: determinar cuál es la opción terapéutica más efectiva en contra de la uveítis autoinmune: ciclofosfamida, azatioprina o prednisona. Material y métodos: pacientes de uno y otro sexo entre 16 y 65 años de edad con diagnóstico de uveítis autoinmune (anterior, intermedia y posterior), a quienes se les realizó historia clínica, exploración física y estudios clínicos. Se les solicitó su consentimiento informado por escrito y se asignaron al azar a tres grupos de tratamiento: grupo 1 (azatioprina) 14 (42.4 por ciento) pacientes; grupo 2 (prednisona) 15 (45.5 por ciento) pacientes, y grupo 3 (ciclofosfamida) 4 (12.1 por ciento) pacientes. Se realizaron observaciones doble ciego y valoraciones al día 0 y a las semanas 1, 2, 4 y 6 de tratamiento. Resultados: de 33 pacientes estudiados 13 (39.4 por ciento) fueron hombres y 20 (60.6 por ciento) mujeres, el diagnóstico más frecuente fue uveítis por toxoplasmosis. Se observó un control mejor y más rápido de la inflamación a las 6.2 semanas en la cámara anterior con 100 mg/día de azatioprina con p < 0.0001, para prednisona: p = .000 y para ciclofosfamida: p = 135. En la cámara posterior no se observaron cambios inflamatorios significativos para los tres grupos con p =.353. Los efectos adversos observados con más frecuencia ocurrieron en el grupo de prednisona con p < 0.05 en 24.2 por ciento, caracterizados por neutropenia e infección de las vías urinarias. Conclusiones: la azatioprina, a dosis de 100 mg/día oral durante seis semanas, se considera el medicamento más eficaz, ya que demostró disminución significativa del proceso inflamatorio en menor tiempo, con menos efectos colaterales y con conservación de la agudeza visual.