The importance of standardization of creatinine in the implementation of guidelines and recommendations for CKD: implications for CKD management programmes.

BACKGROUND: In an attempt to reduce late referral and to improve the care of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), different organizations have issued guidelines on when to refer patients to the nephrologist. Most suggest referral of patients with a GFR below 60 ml/min/1.73 m2, and demand referral if the GFR is below 30 ml/min/1.73 m2. It is recommended to use the abbreviated MDRD equation to estimate GFR. This formula is, however, sensitive to the creatinine assay methodology. In addition, the impact of the implementation of such guidelines on the nephrology practice has never been evaluated. This study (i) identifies the true burden of CKD in a population and simulates the effects of a 100% implementation of the guidelines on the nephrology work load, and (ii) evaluates the validity of the estimated GFR using the abbreviated MDRD formula when routinely provided. METHODS: Different laboratories (both hospital and private) in our region were asked to report on all the serum creatinine values performed during the first week of December 2004. If patients had more than one determination, only the lowest serum creatinine value was retained. Patients already known to a nephrology unit were not included. GFR was calculated using the abbreviated MDRD, using the serum creatinine as reported by these laboratories, or after correction to the MDRD-standard using different published equations. RESULTS: 20,108 patients, with a mean age of 53.4+/-16.2 years, 48% females, had at least one serum creatinine determination in the observation period. According to the K/DOQI CKD classification, 20.2, 1.6 and 0.8% of females and 13.3, 1.6 and 0.6% of males were in stage 3, 4 and 5, respectively, when the abbreviated MDRD formula was used with the serum creatinine value as reported by the laboratories. Important differences in classifications were obtained when the different correction formulae for creatinine were applied. According to the current recommendations, this would lead to a mandatory referral of 1650-2400 CKD stage 4 patients per 100 000 inhabitants and a suggested referral of another 4100-15 360 CKD stage 3 patients per 100,000 inhabitants to a nephrology unit. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the current guidelines for referral of CKD patients to nephrologists would lead to an overload of the nephrology care capacities. Large differences in estimated GFRs with different corrections for serum creatinine are observed, resulting in important CKD classification differences. Standardization of serum creatinine assays is mandatory before guidelines, and especially the routine provision of the estimated GFR by the abbreviated MDRD formula, can be implemented in clinical practice.     

Endotoxin transfer through dialysis membranes: small- versus large-pore membranes.

In this in-vivo study, dialysate and serum endotoxin was evaluated before and after haemodialysis with small-pore (PS400) and large-pore (PS600) polysulphone dialysers, and before and after haemodiafiltration with the PS600 filter. The source of the endotoxin was the presence in dialysate of Pseudomonads at a concentration of 10(3)-10(4) CFU/ml. Endotoxin was measured by a modified chromogenic limulus amoebocyte lysate (LAL) assay. In spite of dialysate endotoxin concentrations greater than 100 pg/ml, no changes in pre- versus posttreatment LAL reactivity were observed in PS400 dialysis and PS600 haemodiafiltration. In contrast, PS600 haemodialysis was related to an increase in serum LAL reactivity from 1.3 +/- 1.5 to 3.8 +/- 2.0 pg/ml (n = 15, P less than 0.01), and five patients (33.3%) showed a post-dialysis value in excess of 5 pg/ml. Our data are consistent with the absence of in-vivo endotoxin transfer during haemodialysis with small-pore dialyser membranes, and during haemodiafiltration with membranes with larger pores. An increase in LAL reactivity during haemodialysis with membranes with larger pores is, however, present, presumably due to the occurrence of backdiffusion/filtration with that specific strategy.     

Recombinant Hirudin

The last decade has been characterised by the development of several anticoagulation methods as alternatives to the heparins. One of these is the antithrombin hirudin, which is now available on a large scale in the recombinant form. The application of hirudin as an anticoagulant in haemodialysis has been complicated by the decrease of its clearance in patients with renal failure. The half-life of hirudin is more than 30 times longer in haemodialysis patients than in healthy subjects. Therefore, at present, its use in the haemodialysis setting is essentially limited to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Hirudin has been used sporadically and with success in nonrenal failure patients with HIT and at least once on a regular basis in a haemodialysis patient. A starting dose between 0.08 and 0.15 mg/kg for the first dialysis, followed by 50% of this quantity during the following dialyses is recommended. Hirudin activity can be monitored by aiming for threshold activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) values between 60 and 90 seconds, with urgent dosage adaptations once aPTT rises above 100 to 120 seconds. Hirudin concentrations during dialysis should be maintained between 400 and 1000 microg/L, with determination by ecarin clotting time or chromogenic assays. At present, the use of hirudin is also limited by the absence of an effective antidote. In studies in humans, no enhanced removal of hirudin was observed during dialysis with large pore dialysers in contrast to earlier published animal studies.