Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- renal function (3) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (3) (remove)
Background & Aims: Renal function assessed by creatinine is a key prognostic factor in cirrhotic patients. However, creatinine is influenced by several factors, rendering interpretation difficult in some situations. This is especially important in early stages of renal dysfunction where renal impairment might not be accompanied by an increase in creatinine. Other parameters, such as cystatin C (CysC) and beta‐trace protein (BTP), have been evaluated to fill this gap. However, none of these studies have considered the role of the patient's sex. The present study analysed CysC and BTP to evaluate their prognostic value and differentiate them according to sex.
Patients and methods: CysC and BTP were measured in 173 transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)‐patients from the NEPTUN‐STUDY(NCT03628807) and analysed their relationship with mortality and sex. Propensity score for age, MELD, etiology and TIPS indication was used.
Results_ Cystatin C and BTP showed excellent correlations with creatinine values at baseline and follow‐up. CysC was an independent predictor of overall mortality (HR = 1.66(1.33‐2.06)) with an AUC of 0.75 and identified a cut‐off of 1.55 mg/L in the whole cohort. Interestingly, CysC was significantly lower in females, also after propensity score matching. In males, the only independent predictor was the creatinine level (HR = 1.54(1.25‐1.58)), while in females CysC levels independently predicted mortality (HR = 3.17(1.34‐7.52)).
Conclusion: This study demonstrates for the first time that in TIPS‐patients creatinine predicts mortality in males better than in females, whereas CysC is a better predictor of mortality in females. These results may influence future clinical decisions on therapeutic options for example, allocation for liver transplantation in TIPS‐patients.
This is a randomized trial (ATHENA study) in de novo kidney transplant patients to compare everolimus versus mycophenolic acid (MPA) with similar tacrolimus exposure in both groups, or everolimus with concomitant tacrolimus or cyclosporine (CsA), in an unselected population. In this 12-month, multicenter, open-label study, de novo kidney transplant recipients were randomized to everolimus with tacrolimus (EVR/TAC), everolimus with CsA (EVR/CsA) or MPA with tacrolimus (MPA/TAC), with similar tacrolimus exposure in both groups. Non-inferiority of the primary end point (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] at month 12), assessed in the per-protocol population of 338 patients, was not shown for EVR/TAC or EVR/CsA versus MPA/TAC. In 123 patients with TAC levels within the protocol-specified range, eGFR outcomes were comparable between groups. The mean increase in eGFR during months 1 to 12 post-transplant, analyzed post hoc, was similar with EVR/TAC or EVR/CsA versus MPA/TAC. The incidence of treatment failure (biopsy proven acute rejection, graft loss or death) was not significant for EVR/TAC but significant for EVR/CsA versus MPA/TAC. Most biopsy-proven acute rejection events in this study were graded mild (BANFF IA). There were no differences in proteinuria between groups. Cytomegalovirus and BK virus infection were significantly more frequent with MPA/TAC. Thus, everolimus with TAC or CsA showed comparable efficacy to MPA/TAC in de novo kidney transplant patients. Non-inferiority of renal function, when pre-specified, was not shown, but the mean increase in eGFR from month 1 to 12 was comparable to MPA/TAC.
Introduction: This open label, multicentre study was conducted to assess the times to offset of the pharmacodynamic effects and the safety of remifentanil in patients with varying degrees of renal impairment requiring intensive care.
Methods: A total of 40 patients, who were aged 18 years or older and had normal/mildly impaired renal function (estimated creatinine clearance ≥ 50 ml/min; n = 10) or moderate/severe renal impairment (estimated creatinine clearance <50 ml/min; n = 30), were entered into the study. Remifentanil was infused for up to 72 hours (initial rate 6–9 μg/kg per hour), with propofol administered if required, to achieve a target Sedation–Agitation Scale score of 2–4, with no or mild pain.
Results: There was no evidence of increased offset time with increased duration of exposure to remifentanil in either group. The time to offset of the effects of remifentanil (at 8, 24, 48 and 72 hours during scheduled down-titrations of the infusion) were more variable and were statistically significantly longer in the moderate/severe group than in the normal/mild group at 24 hours and 72 hours. These observed differences were not clinically significant (the difference in mean offset at 72 hours was only 16.5 min). Propofol consumption was lower with the remifentanil based technique than with hypnotic based sedative techniques. There were no statistically significant differences between the renal function groups in the incidence of adverse events, and no deaths were attributable to remifentanil use.
Conclusion: Remifentanil was well tolerated, and the offset of pharmacodynamic effects was not prolonged either as a result of renal dysfunction or prolonged infusion up to 72 hours.