Williams, Amy W.

AbstractIntroduction: Peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) may adversely impact future successful arteriovenous fistulae (AVF). As part of a quality improvement project, the performance of tunneled small bore tunneled central venous catheters (TSB‐CVCs), as alternatives to PICCs, was evaluated.Methods: A retrospective observational study, involving individuals ≥18 years of age who underwent TSB‐CVC placement by Interventional Radiology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN between 1/1/2010 and 8/30/2013.Findings: The study cohort included 92 patients with a median age of 55 (46–67) years, who underwent 108 TSB‐CVC placements. Baseline renal disease was present in 71% (77/108). Most TSB‐CVCs were placed in hospitalized patients (94%; 102/108); five French in diameter (61%; 66/108) and located in an internal jugular vein (84%; 91/108). Median catheter indwelling time was 20 (11–43) days (n = 84). TSB‐CVC‐related bloodstream infection, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and superficial venous thrombosis (SpVT) rates per line were 0.009 (1/108), 0.018 (2/108), and 0.009 (1/108), respectively. Venous outcomes in a subgroup of 54 patients, who had documented PICC placements (n = 161) in addition to TSB‐CVC (n = 58) were compared. TSB‐CVC‐DVT rate was lower than the PICC‐DVT rate (0.017 [1/58] vs. 0.106 per line [17/161]; P = 0.04). The TSB‐CVC‐SpVT rate was not different from the PICC‐SpVT rate (0 [0/58] vs. 0.037 [6/161] per line; P = 0.14).Discussion: TSB‐CVCs demonstrated an excellent safety profile in our study. These catheters should be preferentially utilized for arm vein preservation in advanced kidney disease. Their impact on future AVF success needs further evaluation.

Abstract Background: End-stage renal disease is a life-limiting illness associated with significant morbidity. Half of all individuals with end-stage renal disease are unable to participate in decision making at the end of life, which makes advance care planning critical in this population. Objective: We sought to determine the feasibility of embedding palliative medicine consultations in the hemodialysis unit during treatment runs and the impact of this intervention on advance care planning and symptom management. Design: Single-center, prospective cohort study. Setting/Subjects: Adults receiving in-center hemodialysis at a single outpatient unit were eligible. All consultations occurred during the patients' hemodialysis runs between January 1 and June 30, 2012. Measurement: Medical records were reviewed for documentation of advance directives, resuscitation status, and goals of care discussions before and after palliative medicine intervention. Symptom surveys with the Modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (validated for end-stage renal disease) were performed preintervention and postintervention. Results: Ninety-two patients were eligible; 91 underwent palliative medicine consultation. Symptoms were well controlled at baseline prior to any intervention. After palliative medicine consultation, the prevalence of unknown code status decreased from 23% to 1% and goals of care documentation improved from 3% to 59%. Conclusion: Palliative medicine consultation during in-center outpatient hemodialysis was well received by patients and clinical staff. Patients' symptoms were well managed at baseline by the primary nephrology team. The frequency of goals of care documentation and clarification of code status improved significantly. Embedded palliative medicine specialists on the dialysis care team may be effective in improving multidisciplinary patient-centered care for patients with end-stage renal disease.

AbstractAimsThe number of elderly persons with end‐stage renal disease is increasing with many requiring hospitalizations. This study examines the causes and predictors of hospitalization in older haemodialysis patients.MethodsWe reviewed hospitalizations of older (≥65 years) incident chronic haemodialysis patients initiating therapy between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2009 under the care of a single Midwestern United States dialysis provider.ResultsOf 125 patients, the mean age was 76 ± 7 years and 72% were male. At first dialysis, 68% used a central venous catheter (CVC) and 51% were in the hospital. Mean follow‐up was 1.8 ± 1.0 years. At least one hospitalization occurred in 89 (71%) patients and half of all patients were hospitalized once within the first 223 days. Total hospital admission rate was 1.48 per patient year with hospital days totalling 8.54 days per patient year. The three most common reasons for first admission were cardiac (33%), infection (18%) and gastrointestinal (12%). Predictors of future hospitalization included the first dialysis occurring in hospital (hazard ratios (HR) 2.1, 95% CI 1.4–3.3, P = 0.0005) and the use of a CVC at first haemodialysis (HR 2.6, CI 1.6–4.4, P < 0.0001).ConclusionHospitalizations are common in older incident haemodialysis patients. Access preparation and overall burden of illness leading to the initial hospitalization appear to play a role. Identification of additional factors associated with hospitalization will allow for focused interventions to reduce hospitalization rates and increase the value of care.

Background: Previous studies that have attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of an iso-osmolar contrast medium (IOCM) iodixanol compared to a low-osmolar contrast medium (LOCM) for contrast procedures show variable results. Purpose: To evaluate the nephrotoxicity of the IOCM iodixanol compared to the LOCM iohexol. Material and Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study from April 2004 to March 2006. All contrast procedures with a pre- and post-exposure creatinine value were evaluated for inclusion. Contrast nephropathy (CN) was defined as post-exposure creatinine elevation of ≥25% or >0.5 mg/dl within 7 days of contrast exposure. Cases of iodixanol exposure were matched to control cases of iohexol exposure (1:1) based on age, sex, presence of diabetes, pre-exposure creatinine value, and type of imaging study performed. We matched 397 cases of iodixanol (IOCM) exposure to 397 cases of iohexol (LOCM) exposure. Cases of iodixanol which could not be matched to controls were not included in the analysis. Results: After adjustment for prior creatinine, medications, contrast iodine load, prior exposure to contrast material, heart failure, and hypertension, use of iodixanol did not significantly alter rates of CN compared to iohexol (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.57–1.46; P=0.71) or mortality (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59–1.06; P=0.12). Conclusion: The use of the IOCM iodixanol was not associated with statistically significant protection against contrast nephropathy or all-cause mortality compared to a matched cohort of patients receiving the LOCM iohexol.

Background—There are few data regarding medium-term outcome of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with severe left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction, particularly in the modern era, and even less assessing preoperative factors that might identify patients at highest risk.Methods and Results—Three hundred seventy-nine consecutive patients with LV ejection fraction ≤35%, who underwent isolated first CABG between 1995 and 1999 were studied. Potential preoperative and perioperative predictors of outcome were recorded and patients followed-up for a median of 3.8 years. The primary study end-point was all-cause mortality. The 30-day, 1-year, and 3-year survival rates were 94.5%, 88%, and 81%, respectively. The independent predictors of mortality were preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 0.99 per mL/min/1.73m2;P<0.001) and age (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.06 per year;P=0.005).Conclusions—Patients with significant LV systolic dysfunction undergoing isolated CABG using contemporary techniques have a good medium-term survival. Renal dysfunction is the strongest independent predictor of mortality.