A national conference on organ donation after cardiac death (DCD) was convened to expand the practice of DCD in the continuum of quality end-of-life care.This national conference affirmed the ethical propriety of DCD as not violating the dead donor rule. Further, by new developments not previously reported, the conference resolved controversy regarding the period of circulatory cessation that determines death and allows administration of pre-recovery pharmacologic agents, it established conditions of DCD eligibility, it presented current data regarding the successful transplantation of organs from DCD, it proposed a new framework of data reporting regarding ischemic events, it made specific recommendations to agencies and organizations to remove barriers to DCD, it brought guidance regarding organ allocation and the process of informed consent and it set an action plan to address media issues. When a consensual decision is made to withdraw life support by the attending physician and patient or by the attending physician and a family member or surrogate (particularly in an intensive care unit), a routine opportunity for DCD should be available to honor the deceased donor's wishes in every donor service area (DSA) of the United States. Key words: Deceased organ donation Received 25 July 2005, revised and accepted for publication 24 October 2005A national conference on organ donation after cardiac death (DCD) was convened in Philadelphia on April 7 and 8, 2005, to address the increasing experience of DCD and to affirm the ethical propriety of transplanting organs from such donors. Participants represented the broad spectrum of the medical community, including neuroscientists, critical care professionals and distinguished bioethicists (Appendix 1).Six work groups were assembled to address specific DCD issues and fulfill the conference objectives: (i) determining death by a cardiopulmonary criterion, (ii) assessing medical criteria that predict DCD candidacy following the withdrawal of life support, (iii) reviewing protocols for successful DCD organ recovery and subsequent transplantation, (iv) initiating DCD in donation service areas (DSAs), (v) discussing the allocation of DCD organs for transplantation and (vi) examining perceptions of DCD held by the media and the public. Work Group 1: Determining Death by a Cardiopulmonary CriterionA prospective organ donor's death may be determined by either cardiopulmonary (DCD) or neurologic criteria (donation after brain death [DBD]) (1). The term donation after cardiac death (DCD) clearly indicates that death precedes donation. Death determination in the DCD patient mandates the use of a cardiopulmonary criterion to prove the absence of circulation. The cardiopulmonary criterion may be used when the donor does not fulfill brain death criteria. The ethical axiom of organ donation necessitates adherence to the dead donor rule: the retrieval of organs for transplantation should not cause the death of a donor (2).In clinical situations that fulfill either brain death criteria ...

OBJECTIVELowering hemoglobin A1c to <7% reduces the risk of microvascular complications of diabetes, but the importance of maintaining this target in diabetes patients with kidney failure is unclear. We evaluated the relationship between A1c levels and mortality in an international prospective cohort study of hemodialysis patients.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSIncluded were 9,201 hemodialysis patients from 12 countries (Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study 3 and 4, 2006–2010) with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and at least one A1c measurement during the first 8 months after study entry. Associations between A1c and mortality were assessed with Cox regression, adjusting for potential confounders.RESULTSThe association between A1c and mortality was U-shaped. Compared with an A1c of 7–7.9%, the hazard ratios (95% CI) for A1c levels were 1.35 (1.09–1.67) for <5%, 1.18 (1.01–1.37) for 5–5.9%, 1.21 (1.05–1.41) for 6–6.9%, 1.16 (0.94–1.43) for 8–8.9%, and 1.38 (1.11–1.71) for ≥9.0%, after adjustment for age, sex, race, BMI, serum albumin, years of dialysis, serum creatinine, 12 comorbid conditions, insulin use, hemoglobin, LDL cholesterol, country, and study phase. Diabetes medications were prescribed for 35% of patients with A1c <6% and not prescribed for 29% of those with A1c ≥9%.CONCLUSIONSA1c levels strongly predicted mortality in hemodialysis patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Mortality increased as A1c moved further from 7–7.9%; thus, target A1c in hemodialysis patients may encompass values higher than those recommended by current guidelines. Modifying glucose-lowering medicines for dialysis patients to target A1c levels within this range may be a modifiable practice to improve outcomes.

Measurements of hospitalization in the dialysis population are important because they provide insight into the morbidity and the cost of treatment among dialysis patients. Prior comparisons of hospitalization for different dialysis modalities have had conflicting results. This study was designed to compare hospitalization for patients treated with peritoneal dialysis (PD) versus hemodialysis (HD) using the data from the U.S. Renal Data System 1993 Annual Data Report. The study population included all Medicare dialysis patients prevalent on January 1, 1988 through 1990. Patients were monitored to transplantation, death, or end of the calendar year for a total of 189,654 patient years. Hospital admission rates were computed from the total number of hospital admissions during the year divided by the total number of patient years at risk. Patients were classified by treatment modality (PD, HD), cause of ESRD (diabetes as a cause of ESRD versus all other causes), age (0 to 19, 20 to 44, 45 to 65, +65), and race (black, white). Rate ratios (RR:PD/HD) for hospital admissions per year at risk were estimated, while adjusting for the other factors with Poison regression. On average, hospital admission rates per patient year at risk for dialysis patients treated with PD were 14% higher than for those treated with HD (RR = 1.14; 95% confidence interval (Cl), 1.13 to 1.15) when adjusting for race, age, gender, and cause of ESRD. The excess in the overall adjusted admission rates in PD patients compared with HD patients was higher for black than for white patients (RR:PD/HD = 1.22 versus RR = 1.11; 95% Cl, 1.10 to 1.13).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Optimization of care in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) could be the key to improved clinical and economic outcomes, both during the phase of CKD as well as in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). CKD is a major public health problem that has been insufficiently studied. There is little published information on outcomes among CKD patients, specifically, data on mortality, morbidity, and quality of life. Indeed, recent efforts by the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) have served to define the classification, evaluation, and approach to management of CKD in practice. The Study of Treatment for Renal Insufficiency: Data and Evaluation (STRIDE) registry is an initiative to study CKD patients in nephrology practices across the country. It is a prospective observational study whose objective is to profile demographic and clinical variables, practice patterns, comorbid conditions, quality of life, and outcomes in a nationally based sample of CKD patients. This article details the design, methodology, and process of enrollment into the registry.