"Can I go to Glasgow?" Learnings from patient involvement at the 17th Congress of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD).

BACKGROUND: Recognition of the discrepancy between the research priorities of patients and health professionals has prompted efforts to involve patients as active contributors in research activities, including scientific conferences. However, there is limited evidence about the experience, challenges, and impacts of patient involvement to inform best practice. This study aims to describe patient and health professional perspectives on patient involvement at the Congress of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 patients/caregivers and 15 health professionals from six countries who attended ISPD. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and transcripts were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: We identified four themes: protecting and enhancing scientific learning (grounding science in stories, sharing and inspiring new perspectives, distilling the key messages of research presentations, striking a balance between accommodating patients and presenting the science); democratizing access to research (redistributing power, challenging the traditional ownership of knowledge, cultivating self-management through demystifying research); inadequate support for patient/caregiver delegates (lacking purposeful inclusion, challenges in interpreting research findings, soliciting medical advice, difficulty negotiating venue and program, limited financial assistance in attending); and amplifying impact beyond the room (sparking innovation in practice, giving patients and families hope for the future). CONCLUSIONS: Patient involvement at the ISPD Congress clarified the applicability of research to patient care and self-management, democratized science, and strengthened the potential impact of research. More structured support for patients to help them purposefully articulate their experience in relation to session objectives may enhance their contribution and their own learning experience.

Flexitrate regional citrate anticoagulation in continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Flexitrate, an innovative regional citrate anticoagulation (RCA) protocol, was compared to traditional RCA (tRCA) and Heparin anticoagulation protocols in intensive care patients treated with continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). METHODS: A single-center, retrospective, cohort study, was done in a 26-bed intensive care unit in a large community hospital. Eighty dialysis sessions (Flexitrate = 2852 h, tRCA = 3580 h and Heparin = 2026 h), performed in 53 patients, were evaluated for filter life, RCA control, and metabolic control. RESULTS: In the Flexitrate cohort, 3.8% of filters clotted, compared to 16.9% with tRCA and 28.3% with Heparin (p < 0.001 for Flexitrate compared to either tRCA or Heparin). Filter survival was significantly improved with Flexitrate compared to tRCA (HR 0.24, p = 0.018) or Heparin (HR 0.14, p = 0.004). Anticoagulation control was superior with Flexitrate with Patient Ionized Calcium out of target a median of 16% of the time, compared to 27% for tRCA (p < 0.001). Filter Ionized Calcium was out of target a median of 6.8% of the time, compared to 23% for tRCA (p = 0.03). Flexitrate produced significantly less alkalosis, hypernatremia, and hypocalcemia than tRCA, and overall metabolic control was comparable to Heparin anticoagulation. The only adverse metabolic outcome with Flexitrate was increased hypomagnesemia. CONCLUSIONS: The Flexitrate protocol extended filter life, delivered more consistent anticoagulation, and provided superior metabolic control compared to a tRCA protocol. Filter life was superior to Heparin anticoagulation, with similar metabolic control. A randomized control trial comparing these protocols is recommended.

Role of oral iron in the management of long-term hemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: The literature contends that oral iron supplementation is relatively ineffective in patients who are on long-term hemodialysis (HD), and intravenous iron is the superior form of supplementation. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASUREMENTS: Data were prospectively abstracted from a cross-sectional cohort of all patients in the long-term in-center HD program at St. Michael's Hospital (SMH) from April 1, 2003, to April 1, 2004. Laboratory data were measured monthly. SMH data were compared with those in eight other centers in the Toronto Region Dialysis Registry. RESULTS: A total of 93% of the 151 patients tolerated oral iron. Eighty-eight (58%) patients received oral iron exclusively, and 60 (40%) patients received intravenous iron with or without oral iron. Of the patients who received oral iron exclusively, 73% maintained a hemoglobin of > or =110 g/L and 93% maintained a hemoglobin of > or =100 g/L. A total of 74% had an iron saturation > or =20%, and 36% had a ferritin level >100 g/L. Among the patients who were on oral iron alone and had hemoglobin of > or =110 g/L, the same amount of erythropoietin was used regardless of ferritin levels (P = 0.17), but less erythropoietin was used when they reached the target for either iron saturation or both iron indices (P = 0.02 and 0.03, respectively). Among the centers in the Toronto Region Dialysis Registry, hemoglobin levels and erythropoietin dosages did not differ among the three centers that predominantly used oral iron versus the six centers that predominantly use intravenous iron (P = 0.46 and 0.95, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Oral iron is a well-tolerated and effective form of iron supplementation in long-term HD patients.