Flow measurements: Can several “Wrongs” make a “Right”?

AIMS: Although measurement of maximum flow rate (Qmax) is a standard and straightforward test, it is often difficult to obtain reliable readings. We obtained multiple measurements using a simple home uroflow device which categorizes Qmax into ranges. We hypothesize that the average of a series of relatively coarse measurements of Qmax would be more repeatable and therefore more representative of an individual's voiding function than a single, albeit more precise measurement. METHODS: We studied 22 male volunteers with a wide range of Qmax. They were asked to record flow category (<10 ml/sec; 10-15 ml/sec; 15-20 ml/sec; >20 ml/sec) and voided volume twice daily for 12 days using the home flow device. In addition, a clinic-based flow recording using a spinning-disc uroflowmeter was obtained at both the start and the end of the 12-day period. RESULTS: Good agreement between mean home flow and mean clinic flow was seen with mean (SD) difference of 1.3 (5) ml/sec. The mean for consecutive halves of an individual's home flow data showed excellent agreement (-0.2 (1.3) ml/sec). The two clinic readings showed poorer agreement (2.3 (6.8) ml/sec) than the home readings, and poorer agreement even than between clinic and home flows. CONCLUSIONS: Although simple in design, the home flowmeter actually shows greater accuracy than might be expected when used repeatedly to study the flow rates of men. Simple flow devices such as this could be used in conjunction with voiding diaries to give a more representative picture of patients' day-to-day voiding function.     

“Turn downs” in aortic emergencies: Reassurance or uncertainty?

“Turn‐down” rate has been reported to have a significant influence on outcomes, and being turned down for an operation is associated with significant short‐term mortality risk. A study examining the impact of the pandemic on the “turn‐down” rates of acute aortic syndromes in the United Kingdom reported an overall “turn‐down” rate of  7.3% in the early part of the pandemic. This review examines the significance of “turn‐downs” in this setting and scrutinizes the adequacy of reporting this complex variable.     

A 10 min “no‐touch” time – is it enough in DCD? A DCD Animal Study

Donation after cardiac death (DCD) is under investigation because of the lack of human donor organs. Required times of cardiac arrest vary between 75s and 27min until the declaration of the patients' death worldwide. The aim of this study was to investigate brain death in pigs after different times of cardiac arrest with subsequent cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) as a DCD paradigm. DCD was simulated in 20 pigs after direct electrical induction of ventricular fibrillation. The "no-touch" time varied from 2min up to 10min; then 30min of CPR were performed. Brain death was determined by established clinical and electrophysiological criteria. In all animals with cardiac arrest of at least 6min, a persistent loss of brainstem reflexes and no reappearance of bioelectric brain activity occurred. Reappearance of EEG activity was found until 4.5min of cardiac arrest and subsequent CPR. Brainstem reflexes were detectable until 5min of cardiac arrest and subsequent CPR. According to our experiments, the suggestion of 10min of cardiac arrest being equivalent to brain death exceeds the minimum time after which clinical and electrophysiological criteria of brain death are fulfilled. Therefore shorter "no-touch" times might be ethically acceptable to reduce warm ischemia time.     

Does low-energy helium-neon laser irradiation alter “in vitro” replication of human fibroblasts?

Cultured human fibroblasts were treated in a controlled, randomized manner to assess the effect of low-energy (0.9 mW) helium-neon (HeNe) laser irradiation on cellular proliferation. Two trials were performed: one with fibroblasts in the third to fourth passage and the other with fibroblasts in the 13th to 14th passage. In each trial, separate plastic petri dishes were inoculated with the cells, maintained in a 5% CO2-95% air atmosphere, and nourished with HB 102 media. Treatment began 48 h after inoculation with daily 60-s irradiations of the "treated" cultures over a 5-d period. Control cultures underwent the same handling but were not irradiated. A significant stimulative, or inhibitive, effect on replication was not found in either trial.     

Is It Possible to Create a “Mechanical” Arteriovenous Fistula in Hemodialysis Patients?

Manual suturing still remains the best technique for the creation of vascular anastomoses on uremic patients with excellent results, despite being time consuming, difficult to perform with small vessels, and associated with a significant learning curve. We created a full mechanical arteriovenous fistula on a 65‐year‐old uremic patient with a new device already used in cardiac bypass surgery. The fistula was created automatically and rapidly, without the need for temporary occlusion of the artery, reducing the risk of blood clotting. We believe that mechanical devices may be useful to produce precise and fast anastomoses requiring minimal training for the surgeon.     

Ethical Issues in DialysisAlan Spital,Series Editor: Do Not Resuscitate Orders and Iatrogenic Arrest During Dialysis: Should “No” Mean “No”?

An iatrogenic arrest is a cardiopulmonary arrest induced by a therapeutic effort. Frequently cardiopulmonary arrests during hemodialysis (HD) are iatrogenic. In this article I consider the question of what to do when a cardiopulmonary arrest occurs during HD in a patient with a do not resuscitate (DNR) order. I consider and reject four arguments to override the DNR order: the principle of nonmaleficence, the efficacy of resuscitation, proximate cause, and physician error. Instead, I argue that respect for patient autonomy and patient goals means that DNR orders must be respected unless there is compelling evidence that overriding the DNR would be consistent with the patient's goals. If such evidence is lacking, the physician has no moral choice but to follow the DNR order literally. As such, nephrologists need better communication with their patients regarding advance care planning and better documentation of their communication once it has occurred.     

Use of SARS‐CoV‐2‐infected deceased organ donors: Should we always “just say no?”

In the context of a rapidly evolving pandemic, multiple organizations have released guidelines stating that all organs from potential deceased donors with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection should be deferred, including from otherwise medically eligible donors found to have mild or asymptomatic SARS‐CoV‐2 discovered on routine donor screening. In this article, we critically examine the available data on the risk of transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 through organ transplantation. The isolation of SARS‐CoV‐2 from nonlung clinical specimens, the detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 in autopsy specimens, previous experience with the related coronaviruses SARS‐CoV and MERS‐CoV, and the vast experience with other common RNA respiratory viruses are all addressed. Taken together, these data provide little evidence to suggest the presence of intact transmissible SARS‐CoV in organs that can potentially be transplanted, specifically liver and heart. Other considerations including ethical, financial, societal, and logistical concerns are also addressed. We conclude that, for selected patients with high waitlist mortality, transplant programs should consider accepting heart or liver transplants from deceased donors with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.