Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) is not a disease, rather a pattern of histological injury occurring from a variety of causes. The exact pathogenesis has yet to be fully elucidated but is likely varied based on the type of injury and the primary target of that injury. However, the approach to treatment is often based on the degree of podocyte foot process effacement and clinical presentation without sufficient attention paid to etiology. In this regard, there are many monogenic causes of FSGS with variable presentation from nephrotic syndrome with histological features of primary podocytopathy to more modest degrees of proteinuria with limited evidence of podocyte foot process injury. It is likely that genetic causes are largely underdiagnosed, as the role and the timing of genetic testing in FSGS is not established and genetic counseling, testing options, and interpretation of genotype in the context of phenotype may be outside the scope of practice for both nephrologists and geneticists. Yet most clinicians believe that a genetic diagnosis can lead to targeted therapy, limit the use of high-dose corticosteroids as a therapeutic trial, and allow the prediction of the natural history and risk for recurrence in the transplanted kidney. In this manuscript, we emphasize that genetic FSGS is not monolithic in its presentation, opine on the importance of genetic testing and provide an algorithmic approach to deployment of genetic testing in a timely fashion when faced with a patient with FSGS.
Introduction: Unfractionated heparin (UFH), or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), is commonly used with mechanical prophylaxis as an anticoagulant to reduce the risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, overuse of these prophylaxes can increase the risk of bleeding, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and associated medical cost. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to determine the incidence of DVT prophylaxis among hospitalized nonsurgical patients in a community medical center. To evaluate the use of the prophylaxes as described above, the investigators collected data on medical inpatients and addressed how to avoid overuse. Method: A retrospective inpatient chart review of 100 general internal medicine patients analyzed data using Padua Prediction Score as the risk estimate for deep venous thrombosis (DVT). High risk for VTE was defined by a cumulative score >=4 and low risk was a score <4. Only patients at increased risk for DVT but not at high risk for bleeding qualified for heparin treatment. Results: A total of 100 patients were surveyed. 54/100 (54%) patients had low risk of DVT with score < 4, and of those 29/54 (53.7%) patients received DVT prophylaxis with SCDs and/or heparin, and 17/54 (31.5%) patients were treated with heparin. All 46 patients with score >= 4 were treated with DVT prophylaxis of which 10 patients were only treated with heparin and 36 patients were given both mechanical and chemical prophylaxis. Collectively, 53.7% of the patients received treatment with DVT prophylaxis (p < 0.001, Chi-Square test). Discussion: In hospital settings, physicians want to avoid DVT or PE so they tend to consider patients as being at moderate risk for DVT without using any method of DVT risk assessment. This leads to unnecessary overuse of DVT prophylaxis on patients and may increase the risk of bleeding and injury. Conclusion: Our data suggests that there DVT prophylaxis including UFH and LMWH was over prescribed among patients with who had marginal risk for DVT in hospitalized nonsurgical patients in a community medical center. Clinical implications: To avoid the overuse of DVT prophylaxis, physicians need to follow guidelines. Education and inclusion of the guidelines in EHRs of information on VTE risk assessment for hospitalized medical patients upon admission may reduce unneeded DVT prophylaxis and the risk of bleeding and costs associated with additional care needs. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
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.