During the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine has emerged worldwide as an indispensable resource to improve the surveillance of patients, curb the spread of disease, facilitate timely identification and management of ill people, but, most importantly, guarantee the continuity of care of frail patients with multiple chronic diseases. Although during COVID-19 telemedicine has thrived, and its adoption has moved forward in many countries, important gaps still remain. Major issues to be addressed to enable large scale implementation of telemedicine include: (1) establishing adequate policies to legislate telemedicine, license healthcare operators, protect patients’ privacy, and implement reimbursement plans; (2) creating and disseminating practical guidelines for the routine clinical use of telemedicine in different contexts; (3) increasing in the level of integration of telemedicine with traditional healthcare services; (4) improving healthcare professionals’ and patients’ awareness of and willingness to use telemedicine; and (5) overcoming inequalities among countries and population subgroups due to technological, infrastructural, and economic barriers. If all these requirements are met in the near future, remote management of patients will become an indispensable resource for the healthcare systems worldwide and will ultimately improve the management of patients and the quality of care.

Lacking compliance with liquid intake restrictions is one of the major problems in patients on hemodialysis and causes an increased mortality. In 120 patients on hemodialysis with an average interdialytic weight gain (IWG) exceeding 1.5 kg on at least 2 days during the 4 weeks preceding the intervention, the effect of telemetric body weight measurement (TBWM) on IWG, ultrafiltration rate, and blood pressure was evaluated over a period of 3 months. Patients of the telemetric group (TG) were supplied with automatic scales, which transferred the weight via telemetry on a daily basis. In the case of IWG of more than 0.75 kg/24 h, a telephonic contact was made as required, and in the case of an IWG of more than 1.5 kg, telephonic contacting was obligatory along with the advice of a liquid intake restriction to 0.5 L/day until the next dialysis. The patients of the control group (CG) received standard treatment without telemetric monitoring. We examined specific data of the second interdialytic interval (IDI2) and the average within 1 week. The average difference of IWG between TG and CG was not significant before the start of the study but 0.2 kg (p=0.027) (IDI2)/0.27kg (p=0.001) (WP) at the end of the study, respectively. The average difference in the ultrafiltration rate within 1 week was 19.0 mL/h (p=0.282) (IDI2)/8.2 mL/h (p=0.409) before the start of the study but 28.4 mL/h (p=0.122) (IDI2)/30.9 mL/h (p=0.004) at the end of the study, respectively. Thus, TBWM is a feasible method for optimizing the IWG and reducing the ultrafiltration rate. AbstractLacking compliance with liquid intake restrictions is one of the major problems in patients on hemodialysis and causes an increased mortality. In 120 patients on hemodialysis with an average interdialytic weight gain (IWG) exceeding 1.5 kg on at least 2 days during the 4 weeks preceding the intervention, the effect of telemetric body weight measurement (TBWM) on IWG, ultrafiltration rate, and blood pressure was evaluated over a period of 3 months. Patients of the telemetric group (TG) were supplied with automatic scales, which transferred the weight via telemetry on a daily basis. In the case of IWG of more than 0.75 kg/24 h, a telephonic contact was made as required, and in the case of an IWG of more than 1.5 kg, telephonic contacting was obligatory along with the advice of a liquid intake restriction to 0.5 L/day until the next dialysis. The patients of the control group (CG) received standard treatment without telemetric monitoring. We examined specific data of the second interdialytic interval (IDI2) and the average within 1 week. The average difference of IWG between TG and CG was not significant before the start of the study but 0.2 kg (p = 0.027) (IDI2)/0.27kg (p = 0.001) (WP) at the end of the study, respectively. The average difference in the ultrafiltration rate within 1 week was 19.0 mL/h (p = 0.282) (IDI2)/ 8.2 mL/h (p = 0.409) before the start of the study but 28.4 mL/h (p = 0.122) (IDI2)/30.9 mL/h (p = 0.004) at the end of the study, ...

BackgroundSince 2005 an interdisciplinary German apheresis working group has been established by members of both German Societies of Nephrology and of Lipidologists and completed the data set for the registry according to the current guidelines and the German indication guideline for apheresis in 2009. In 2011 the German Lipoprotein Apheresis Registry (GLAR) was launched and data are available over nearly 5 years now.Methods and resultsDuring the time period 2012–2016, 71 German apheresis centers collected retrospective and prospective observational data of 1435 patients undergoing lipoprotein apheresis (LA) treatment of high LDL-C levels and/or high Lp (a) levels suffering from cardiovascular disease (CVD) or progressive CVD. A total of 15,527 completely documented LA treatments were entered into the database. All patients treated by LA showed a median LDL-C reduction rate of 67.5%, and a median Lp (a) reduction rate of 71.1%. Analog to the Pro(a)LiFe pattern, patient data were analyzed to the incidence rate of coronary events (MACE) 1 and 2 years before the beginning of LA treatment (y-2 and y‑1) and prospectively two years on LA treatment (y + 1 and y + 2). During two years of LA treatment a MACE reduction of 78% was observed. In the years considered, side effects of LA treatment were low (5.9%) and mainly comprised puncture problems.ConclusionsThe data generated by the GLAR shows that LA lowers the incidence rate of cardiovascular events in patients with high LDL-C and/or high Lp (a) levels, progressive CVD, and maximally tolerated lipid lowering medication. In addition, LA treatments were found to be safe with a low rate of side effects.

No abstract

BackgroundOne of the first investigations concerning extracorporeal treatment of hypercholesterolemia was performed in 1967 by plasma exchange in patients with homozygous or severe heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). In the following decades, several specific lipid apheresis systems were developed to efficiently eliminate low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and Lp(a) cholesterol in hypercholesterolemic patients. In the early 1980s, the main clinical indication has been homozygous FH including mainly children and pregnant women. In consideration of the current development of lipid-lowering regimens and scientific knowledge of preventing progression of cardiovascular diseases, the spectrum of indications to initiate lipid apheresis was extended due to still insufficient lipid-lowering therapy in some clinical cases. However, a generally accepted indication for lipid apheresis treatment is still under discussion. In Germany, the target-oriented distribution of increasingly limited healthcare resources demand data which support the benefit of established treatment procedures such as lipid apheresis. In recent years, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA), a paramount decision-making body of the German Healthcare System, issued to reassess the approval of chronic lipid apheresis therapy for regular reimbursement. Therefore, in 2005, an interdisciplinary German Apheresis Working Group has been established by members of both the German societies of nephrology. One of the first goals of this working group was a revision of the indications for lipid apheresis corresponding to current guidelines and recommendations for the treatment of lipid disorders. In addition, recently new pathophysiological perceptions of the impact of lipoproteins on atherogenesis and thrombosis were also considered.Methods and ResultsSince 2005, the working group met on a regular basis to substantiate the first defined goals. The indications for lipid apheresis were critically revised with respect to actual results from clinical investigations, cardiovascular guidelines, and scientific knowledge and were accepted by the members of the apheresis working group.ConclusionsThere is consensus between the medical societies and health insurance funds regarding the need for general accepted guidelines for lipid apheresis. Recommendations for the indications of lipid apheresis were developed, but additionally these results should be confirmed by medical societies to transform them to guidelines. However, due to limited data showing that lipid apheresis has effects on the progression of cardiovascular diseases all members of the apheresis working group support a project for creating a lipid apheresis registry. This apheresis registry has been developed and recently started. The primary goal is to substantiate prospective long-term data on clinical outcome of chronic lipid apheresis treatment and to support additional clinical research activities in this field. In addition, this registry should comply with the actual requests of the Federal Joi...

No abstract

Background Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and is associated with the induction and sustaining of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD). Since 2008 Lp(a) along with progressive CVD has been approved as an indication for regular lipoprotein apheresis (LA) in Germany. The German Lipoprotein Apheresis Registry (GLAR) has been initiated to provide statistical evidence for the assessment of extracorporeal procedures to treat dyslipidemia for both LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) and Lp(a). The GLAR now allows prospective investigations over a 5-year period about annual incidence rates of cardiovascular events. Here Lp(a) patients (LDL-C < 100 mg/dl; Lp(a) > 60 mg/dl or >120 nmol/l) showed the same reduction of major coronary (83%) and non-coronary events (63%) as had been formerly shown in the Pro(a)LiFe study. However, Lp(a) is not only an apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a)) and LDL-C containing particle, which is covalently bound to a LDL-C core by a disulphide bridge. The composition of this particle, inter alia containing oxidized phospholipids, gives pro-atherosclerotic, pro-inflammatory, and pro-thrombotic properties, inducing atherosclerotic processes mainly in the arterial wall. However, recent investigations have shown that a reduction of inflammatory settings without LDL-C or Lp(a) reduction may reduce ASCVD events. Lipoprotein apheresis (LA) could not only reduce LDL-C and Lp(a) in parallel, but also different inflammatory and coagulation parameters. In summary lipoprotein apheresis is not only anti-atherosclerotic, but also anti-inflammatory and anti-thrombotic and therefore an ideal treatment option with respect to the shown reduction of major adverse coronary events (MACE) and major adverse non-coronary events (MANCE) by reducing Lp(a) levels.Keywords Lipoprotein apheresis · Lipoprotein (a) · Cardiovascular disease · Coronary artery disease · Major coronary events · Major non-coronary events · Inflammation · Prevention This article is part of the special issue "Lp(a) -Update 2018"

No abstract