Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters











Language
Publication year range
1.
Rev Invest Clin ; 72(5)2020 05 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33057321

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is increasing globally due to an aging population and widespread use of imaging studies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics and perioperative outcomes of RCC surgery in very elderly patients (VEP), ≥ 75 years of age. METHODS: This is a retrospective comparative study of 3656 patients who underwent the treatment for RCC from 1990 to 2015 in 28 centers from eight Latin American countries. We compared baseline characteristics as well as clinical and perioperative outcomes according to age groups (less than 75 vs. ≥75 years). Surgical complications were classified with the Clavien-Dindo score. We performed logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with perioperative complications. RESULTS: There were 410 VEP patients (11.2%). On bivariate analysis, VEP had a lower body mass index (p less than 0.01) and higher ASA score (ASA > 2 in 26.3% vs. 12.4%, p < 0.01). There was no difference in performance status and clinical stage between the study groups. There were no differences in surgical margins, estimated blood loss (EBL), complication, and mortality rates (1.3% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.17). On multivariate regression analysis, age ≥75 years (odds ratio [OR] 2.33, p less than 0.01), EBL ≥ 500 cc (OR 3.34, p less than 0.01), and > pT2 stage (OR 1.63, p = 0.04) were independently associated with perioperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical resection of RCC was safe and successful in VEP. Age ≥75 years was independently associated with 30-day perioperative complications. However, the vast majority were low-grade complications. Age alone should not guide decision-making in these patients, and treatment must be tailored according to performance status and severity of comorbidities.

2.
Rev. invest. clín ; 72(5): 308-315, Sep.-Oct. 2020. tab
Article in English | LILACS, UY-BNMED, BNUY | ID: biblio-1289722

ABSTRACT

Background: The incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is increasing globally due to an aging population and widespread use of imaging studies. Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics and perioperative outcomes of RCC surgery in very elderly patients (VEP), ≥75 years of age. Methods: This is a retrospective comparative study of 3656 patients who underwent the treatment for RCC from 1990 to 2015 in 28 centers from eight Latin American countries. We compared baseline characteristics as well as clinical and perioperative outcomes according to age groups (<75 vs.≥ 75 years). Surgical complications were classified with the Clavien-Dindo score. We performed logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with perioperative complications. Results: There were 410 VEP patients (11.2%). On bivariate analysis, VEP had a lower body mass index (p < 0.01) and higher ASA score (ASA >2 in 26.3% vs. 12.4%, p < 0.01). There was no difference in performance status and clinical stage between the study groups. There were no differences in surgical margins, estimated blood loss (EBL), complication, and mortality rates (1.3% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.17). On multivariate regression analysis, age ≥75 years (odds ratio [OR] 2.33, p < 0.01), EBL ≥ 500 cc (OR 3.34, p < 0.01), and > pT2 stage (OR 1.63, p = 0.04) were independently associated with perioperative complications. Conclusions: Surgical resection of RCC was safe and successful in VEP. Age ≥75 years was independently associated with 30-day perioperative complications. However, the vast majority were low-grade complications. Age alone should not guide decision-making in these patients, and treatment must be tailored according to performance status and severity of comorbidities. (REV INVEST CLIN. 2020;72(5):308-15)


Subject(s)
Humans , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Carcinoma, Renal Cell/surgery , Latin America
3.
Nephrol Dial Transplant ; 35(11): 1996-2003, 2020 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31883327

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI) is the most common infectious complication in renal transplant recipients (RTRs). Fosfomycin (FOS) is an attractive alternative for prophylaxis because it does not interact with immunosuppressants; although 90% is excreted unchanged in the urine, it does not require adjustment for renal function for single dose prophylaxis. METHODS: RTRs were recruited into this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Participants were randomized (1:1) to receive one 4 g dose of FOS disodium intravenously 3 h (FOS group) or placebo (placebo group) before placement and removal of a urinary catheter and before removal of a double-J ureteral stent. All participants received prophylaxis with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The main outcome was a comparison of the mean number of symptomatic UTI and asymptomatic bacteriuria (AB) episodes per patient during a 7-week follow-up period. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NTC03235947. RESULTS: Eighty-two participants were included (41 in the FOS group and 41 in placebo group). The mean number of AB or symptomatic UTI episodes per patient was lower in the FOS group [intention-to-treat (ITT) 0.29 versus 0.60, P = 0.04]. The incidence of symptomatic UTI was lower in the FOS group (ITT, 7.3% versus 36.6%, P = 0.001), and there was no difference in the incidence of AB between both groups. The incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: FOS addition is an effective and safe strategy to reduce the number of symptomatic UTIs during the first 7 weeks after renal transplant.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Bacteriuria/drug therapy , Fosfomycin/therapeutic use , Kidney Transplantation/adverse effects , Perioperative Care , Urinary Tract Infections/drug therapy , Adult , Bacteriuria/etiology , Bacteriuria/pathology , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Male , Prognosis , Transplant Recipients , Urinary Tract Infections/etiology , Urinary Tract Infections/pathology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL