BackgroundCardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in end-stage renal disease and is strongly associated with vascular calcification. Both kidney transplantation and phosphate binders may lower the risk of vascular calcification. Vascular calcification is actively inhibited by vitamin-K-dependent matrix γ-carboxyglutamic acid protein (MGP). Whether kidney transplantation or phosphate binders affect vitamin K status is unknown. Therefore, we studied the influence of kidney transplantation and phosphate binder use on vitamin K status.MethodsWe measured plasma desphospho-uncarboxylated MGP (dp-ucMGP), a marker reflecting low vitamin K status, in a cross-sectional study of patients on hemodialysis (n = 82), peritoneal dialysis (n = 31) or who recently received a kidney transplantation (n = 36). By medication inventory, we assessed phosphate binder use. With linear regression, we assessed the influence of kidney transplantation and phosphate binder use on natural-log-transformed dp-ucMGP, adjusting for potential confounders.ResultsMean age of patients was 52±13 years; 102 (68%) were male. Dp-ucMGP levels were significantly lower in kidney transplant recipients (median 689 pmol/L) compared to patients on dialysis (median 1537 pmol/L, p<0.001). Eighty-nine patients on dialysis used phosphate binders. Using any phosphate binder was not associated with dp-ucMGP levels (median 1637 pmol/L, p = 0.09) compared to no phosphate binders (median 1142 pmol/L). Twenty-six patients used sevelamer monotherapy, which was associated with higher dp-ucMGP levels (median 1740 pmol/L, p = 0.04) after adjusting for age, sex and vitamin K antagonist use.ConclusionsRecent kidney transplantation is associated with lower dp-ucMGP levels suggesting improved vitamin K status after transplantation. Sevelamer monotherapy is associated with higher dp-ucMGP levels suggesting worsening of vitamin K status. Both findings warrant more attention to vitamin K status in patients on dialysis, as vitamin K is necessary for protection against vascular calcification.
BackgroundHealth-related quality of life (HRQOL) is an important outcome measure in patients with end-stage renal disease. HRQOL is assumed to improve with kidney transplantation and also with nocturnal hemodialysis compared to conventional hemodialysis. However, there is no evidence regarding HRQOL to support the optimal treatment choice for patients on nocturnal hemodialysis who hesitate opting for transplantation. We therefore compared HRQOL between patients who were treated with kidney transplantation or nocturnal hemodialysis for one year.MethodsWe assessed HQROL using the Kidney Disease Quality of Life–Short Form questionnaire in a cross-sectional sample of patients who were treated with kidney transplantation (n = 41) or nocturnal hemodialysis (n = 31) for one year. All patients on nocturnal hemodialysis were transplantation candidates. Using linear regression, we compared HRQOL between kidney transplantation and nocturnal hemodialysis, and adjusted for age, sex, dialysis duration, cardiovascular disease, and presence of residual urine production.ResultsAt one year follow-up, mean age of the study population was 54 ±13 years, and median dialysis duration was 3.2 (IQR 2.1–5.0) years. Kidney transplantation was associated with significantly higher HRQOL on the domain “effects” compared to nocturnal hemodialysis (adjusted difference 12.0 points, 95% CI 3.9; 20.1). There were potentially clinically relevant differences between kidney transplantation and nocturnal hemodialysis on the domains “burden” (adjusted difference 11.1 points, 95% CI -2.6; 24.8), “social support” (adjusted difference 6.2, 95% CI -6.6; 19.1), and the physical composite score (adjusted difference 3.0, 95% CI -2.0; 8.1), but these were not significant.ConclusionsAfter kidney transplantation, HRQOL is especially higher on the domain “effects of kidney disease” compared to nocturnal hemodialysis. This can be useful when counseling patients on nocturnal hemodialysis who may opt for transplantation.
Background Previous US studies have indicated that haemodialysis with ≥6-h sessions [extended-hours haemodialysis (EHD)] may improve patient survival. However, patient characteristics and treatment practices vary between the USA and Europe. We therefore investigated the effect of EHD three times weekly on survival compared with conventional haemodialysis (CHD) among European patients. Methods We included patients who were treated with haemodialysis between 2010 and 2017 from eight countries providing data to the European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association Registry. Haemodialysis session duration and frequency were recorded once every year or at every change of haemodialysis prescription and were categorized into three groups: CHD (three times weekly, 3.5–4 h/treatment), EHD (three times weekly, ≥6 h/treatment) or other. In the primary analyses we attributed death to the treatment at the time of death and in secondary analyses to EHD if ever initiated. We compared mortality risk for EHD to CHD with causal inference from marginal structural models, using Cox proportional hazards models weighted for the inverse probability of treatment and censoring and adjusted for potential confounders. Results From a total of 142 460 patients, 1338 patients were ever treated with EHD (three times, 7.1 ± 0.8 h/week) and 89 819 patients were treated exclusively with CHD (three times, 3.9 ± 0.2 h/week). Crude mortality rates were 6.0 and 13.5/100 person-years. In the primary analyses, patients treated with EHD had an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.73 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62–0.85] compared with patients treated with CHD. When we attributed all deaths to EHD after initiation, the HR for EHD was comparable to the primary analyses [HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.71–0.90)]. Conclusions EHD is associated with better survival in European patients treated with haemodialysis three times weekly.
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.