BackgroundWarfarin related nephropathy is one of the potential complications of warfarin therapy. Despite the well described histological entity, the clinical course and approach to warfarin related nephropathy in patients requiring life-long anticoagulation is however not well described in the literature.Case presentationWe report the clinical course of a 56 years old Chinese lady who presented with over anti-coagulation and acute kidney injury while on warfarin therapy for permanent atrial fibrillation and mechanical valve replacement. Renal biopsy was performed as the acute kidney injury was persistent despite normalization of the International Normalized Ratio and the diagnosis of warfarin related nephropathy was made. Temporary interruption of anti-coagulation, in combination with oral N-acetylcysteine resulted in subsequent stabilization of renal function.ConclusionThe diagnosis of warfarin induced nephropathy should be considered in patients presenting with unexplained acute kidney injury and over anti-coagulation. Awareness of this clinical entity is important for clinician managing anti-coagulation therapy and renal function should be monitored regularly in patients who are on warfarin therapy.
Background: Recent studies have demonstrated that measurement of areal bone mineral density by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) predicts fractures in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, whether fracture risk prediction through bone mineral density (BMD) is enhanced due to the assessment of biochemical markers of chronic kidney disease and mineral and bone disease (CKD-MBD) or clinical risk factors is not clear. We hypothesized that in a select cohort of patients managed in a CKD clinic, that combining T-Scores with biochemical markers would optimize fracture discrimination than using DXA alone. Objective: To examine the relationships among BMD, biochemical markers of CKD-MBD, and fracture risk across Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) glomerular filtration rate (GFR) categories G3a to G5. Design: Retrospective study. Setting: Patients were recruited from the multidisciplinary CKD clinic, Regina General Hospital, Canada. Patients: A total of 374 patients who received a DXA scan upon initial referral to Regina Multidisciplinary CKD Program from January 31, 2001 to January 31, 2010, were included in this study. The patients were followed for a total of 5 years. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of 374 consecutive patients who underwent DXA imaging at the point of entry into our multidisciplinary CKD program. Areal BMD, T- and Z-Scores were obtained at the lumbar spine, total hip, mean of left and right femoral neck, and the one-third radius. We collected data on demographic, cross-sectional biochemical markers of mineral metabolism and fractures (identified through self-reported questionnaires, hospital electronic medical records, and physician billing records). We were able to gather data on 8/11 variables of Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) tool. Results: In our cohort, 14.3% of GFR categories G3a and G3b, 15.7% of GFR category G4, and 19.7% of GFR category G5 experienced a clinical fracture during the study period. On multivariate analysis, each decline of 1.0 SD in total hip BMD T-Score was associated with a significant increase in the risk of fracture (OR = 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.89). Adding CKD-MBD markers and clinical risk factors did not further contribute to the model. Low BMD was the only independent risk factor for fracture in patients with CKD. Limitations: Self-reporting by patients and administrative records were used to identify fractures. We did not perform spine imaging to ascertain morphometric vertebral fractures. We were unable to gather all 11 variables of FRAX score and information on ethnicity. We were unable to capture site of fracture (hips, spine, etc) from billing records. Albumin excretion rates were not collected at baseline. Treatment of the underlying bone disease with pharmacotherapeutic agents may have attenuated patients’ fracture risk and thus underestimated the association between BMD and future fracture. Conclusions: Our findings confirm that BMD predicts fracture. The addition of cross-sectional CKD-MBD parameters and clinical risk factors to BMD did not add to fracture prediction. Prospective studies should investigate the utility of longitudinal biochemical markers on improving fracture risk assessment.
Aim: Compared to Standard Criteria Donors (SCD), Expanded Criteria Donor (ECD) kidneys are associated with poorer outcomes, although pre-transplant biopsy may mitigate risks. This study assessed 5-year outcomes of deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients, comparing recipients of ECD allografts evaluated histologically to recipients of SCD and ECD kidneys assessed clinically. Methods: This is a single-centre retrospective study. From November 2005 to December 2009 (Era 1), donors were assessed clinically for suitability for kidney donation. From December 2009 to October 2017 (Era 2), kidneys from ECDs and diabetics underwent pre-transplant biopsy and were allocated based on Remuzzi score. Outcomes of Era 1 and 2 recipients were compared. Results: ECD kidney transplantation increased from 30.4% to 40.0% from Era 1 to 2. Univariable Cox regression, stratified by transplant era, found that 5-year graft loss was highest with Era 1 ECD (HR 2.5, 95% CI 1.1-5.5, P = .027) while graft loss for Era 2 ECD recipients was similar to SCD recipients. There was no difference in 5-year recipient survival. Amongst Era 1 ECD recipients, 51.2% experienced rejection compared to 30.8-41.5% for other subgroups. Five-year eGFR was higher with Era 2 ECD at 48.4 (33.3-60.7) ml/min/1.73 m 2 compared to 42.2 (35.8-57.3) ml/min/1.73 m 2 for Era 1 ECD. However, these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Introduction of pre-transplant biopsy assessment may be associated with improved outcomes of ECD kidney recipients such that they are now comparable to SCD kidney recipients, with benefits persisting over 5 years.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.