Alberta Kidney Disease Network

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) has been associated with kidney function loss, which may be related to changes in the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). We sought to determine the effect of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) of patients with OSA on renal hemodynamics at baseline and in response to angiotensin II (AngII), which reflects RAS activity. Twenty normotensive, nondiabetic, newly diagnosed OSA subjects (15 men, 5 women, 50 ± 2 yr, respiratory disturbance index [RDI] > 15 h(-1)) with nocturnal hypoxemia (SaO2 < 90% for >12% of the night) were studied in high-salt balance pre- and post-CPAP therapy (>4 h CPAP use/night for 1 mo). Glomerular filtration rate (GFR), renal plasma flow (RPF), and filtration fraction (FF) (a surrogate marker for intraglomerular pressure) were measured pre- and post-CPAP using inulin and para-aminohippurate clearance techniques at baseline and in response to graded AngII infusion (3 ng/kg/min × 30 min and 6 ng/kg/min × 30 min, respectively). CPAP corrected OSA and hypoxemia (RDI: 42 ± 4 vs. 4 ± 1 h(-1), P < 0.001; duration SaO2 < 90%: 36% ± 5% vs. 6 ± 2%, P < 0.001). CPAP reduced GFR (124 ± 8 ml/min vs. 110 ± 6 ml/min, P = 0.014), increased RPF (692 ± 36 ml/min vs. 749 ± 40 ml/min, P = 0.059), and reduced baseline FF (18.9 ± 1.6% vs. 15.3 ± 1.0%, P = 0.004). Post-CPAP demonstrated a blunted GFR response (-9 ± 3 ml/min vs. -2 ± 2 ml/min, P = 0.033) and augmented RPF response (-182 ± 22 ml/min vs. -219 ± 25 ml/min, P = 0.024) to AngII. FF response was maintained (P = 0.4). CPAP reduced baseline mean arterial pressure (94 ± 2 vs. 89 ± 2 mm Hg, P = 0.002), plasma aldosterone (149 ± 18 vs. 109 ± 10 pmol/L, P = 0.003), and urinary protein excretion (61 [39-341] mg/day vs. 56 [22-204] mg/d, P = 0.003). CPAP therapy was associated with improved renal hemodynamics and down-regulation of renal RAS activity, suggesting a potential therapeutic benefit for kidney function.

Provider and patient enthusiasm for frequent home nocturnal hemodialysis (FHNHD) has been renewed; however, the cost-effectiveness of this technique is unknown. We performed a cost-utility analysis of FHNHD compared with conventional hemodialysis (CvHD; 4 hours three times per week) from a health payer perspective over a lifetime horizon using patient information from the Alberta NHD randomized controlled trial. Costs, including training costs, were obtained using microcosting and administrative data (CAN$2012). We determined the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Robustness was assessed using scenario, sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Compared with CvHD (61% in-center, 14% satellite, and 25% home dialysis), FHNHD led to incremental cost savings (-$6700) and an additional 0.38 QALYs. In sensitivity analyses, when the annual probability of technique failure with FHNHD increased from 7.6% (reference case) to ≥19%, FHNHD became unattractive (>$75,000/QALY). The cost/QALY gained became $13,000 if average training time for FHNHD increased from 3.7 to 6 weeks. In scenarios with alternate comparator modalities, FHNHD remained dominant compared with in-center CvHD; cost/QALYs gained were $18,500, $198,000, and $423,000 compared with satellite CvHD, home CvHD, and peritoneal dialysis, respectively. In summary, FHNHD is attractive compared with in-center CvHD in this cohort. However, the attractiveness of FHNHD varies by technique failure rate, training time, and dialysis modalities from which patients are drawn, and these variables should be considered when establishing FHNHD programs.

The acceptability of financial incentives for organ donation is contentious. This study sought to determine (1) the acceptability of expense reimbursement or financial incentives by the general public, health professionals involved with organ donation and transplantation, and those with or affected by kidney disease and (2) for the public, whether financial incentives would alter their willingness to consider donation. Web-based survey administered to members of the Canadian public, health professionals, and people with or affected by kidney disease asking questions regarding acceptability of strategies to increase living and deceased kidney donation and willingness to donate a kidney under various financial incentives. Responses were collected from 2004 members of the Canadian public October 11-18, 2011; responses from health professionals (n=339) and people with or affected by kidney disease (n=268) were collected during a 4-week period commencing October 11, 2011. Acceptability of one or more financial incentives to increase deceased and living donation was noted in >70% and 40% of all groups, respectively. Support for monetary payment for living donors was 45%, 14%, and 27% for the public, health professionals, and people with or affected by kidney disease, respectively. Overall, reimbursement of funeral expenses for deceased donors and a tax break for living donors were the most acceptable. The general public views regulated financial incentives for living and deceased donation to be acceptable. Future research needs to examine the impact of financial incentives on rates of deceased and living donors.

Contrast-induced nephropathy is associated with significant economic and clinical consequences, including prolonged hospitalization, the requirement for dialysis, and an increased risk of death. To summarize the current state of evidence for prophylaxis of contrast-induced nephropathy, provide evidence-based recommendations regarding management of high-risk patients undergoing angiographic procedures, and identify new avenues for research. Systematic searches of peer-reviewed publications were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database from 1966 to January 2006. Search terms included radio contrast nephropathy, contrast media, acetylcysteine, theophylline, sodium bicarbonate, HMG Co-A reductase inhibitors, ascorbic acid, kidney diseases, renal insufficiency, kidney failure, nephropathy, fenoldopam, diuretics, and saline or half saline. Observational studies of risk factors and randomized controlled trials of prophylaxis strategies for contrast-induced nephropathy that specified a definition of contrast-induced nephropathy or postprocedure creatinine level as an outcome measure. Evidence Synthesis Important patient-related risk factors for contrast-induced nephropathy include chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, older age, anemia, and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Non-patient-related risk factors include high-osmolar contrast, ionic contrast, contrast viscosity, and contrast volume. Practice guidelines recommend obtaining preprocedural serum creatinine levels among patients with renal disease, diabetes, proteinuria, hypertension, gout, or congestive heart failure. Available evidence, largely based on small- to medium-sized trials, supports the use of hydration, bicarbonate, and low volumes of iso- or low-osmolar contrast in patients at risk. N-acetylcysteine or ascorbic acid may be of value in very high-risk patients. While several risk factors for contrast-induced nephropathy have been identified, the development of an effective prophylaxis strategy for contrast-induced nephropathy has been limited by our poor understanding of the pathophysiology and the clinical significance of this condition. Future research should focus on correctly identifying higher-risk patients and testing therapies in the setting of large well-powered clinical trials.