[Kt calculation as a quality indicator of haemodialysis adequacy]. / Cálculo del Kt como indicador de calidad en el área de adecuación en hemodiálisis.

The haemodialysis dose is a good marker of dialysis adequacy, and we usually monitor it with Kt/V measure. The dialysis dose monitored with Kt allows a better discrimination, detecting a percentage of the patients that perhaps do not get an adequate dose for their gender or body surface area after treatment with a minimum recommended dose of Kt/V. The objective of this study was to evaluate Kt as a clinical indicator referred to dialysis adequacy in the haemodialysis population. The aim was that more than 85% of the patients would achieve the recommended Kt target for their gender (at least 50 litres in men and 45 litres in women), or their body surface area. In each of the patients (mean 129) the Kt mean value was determined for three consecutive dialysis sessions, one every two months, during the follow-up period (14 months). At the beginning, the Kt/V value was on target (> 1.3) in 93.2% of the patients, but only in 58% according to Kt measure for their gender. After 4 months, we observed that 85% of patients' Kt target increased for their gender, but only 68% did if we used the Kt individualised for their body surface area. From month 6 to the end of the follow-up period, more than 85% of patients obtained an adequate Kt for their body surface area (p < 0.001). A significant increase of Kt mean (5.4 litres) was observed at the end of the study (p < 0.001). The usual dialysis prescription parameters were modified increasing blood flow rate (34.14 ml/min, p < 0.001), session effective duration (8.04 minutes, p < 0.001), dialyser surface area (24.1% of patients changed from helixone 1.3 to 1.6 m2, p < 0.001) and haemodialysis modality (56.8% of patients changed from conventional haemodialysis to on-line haemodiafiltration, p < 0.001). We conclude that monitoring dialysis dose with Kt is a good clinical measure of adequacy, and using it as a quality indicator can be done in line with the more demanding quality standards.

Cálculo del Kt como indicador de calidad en el área de adecuación en hemodiálisis / Kt calculation as a quality indicator of haemodialysis adequacy

La dosis de diálisis es un marcador de diálisis adecuada, y el Kt/Ves el indicador más frecuentemente utilizado. La medición de la dosis con Kt permite una mejor discriminación en la adecuación e identifica a un porcentaje de pacientes que quizás no alcanzarían una dosis adecuada para su género o superficie corporal, pese a que el Kt/V supere el mínimo establecido. El propósito de este estudio fue evaluar el Kt como indicador de dosis de diálisis en población prevalente en hemodiálisis, con el objetivo de que más del 85% de los pacientes alcancen un Kt óptimo según el género(cuando su valor es superior a 50 l en varones y 45 l en mujeres) o la superficie corporal. En todos los pacientes (129de media) se determina el valor promedio del Kt de tres sesiones consecutivas, con periodicidad bimensual, durante los 14 meses de duración del estudio. Al inicio, el 93,2%de los pacientes presentaban un Kt/V mayor de 1,3, frente al 58% con Kt óptimo por género. En el cuarto mes, el 85%de los pacientes alcanzaban el Kt objetivo por género, frente a un 68% según la superficie corporal. A partir del sexto mes y hasta el final, más del 85% de los pacientes alcanzaban el Kt prescrito por superficie corporal (p <0,001),con un incremento del Kt (p <0,001) de 5,4 l entre el inicio y el final del estudio. Se incrementó el flujo sanguíneo en34,14 ml/min (p <0,001), el tiempo efectivo en 8,04 minutos (p <0,001), el 24,1% de pacientes con un dializador de mayor superficie (p <0,001) y el 56,8% de tratados con hemodiafiltración on-line (p <0,001). Concluimos que, pese a que el Kt se muestra más exigente que el Kt/V, su uso como indicador de calidad de dosis de diálisis es compatible con los estándares de calidad más ambiciosos (AU)

The haemodialysis dose is a good marker of dialysis adequacy, and we usually monitor it with Kt/V measure. The dialysis dose monitored with Kt allows a better discrimination, detecting a percentage of the patients that perhaps do not get an adequate dose for their gender or body surface area after treatment with a minimum recommended dose of Kt/V. The objective of this study was to evaluate Kt as a clinical indicator referred to dialysis adequacy in the haemodialysis population. The aim was that more than 85% of the patients would achieve the recommended Kt target for their gender (at least 50 litres in men and 45 litres in women), or their body surface area. In each of the patients (mean 129) the Kt mean value was determined for three consecutive dialysis sessions, one every two months, during the follow-up period (14 months). At the beginning, the Kt/V value was on target (> 1.3) in 93.2% of the patients, but only in 58% according to Kt measure for their gender. After 4 months, we observed that 85% of patients’ Kt target in creased for their gender, but only 68% did if we used the Kt individualised for their body surface area. From month 6 to the end of the follow-up period, more than 85% of patients obtained an adequate Kt for their body surface area (p < 0.001). A significant increase of Kt mean (5.4 litres) was observed at the end of the study(p < 0.001). The usual dialysis prescription parameters were modified increasing blood flow rate (34.14ml/min, p < 0.001), session effective duration (8.04 minutes, p < 0.001), dialyser surface area (24.1% of patients changed from helixone 1.3 to 1.6m2, p < 0.001) andhaemodialysis modality (56.8% of patients changed from conventional haemodialysis to on-line haemodiafiltration, p < 0.001).We conclude that monitoring dialysis dose with Kt is a good clinical measure of adequacy, and using it as a quality indicator can be done in line with the more demanding quality standards (AU)

[Assessment of a pharmaceutical interventional programme in patients on medications with renal risk]. / Evaluación de un programa de intervención farmacéutica en pacientes con medicamentos de riesgo renal.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the adaptation of medical prescriptions according to the dosage guides in patients with renal disease, before and after applying a pharmaceutical intervention programme. The secondary objectives were to prepare a guide to dosing in renal disease and to measure the prevalence of prescription of drugs with renal risk. METHOD: Non-randomised, experimental interventional study (before/after) conducted in a general hospital with 800 beds, including hospitalised patients, over the age of 18, with kidney disease and drugs with renal risk prescribed in their pharmacotherapeutic profile. The study was designed to be carried out in two descriptive cross-cutting phases (control group) and a prospective interventional cohort study (intervention group). The primary variable was the percentage non-adaptation according to the stage of renal disease. RESULTS: The study included 185 patients, 88 in the control group and 97 in the intervention group. In the intervention group, the prevalence of non-compliance before and after the intervention was 18.7 % and 2.1 %, representing a statistically significant reduction in non-adaptation of the dose. The costs saved with the pharmaceutical intervention programme were 1,939.63 euro over two months, the average saving per medication intervened amounting to 62.57 euro (CI 95 %, 23.99-101.14 euro; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study indicate that the application of a pharmaceutical care model based on the prospective validation of drugs with renal risk, very significantly improved the adaptation of dosing regimens in kidney disease.

Evaluación de un programa de intervención farmacéutica en pacientes con medicamentos de riesgo renal* / Assessment of a pharmaceutical interventional programme in patients on medications with renal risk

Objetivo: Comparar la adecuación de las prescripciones médicas según las guías de dosificación, en pacientes con enfermedad renal, antes y después de aplicar un programa de intervención farmacéutica. Los objetivos secundarios fueron la elaboración de una guía de dosificación en enfermedad renal y medir la prevalencia de prescripción de fármacos con riesgo renal. Método: Estudio experimental de intervención no aleatorizado (antes/después) realizado en un hospital general de 800 camas, que incluyó a pacientes ingresados, mayores de 18 años, con enfermedad renal y medicamentos con riesgo renal prescritos en su perfil farmacoterapéutico. El estudio se diseñó para realizarlo en dos fases: un corte transversal descriptivo (grupo control) y un estudio de intervención de cohortes prospectivo (grupo de intervención). La variable principal fue el porcentaje de inadecuación posológica según el grado de enfermedad renal. Resultados: El estudio incluyó a 185 pacientes, 88 en el grupo control y 97 en el de intervención. En el grupo de intervención la prevalencia de incumplimiento antes y después de la intervención fue del 18,7 y el 2,1 %, lo que supone una reducción estadísticamente significativa en la inadecuación posológica. El coste evitado con el programa de intervención farmacéutica fue de 1.939,63 euros en 2 meses; la media por cada medicamento en el que se intervino fue de 62,57 euros (intervalo de confianza del 95 %, 23,99-101,14 euros; p = 0,02). Conclusiones: Los resultados del estudio indican que la aplicación de un modelo de atención farmacéutica, basado en la validación prospectiva de los medicamentos con riesgo renal, mejora de forma muy significativa la adecuación de las pautas posológicas en enfermos renales (AU)

Objective: To compare the adaptation of medical prescriptions according to the dosage guides in patients with renal disease, before and after applying a pharmaceutical intervention programme. The secondary objectives were to prepare a guide to dosing in renal disease and to measure the prevalence of prescription of drugs with renal risk. Method: Non-randomised, experimental interventional study (before/after) conducted in a general hospital with 800 beds, including hospitalised patients, over the age of 18, with kidney disease and drugs with renal risk prescribed in their pharmacotherapeutic profile. The study was designed to be carried out in two descriptive cross-cutting phases (control group) and a prospective interventional cohort study (intervention group). The primary variable was the percentage non-adaptation according to the stage of renal disease. Results: The study included 185 patients, 88 in the control group and 97 in the intervention group. In the intervention group, the prevalence of non-compliance before and after the intervention was 18.7 % and 2.1 %, representing a statistically significant reduction in non-adaptation of the dose. The costs saved with the pharmaceutical intervention programme were 1,939.63 euro over two months, the average saving per medication intervened amounting to 62.57 euro (CI 95 %, 23.99-101.14 euro; p = 0.02). Conclusions: The results of the study indicate that the application of a pharmaceutical care model based on the prospective validation of drugs with renal risk, very significantly improved the adaptation of dosing regimens in kidney disease (AU)

Monitoring exposure of hospital personnel handling cytostatic drugs and contaminated materials.

A study was undertaken to evaluate the urine mutagenicity of 63 individuals working in four hospital departments. The exposed group included 38 subjects who were exposed to various cytostatic drugs and/or contaminated material from treated patients. The control group included 25 individuals of the hospital personnel. Urine mutagenicity was monitored by the Ames test using tester strains TA 98 + S9 Mix and TA 102-S9 Mix. Urine samples were collected before and after the working periods. A total of 29/116 (25%) urine samples were mutagenic for either strain. Among the mutagenic samples, 24/29 were mutagenic for tester strain TA 98 exclusively. No significant correlation could be found between occupational exposure to cytostatic drugs and urine mutagenicity evaluated by the strain TA 98 + S9 Mix. Smoking was the main environmental factor that modulated urine mutagenicity with TA 98. Three subjects in the exposed group had mutagenic urine samples at the end of the working period with strain TA 102-S9 Mix. This mutagenicity was related to occupational exposure to cisplatin. In the control group, one individual had mutagenic samples before and after the working period. Assessing occupational exposure to cytostatic drugs with strain TA 102 requires additional studies to determine environmental mutagens which can be detected by this strain.