11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Armed conflicts and kidney patients: a consensus statement from the Renal Disaster Relief Task Force of the ERA

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          During conflicts, people with kidney disease, either those remaining in the affected zones or those who are displaced, may be exposed to additional threats because of medical and logistical challenges. Acute kidney injury developing on the battlefield, in field hospitals or in higher-level hospital settings is characterized by poor outcomes. People with chronic kidney disease may experience treatment interruptions, contributing to worsening kidney function. Patients living on dialysis or with a functioning graft may experience limitations of dialysis possibilities or availability of immunosuppressive medications, increasing the risk of severe complications including death. When patients must flee, these threats are compounded by unhealthy and insecure conditions both during displacement and/or at their destination. Measures to attenuate these risks may only be partially effective. Local preparedness for overall and medical/kidney-related disaster response is essential. Due to limitations in supply, adjustments in dialysis frequency or dose, switching between hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis and changes in immunosuppressive regimens may be required. Telemedicine (if possible) may be useful to support inexperienced local physicians in managing medical and logistical challenges. Limited treatment possibilities during warfare may necessitate referral of patients to distant higher-level hospitals, once urgent care has been initiated. Preparation for disasters should occur ahead of time. Inclusion of disaster nephrology in medical and nursing curricula and training of patients, families and others on self-care and medical practice in austere settings may enhance awareness and preparedness, support best practices adapted to the demanding circumstances and prepare non-professionals to lend support.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Kidney measures beyond traditional risk factors for cardiovascular prediction: A collaborative meta-analysis

            Background The utility of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and albuminuria for cardiovascular prediction is controversial. Methods We meta-analyzed individual-level data from 24 cohorts (with a median follow-up time longer than 4 years, varying from 4.2 to 19.0 years) in the Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium (637,315 participants without a history of cardiovascular disease) and assessed C-statistic difference and reclassification improvement for cardiovascular mortality and fatal and non-fatal cases of coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure in 5-year timeframe, contrasting prediction models consisting of traditional risk factors with and without creatinine-based eGFR and/or albuminuria (either albumin-to-creatinine ratio [ACR] or semi-quantitative dipstick proteinuria). Findings The addition of eGFR and ACR significantly improved the discrimination of cardiovascular outcomes beyond traditional risk factors in general populations, but the improvement was greater with ACR than with eGFR and more evident for cardiovascular mortality (c-statistic difference 0.0139 [95%CI 0.0105–0.0174] and 0.0065 [0.0042–0.0088], respectively) and heart failure (0.0196 [0.0108–0.0284] and 0.0109 [0.0059–0.0159]) than for coronary disease (0.0048 [0.0029–0.0067] and 0.0036 [0.0019–0.0054]) and stroke (0.0105 [0.0058–0.0151] and 0.0036 [0.0004–0.0069]). Dipstick proteinuria demonstrated smaller improvement than ACR. The discrimination improvement with kidney measures was especially evident in individuals with diabetes or hypertension but remained significant with ACR for cardiovascular mortality and heart failure in those without either of these conditions. In participants with chronic kidney disease (CKD), the combination of eGFR and ACR for risk discrimination outperformed most single traditional predictors; the c-statistic for cardiovascular mortality declined by 0.023 [0.016–0.030] vs. <0.007 when omitting eGFR and ACR vs. any single modifiable traditional predictors, respectively. Interpretation Creatinine-based eGFR and albuminuria should be taken into account for cardiovascular prediction, especially when they are already assessed for clinical purpose and/or cardiovascular mortality and heart failure are the outcomes of interest (e.g., the European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention). ACR may have particularly broad implications for cardiovascular prediction. In CKD populations, the simultaneous assessment of eGFR and ACR will facilitate improved cardiovascular risk classification, supporting current CKD guidelines. Funding US National Kidney Foundation and NIDDK
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Recommendations on COVID‐19 triage: international comparison and ethical analysis

              Abstract On March 11, 2020 the World Health Organization classified COVID‐19, caused by Sars‐CoV‐2, as a pandemic. Although not much was known about the new virus, the first outbreaks in China and Italy showed that potentially a large number of people worldwide could fall critically ill in a short period of time. A shortage of ventilators and intensive care resources was expected in many countries, leading to concerns about restrictions of medical care and preventable deaths. In order to be prepared for this challenging situation, national triage guidance has been developed or adapted from former influenza pandemic guidelines in an increasing number of countries over the past few months. In this article, we provide a comparative analysis of triage recommendations from selected national and international professional societies, including Australia/New Zealand, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Pakistan, South Africa, Switzerland, the United States, and the International Society of Critical Care Medicine. We describe areas of consensus, including the importance of prognosis, patient will, transparency of the decision‐making process, and psychosocial support for staff, as well as the role of justice and benefit maximization as core principles. We then probe areas of disagreement, such as the role of survival versus outcome, long‐term versus short‐term prognosis, the use of age and comorbidities as triage criteria, priority groups and potential tiebreakers such as ‘lottery’ or ‘first come, first served’. Having explored a number of tensions in current guidance, we conclude with a suggestion for framework conditions that are clear, consistent and implementable. This analysis is intended to advance the ongoing debate regarding the fair allocation of limited resources and may be relevant for future policy‐making.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0931-0509
                1460-2385
                January 2023
                January 23 2023
                August 23 2022
                January 2023
                January 23 2023
                August 23 2022
                : 38
                : 1
                : 56-65
                Article
                10.1093/ndt/gfac247
                35998320
                135dae53-d681-48a7-a80b-f97a0f0a2cef
                © 2022

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article