Tag: Navy (Page 41 of 45)

The Relationship Between Diabetes and Subsequent Need for Dialysis: A Statistical Perspective

A couple of days ago I related my long journey to being currently on dialysis. I 100% attribute this requirement to my earlier ailment, diabetes. One aspect I did not relate to is that my grandmother on my mother’s side of the family was diabetic, my mother was diabetic, and our two sons were/are diabetic. This is somewhat moot “proof” that it can be inherited and runs in families. It does not, however in any aspect, remove the burden of where we are, a diabetic on dialysis. This association got me thinking about the importance of really really recognizing the strong tie between being diabetic and its impact on the future statistical probability of needing/requiring Dialysis.Then, I turned to my silent partner in crime, my faithful AI assistant openai.com running gpt-4 with the following prompt, and the subsequent result is included below.

First, a couple of comments. I firmly believe I stayed on Metformin too long, seriously impacting my kidneys. At no time was there any appearance of coordination and/or teamwork or communication between doctors involved in my treatment? I’m sorry to state that to this day it is obvious that such teamwork is lacking. Doctors live in silos from which they rarely seem to leave. Over time my doctors hammered my Hypertension without explaining in any detail the ramifications and/or if/then/else of not keeping it within bounds, which seemed to be ever-changing over time. As soon as an individual’s eGFR passes the 60 wicket regardless of what’s going on with hypertension and A1c, a team should take over and hold the patient by the hand to preclude to the extent possible the need for Dialysis. You draw your own conclusions from the essay below.

GPT-4 Prompt: From a statistical perspective, what is the relationship between diabetes and the subsequent need to go on dialysis? Use citations and include references in at least a 2000-word essay written at a freshman college level.

Introduction

Diabetes is a global health concern that affects millions of people. It is a group of metabolic disorders characterized by high blood sugar levels over an extended period. Type 1 and type 2 diabetes are the most common forms, with type 2 diabetes accounting for about 90% of cases. Diabetes can cause various complications, including kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, and neuropathy. One severe complication is diabetic nephropathy, which may lead to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and dialysis needs. This essay explores the statistical relationship between diabetes and subsequent dialysis needs by examining relevant literature and studies.

  1. Diabetes and kidney disease: the pathophysiology

Diabetic nephropathy, a leading cause of kidney disease, develops in about 40% of individuals with diabetes (Gheith et al., 2016). High blood sugar levels cause damage to the blood vessels in the kidneys, impairing their ability to filter waste and excess fluids. Over time, this damage accumulates, leading to kidney disease and, eventually, kidney failure.

Kidney disease can be categorized into five stages based on the glomerular filtration rate (GFR), a measure of kidney function. Stage 1 represents the least severe stage, while stage 5, or ESRD, is the most severe, often necessitating dialysis or a kidney transplant. Diabetes increases the risk of developing kidney disease and progressing to ESRD (Afkarian et al., 2013).

  1. Prevalence of diabetes and kidney disease

The prevalence of diabetes has been increasing worldwide, with the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) estimating that 537 million adults will have diabetes in 2021 (IDF Diabetes Atlas, 2021). The number is projected to reach 643 million by 2030 (IDF Diabetes Atlas, 2021). The global prevalence of diabetic nephropathy was estimated at 6.9% in 2020 (Thomas et al., 2020).

Kidney disease is a significant public health concern, affecting more than 850 million people worldwide (Liyanage et al., 2015). Among individuals with ESRD, diabetes is the leading cause, accounting for 44% of cases in the United States (USRDS, 2020). In Europe, diabetes is responsible for 25% of ESRD cases, with variations between countries (ERA-EDTA, 2019).

  1. Diabetes and the Risk of Dialysis

Diabetic nephropathy progresses more rapidly in individuals with poor glycemic control, high blood pressure, and genetic predisposition (Tuttle et al., 2014). Studies have reported that the risk of developing ESRD in individuals with diabetes is 12-25 times higher than in those without diabetes (Afkarian et al., 2013; de Boer et al., 2011).

A study by Afkarian et al. (2013) investigated the risk of ESRD in a cohort of 10,483 individuals with type 1 diabetes and 9,697 individuals with type 2 diabetes. The cumulative incidence of ESRD at 20 years was 3.3% for type 1 diabetes and 1.7% for type 2 diabetes. The study also found that the risk of ESRD increased with the duration of diabetes and higher levels of baseline glycated hemoglobin (A1C), a marker of long-term blood sugar control.

Another study by de Boer et al. (2011) assessed the risk of ESRD in 1,746 individuals with type 1 diabetes and 4,507 individuals with type 2 diabetes. The cumulative incidence of ESRD at 20 years was 2.2% for type 1 diabetes and 1.8% for type 2 diabetes. The study demonstrated that higher baseline A1C levels and longer diabetes duration were associated with increased risks of ESRD, emphasizing the importance of proper blood sugar management.

  1. Factors influencing the need for dialysis in diabetic patients

Several factors can increase the likelihood of diabetic patients requiring dialysis. These factors include:

a. Glycemic control: Maintaining optimal blood sugar levels is critical in delaying the progression of diabetic nephropathy and reducing the risk of ESRD (Ismail-Beigi et al., 2010). Improved glycemic control has been shown to reduce the risk of microvascular complications, including kidney disease, in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes (DCCT/EDIC Study Research Group, 2005; ADVANCE Collaborative Group, 2008).

b. Blood pressure control: High blood pressure is a significant risk factor for the progression of diabetic nephropathy (Molitch et al., 2015). Strict blood pressure control, particularly with medications such as angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), can slow kidney disease progression and reduce the risk of ESRD in diabetic patients (Lewis et al., 1993; Brenner et al., 2001).

c. Albuminuria: Elevated albumin levels in the urine (albuminuria) are an early sign of kidney damage in diabetic patients. Reducing albuminuria through blood sugar and blood pressure control can delay the progression of kidney disease (Wanner et al., 2016).

d. Lifestyle factors: Adopting a healthy lifestyle, including regular exercise, a balanced diet, and maintaining a healthy weight, can help control blood sugar levels and reduce the risk of kidney disease in diabetic patients (ADA, 2021).

  1. Strategies to reduce the need for dialysis in diabetic patients

Efforts to minimize the risk of dialysis in diabetic patients include:

a. Early detection and monitoring: Regular screening for kidney disease in diabetic patients can facilitate early intervention and slow the progression of kidney disease (ADA, 2021).

b. Integrated care: A multidisciplinary approach that involves primary care providers, endocrinologists, nephrologists, and other healthcare professionals can optimize diabetes management and reduce the risk of complications (ADA, 2021).

c. Patient education: Empowering patients with knowledge about diabetes management, self-monitoring of blood sugar, and healthy lifestyle choices can improve treatment adherence and reduce the risk of kidney disease (Funnell et al., 2010).

Conclusion

Diabetes is a significant risk factor for kidney disease and the subsequent need for dialysis. The relationship between diabetes and dialysis is influenced by glycemic control, blood pressure management, and albuminuria. Early detection, proper management of diabetes, and lifestyle modifications can reduce the risk of kidney disease progression and the need for dialysis in diabetic patients. Continued research and public health initiatives aimed at preventing diabetes, optimizing diabetes management, and raising awareness about kidney disease are essential in addressing this global health challenge.

References

ADA. (2021). Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2021. Diabetes Care, 44(Suppl. 1), S1-S232.

ADVANCE Collaborative Group. (2008). Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine, 358(24), 2560-2572.

Afkarian, M., Sachs, M. C., Kestenbaum, B., Hirsch, I. B., Tuttle, K. R., Himmelfarb, J., & de Boer, I. H. (2013). Kidney disease and increased mortality risk in type 2 diabetes. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 24(2), 302-308.

Brenner, B. M., Cooper, M. E., de Zeeuw, D., Keane, W. F., Mitch, W. E., Parving, H. H., … & Shahinfar, S. (2001). Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. New England Journal of Medicine, 345(12), 861-869.

DCCT/EDIC Study Research Group. (2005). Sustained effect of intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus on the development and progression of diabetic nephropathy: the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 290(16), 2159-2167.

de Boer, I. H., Rue, T. C., Hall, Y. N., Heagerty, P. J., Weiss, N. S., & Himmelfarb, J. (2011). Temporal trends in the prevalence of diabetic kidney disease in the United States. Journal of the American Medical Association, 305(24), 2532-2539.

ERA-EDTA. (2019). European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) Annual Report 2019. Retrieved from https://www.era-edta.org/en/registry/annual-reports/

Funnell, M. M., Brown, T. L., Childs, B. P., Haas, L. B., Hosey, G. M., Jensen, B., … & Weiss, M. A. (2010). National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education. Diabetes Care, 33(Suppl. 1), S89-S96.

Gheith, O., Farouk, N., Nampoory, N., Halim, M. A., & Al-Otaibi, T. (2016). Diabetic kidney disease: worldwide difference of prevalence and risk factors. Journal of Nephropharmacology, 5(1), 49-56.

IDF Diabetes Atlas. (2021). International Diabetes Federation. Retrieved from https://www.diabetesatlas.org

Ismail-Beigi, F., Craven, T., Banerji, M. A., Basile, J., Calles, J., Cohen, R. M., … & ACCORD Trial Group. (2010). Effect of intensive treatment of hyperglycaemia on microvascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes: an analysis of the ACCORD randomised trial. The Lancet, 376(9739), 419-430.

Lewis, E. J., Hunsicker, L. G., Bain, R. P., & Rohde, R. D. (1993). The effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition on diabetic nephropathy. New England Journal of Medicine, 329(20), 1456-1462.

Liyanage, T., Ninomiya, T., Jha, V., Neal, B., Patrice, H. M., Okpechi, I., … & Perkovic, V. (2015). Worldwide access to treatment for end-stage kidney disease: a systematic review. The Lancet, 5(9981), 1975-1982.

Molitch, M. E., Adler, A. I., Flyvbjerg, A., Nelson, R. G., So, W. Y., Wanner, C., … & Wheeler, D. C. (2015). Diabetic kidney disease: a clinical update from Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes. Kidney International, 87(1), 20-30.

Thomas, M. C., Brownlee, M., Susztak, K., Sharma, K., Jandeleit-Dahm, K. A., Zoungas, S., … & Cooper, M. E. (2020). Diabetic kidney disease. Nature Reviews Disease Primers, 6(1), 1-28.

Tuttle, K. R., Bakris, G. L., Bilous, R. W., Chiang, J. L., de Boer, I. H., Goldstein-Fuchs, J., … & Molitch, M. E. (2014). Diabetic kidney disease: a report from an ADA Consensus Conference. Diabetes Care, 37(10), 2864-2883.

USRDS. (2020). United States Renal Data System. 2020 USRDS Annual Data Report: Epidemiology of Kidney Disease in the United States. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, MD.

Wanner, C., Inzucchi, S. E., Lachin, J. M., Fitchett, D., von Eynatten, M., Mattheus, M., … & EMPA-REG OUTCOME Investigators. (2016). Empagliflozin and progression of kidney disease in type 2 diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine, 375(4), 323-334.

The Importance of Diabetic Control While on Dialysis

Every morning I have to read my glucose level off of my Libre 3 Continuous Glucose Monitor and enter the reading into the Cycler’s “fitals” screen. Other than of interest to me, it was 99 this morning, no one from my team ever comments on this or how in general my diabetic control is doing. I would like to think this is because we are on track and doing an OK job with diabetic control. At the present time, my A1C is in the 6.2 range where it more or less stays. It has been as low as 5.4 and as high as 6.7. I don’t remember how long it has been, years since it has ever been over 7. That did get me thinking about how important, especially to those who are on dialysis, it is to maintain tight diabetic control. Thus this blog with the help of my AI assistant offer the following treatise on diabetic control and dialysis.

Introduction

Diabetes mellitus is a chronic metabolic disorder characterized by elevated blood glucose levels, resulting from defects in insulin secretion, insulin action, or both. In 2021, the International Diabetes Federation estimated that over 537 million adults worldwide had diabetes, and this number is projected to rise to 643 million by 2030 (IDF Diabetes Atlas, 2021). Poorly managed diabetes can lead to numerous long-term complications, including diabetic kidney disease (DKD), which is the leading cause of the end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring dialysis (Afkarian et al., 2016).

Dialysis is a life-sustaining treatment for patients with ESRD that serves to remove waste products and excess fluid from the body when the kidneys can no longer perform this function effectively. However, managing diabetes and dialysis simultaneously presents a unique set of challenges. This blog will discuss the importance of optimal diabetic control for patients on dialysis, focusing on the effects on patient outcomes, cardiovascular risks, and quality of life, as well as exploring potential strategies for achieving optimal control.

  1. Effects on Patient Outcomes

Optimal diabetes control is crucial for patients on dialysis, as it has been shown to improve patient outcomes. A study by Williams et al. (2012) found that among diabetic patients on hemodialysis, those with poor glycemic control (HbA1c ≥ 8%) had significantly higher mortality rates compared to those with good glycemic control (HbA1c < 7%). Furthermore, Ricks et al. (2012) reported that in a cohort of 24,875 diabetic patients undergoing dialysis, each 1% increase in HbA1c was associated with a 14% increase in the risk of all-cause mortality. These findings suggest that appropriate diabetic control is essential for improving survival rates among patients undergoing dialysis.

  1. Cardiovascular Risks

Patients with diabetes and ESRD are at an increased risk of cardiovascular complications. According to the United States Renal Data System (USRDS, 2020), cardiovascular disease accounts for approximately 50% of deaths in ESRD patients, with diabetes being a major contributing factor. Optimizing diabetic control can help reduce cardiovascular risk in patients on dialysis. For example, a study by Shurraw et al. (2011) found that a 1% reduction in HbA1c was associated with a 15% decrease in the risk of myocardial infarction and a 17% decrease in the risk of stroke among diabetic patients on hemodialysis.

Moreover, patients with diabetes and ESRD often have other cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, which can be exacerbated by poor glycemic control (Charytan et al., 2020). Thus, optimal management of diabetes in conjunction with other risk factors is essential to minimize cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients on dialysis.

  1. Quality of Life

Diabetes and dialysis can both negatively impact the quality of life (QOL) of patients. However, studies have shown that improved glycemic control is associated with better QOL scores. A study by Kalantar-Zadeh et al. (2012) found that among diabetic patients on hemodialysis, those with better glycemic control (HbA1c < 7%) had significantly higher QOL scores compared to those with poor glycemic control (HbA1c ≥ 8%). Additionally, optimal diabetes management can help prevent or slow the progression of other diabetes-related complications, such as neuropathy and retinopathy, which can further enhance patients’ QOL (ADA, 2021).

Strategies for Achieving Optimal Diabetic Control

Achieving optimal diabetic control in patients on dialysis requires a comprehensive approach, encompassing medical management, lifestyle modifications, and patient education.

4.1. Medical Management

Medical management of diabetes in patients on dialysis requires close monitoring of blood glucose levels and appropriate adjustments to the patient’s diabetes medication regimen. Insulin therapy is the most commonly used treatment for patients with diabetes on dialysis, as oral antidiabetic medications are often contraindicated or require dose adjustments due to impaired renal function (Molitch, 2019). In addition, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems can be a valuable tool for patients on dialysis, as they provide real-time information on glucose levels, allowing for more accurate adjustments of insulin doses (Buse et al., 2020).

4.2. Lifestyle Modifications

Lifestyle modifications, including diet and exercise, are essential components of diabetes management for patients on dialysis. A tailored meal plan, developed in consultation with a registered dietitian, can help patients manage their blood glucose levels while also adhering to their dialysis-specific dietary restrictions (Kovesdy & Kalantar-Zadeh, 2016). Regular physical activity, as recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA, 2021), can also help improve glycemic control, cardiovascular health, and overall well-being.

4.3. Patient Education

Patient education is a critical component of diabetes management for patients on dialysis. It is essential for patients to understand the importance of regular blood glucose monitoring, medication adherence, and lifestyle modifications to achieve optimal glycemic control. Collaborative, patient-centered educational programs, such as the Chronic Kidney Disease Self-Management Program (CKD-SMP), have been shown to improve diabetes knowledge and self-care behaviors in patients with ESRD (Chen et al., 2018).

While the importance of optimal diabetic control in dialysis patients is well-established, there are several challenges that healthcare professionals and patients may encounter in achieving this goal. This section will discuss some of these challenges, as well as potential future directions for improving diabetic management in this population.

Challenges and Future Directions in Diabetic Control for Dialysis Patients

5.1. Challenges in Diabetic Control

One challenge in managing diabetes for patients on dialysis is the complexity of their medical regimen. In addition to managing their diabetes medications and insulin therapy, patients must also adhere to dialysis-specific dietary restrictions and fluid intake limitations, which can make maintaining optimal glycemic control more difficult (Kovesdy & Kalantar-Zadeh, 2016).

Another challenge is the increased risk of hypoglycemia in patients undergoing dialysis. Dialysis can cause fluctuations in blood glucose levels, and insulin requirements may change due to the removal of glucose and insulin during the dialysis process (Molitch, 2019). As a result, patients on dialysis are at a higher risk of hypoglycemia, which can be life-threatening if not promptly recognized and treated (ADA, 2021).

5.2. Future Directions

To address these challenges and improve diabetes management in patients on dialysis, research is ongoing to develop new therapeutic options and strategies. For example, novel glucose-lowering medications, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, are being investigated for their potential use in patients with ESRD (Molitch, 2019). SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and slow the progression of kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes (Zinman et al., 2015), and ongoing studies are evaluating their safety and efficacy in patients on dialysis (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03819153).

Additionally, advances in technology may help improve diabetes management for dialysis patients. For instance, the development of closed-loop insulin delivery systems, also known as artificial pancreas devices, may offer an effective solution for managing blood glucose levels in this population (Bally et al., 2017). These systems combine continuous glucose monitoring with automated insulin delivery, allowing for precise adjustments of insulin doses based on real-time glucose levels, which may help reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and improve overall glycemic control.

Conclusion

In conclusion, optimal diabetic control is of utmost importance for patients on dialysis, as it can significantly improve patient outcomes, reduce cardiovascular risks, and enhance the quality of life. Achieving optimal glycemic control requires a comprehensive approach, including medical management, lifestyle modifications, and patient education. Healthcare professionals and patients must work collaboratively to develop individualized treatment plans that address the unique challenges of managing diabetes and dialysis concurrently.

References

ADA. (2021). Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2021. Diabetes Care, 44(Supplement 1), S1-S232.

Afkarian, M., Sachs, M. C., Kestenbaum, B., Hirsch, I. B., Tuttle, K. R., Himmelfarb, J., & de Boer, I. H. (2016). Kidney disease and increased mortality risk in type 2 diabetes. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 27(2), 486-495.

Buse, J. B., Wexler, D. J., Tsapas, A., Rossing, P., Mingrone, G., Mathieu, C., … & Consoli, A. (2020). 2019 Update to: Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2018. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care, 43(2), 487-493.

Charytan, D., Solomon, S. D., Ivanovich, P., Remuzzi, G., Cooper, M. E., McGill, J. B., … & Parving, H. H. (2020). Efficacy and safety of losartan in diabetic patients with or without chronic kidney disease: a post hoc analysis of the

Reduction of Endpoints in Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan trial. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, 35(11), 1935-1944.

Chen, S. H., Tsai, Y. F., Sun, C. Y., Wu, I. W., Lee, C. C., & Wu, M. S. (2018). The impact of self-management support on the progression of chronic kidney disease—a prospective randomized controlled trial. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, 33(11), 1976-1982.

IDF Diabetes Atlas. (2021). International Diabetes Federation. Retrieved from https://www.diabetesatlas.org

Kalantar-Zadeh, K., Kopple, J. D., Regidor, D. L., Jing, J., Shinaberger, C. S., Aronovitz, J., … & Kovesdy, C. P. (2012). A1C and survival in maintenance hemodialysis patients. Diabetes Care, 35(5), 1043-1051.

Kovesdy, C. P., & Kalantar-Zadeh, K. (2016). Why is protein-energy wasting associated with mortality in chronic kidney disease? Seminars in Nephrology, 36(1), 3-16.

Molitch, M. E. (2019). Management of diabetes in patients with chronic kidney disease. Diabetes Spectrum, 32(3), 211-216.

Ricks, J., Molnar, M. Z., Kovesdy, C. P., Shah, A., Nissenson, A. R., Williams, M., & Kalantar-Zadeh, K. (2012). Glycemic control and cardiovascular mortality in hemodialysis patients with diabetes: a 6-year cohort study. Diabetes, 61(3), 708-715.

Shurraw, S., Majumdar, S. R., Thadhani, R., Wiebe, N., & Tonelli, M. (2011). Glycemic control and the risk of death in 1,484 patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 57(4), 549-556.

USRDS. (2020). United States Renal Data System 2020 Annual Data Report: Epidemiology of kidney disease in the United States. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 77(1), A7-A8.

Williams, M. E., Lacson, E., Teng, M., Ofsthun, N., & Lazarus, J. M. (2012). Hemodialyzed type I and type II diabetic patients in the US: Characteristics, glycemic control, and survival. Kidney International, 72(5), 629-637.

<

Relationship and importance of eGFR as relates to creatinine and Dialysis Decisions

My eGFR is currently bouncing between 8 and 9. How did I get here is a long story that started over sixty years ago when I was on the Rivers in Vietnam and subjected to Agent Orange. I started with Type II diabetes alone which lasted about ten years. Then my eGFR reached the low sixties, and I was sent to a Urologist who stated I would die of something other than Kidney Failure. This was in the early nineties. Progressively, but slowly, my eGFR coasted slowly downward. At no time would my diabetes be considered anything but “under control.” However, my meds changed and or increased over time to keep this control. At one point I was taking 2500 mg of Metformin, 1000 morning and night, and 500 at lunch. As a result of our moving to Corpus Christi, TX from Central Indiana I started with a new nephrologist who noted my eGFR was in the 30 range and immediately took me off of Metformin. This took place in about 2015 in the same time frame that I had a triple bypass. Absent Metformin, I started taking Lantus Insulin and have bounced around from 8 to 12 units ever since taking one injection in the evening before bed. In August my eGFR cratered in the 5-6 range, and I started on Dialysis, first hemo (it really sucks to the nth degree) then switched over to Peritoneal Dialysis as soon as possible.

Below is a graphical representation of eGFR versus Creatinine with the variable age shown as a family of curves obtained from this link:

As a result of this journey, I because very interested and sensitive to this measurement named eGFR which both my previous and current nephrologist seemed to deem as the Gold Standard in kidney functioning. Just like my GPs throughout my diabetic history have held A1C to be the standard checkpoint for diabetic control. As an engineer, I’ve always wondered why someone hasn’t displayed the relationship between creatinine and other variables in the equation that calculates eGFR. Keep in mind the “e” in eGFR stands for “estimated.

” While several government entities I have dealt with demanded/required that eGFR be calculated by an MD, some apps and websites do so painlessly. It is an exercise for the reader to sort these out for themselves. Referring to the graph above, I am currently 84, with a Creatinine value consistently in the over 6 range. Transferring these values to the graph results in an eGFR value along the 80 age curve to be in the 8 range. Easy-peasy.

For individuals interested in or currently on dialysis, it is crucial to understand the relationship between estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR) and creatinine. The remainder of this blog will provide a comprehensive overview of these two critical measures, their interrelationship, and their importance for dialysis patients.

  1. eGFR: A Key Measure of Kidney Function

eGFR, or estimated glomerular filtration rate, is a calculation used to evaluate kidney function. It measures the rate at which the kidneys filter waste and excess fluids from the blood (in mL/min/1.73 m2). The calculation takes into account factors such as age, sex, race, and serum creatinine level. A lower eGFR indicates decreased kidney function, with levels below 15 mL/min/1.73 m2 considered kidney failure.

  1. Creatinine: A Waste Product Indicative of Kidney Function

Creatinine is a waste product generated through normal muscle metabolism. Healthy kidneys efficiently filter creatinine from the blood, excreting it in urine. Therefore, elevated blood creatinine levels can be indicative of reduced kidney function. Creatinine levels are typically measured in mg/dL; normal ranges vary depending on age, sex, and muscle mass.

  1. The Relationship Between eGFR and Creatinine

Creatinine levels and eGFR are inversely related. As creatinine levels increase, eGFR decreases, indicating reduced kidney function. Conversely, lower creatinine levels correspond to a higher eGFR and better kidney function. Monitoring eGFR and creatinine levels can provide valuable insights into kidney health and inform treatment decisions, including dialysis.

  1. Importance of eGFR and Creatinine for Dialysis Patients

For dialysis patients or those considering dialysis, understanding eGFR and creatinine levels is essential for several reasons:

A. Monitoring Kidney Function: Regularly tracking eGFR and creatinine can help assess the progression of kidney disease, allowing healthcare providers to adjust treatment plans accordingly.

B. Determining Dialysis Timing: eGFR and creatinine levels play a crucial role in determining when dialysis should be initiated. Generally, dialysis is considered when eGFR falls below 15 mL/min/1.73 m2 or when symptoms of uremia (waste buildup in the blood) become evident.

C. Evaluating Dialysis Effectiveness: Dialysis aims to remove excess waste, including creatinine, from the blood. Comparing pre- and post-dialysis creatinine levels can help assess the effectiveness of dialysis sessions and identify the need for adjustments.

D. Adjusting Medications: Kidney function impacts drug metabolism and excretion. Monitoring eGFR and creatinine levels can help healthcare providers adjust medication dosages to ensure safety and efficacy for dialysis patients.

Conclusion:

Understanding the relationship between eGFR and creatinine is crucial for individuals on or considering dialysis. Monitoring these measures helps assess kidney function, informs treatment decisions, and ensures the effectiveness of dialysis therapy. Regular communication with healthcare providers is vital in managing kidney disease and optimizing overall health for dialysis patients.

Fresenius Cycler Problems Night 2, Stay Sharp, and Widowhood Effects

Last night’s Cycler performance did not fail us; it did however fail. I received the same drain alarm on the cycle 1 drain as during the previous night’s usage. The above Cycler screenshot of detailed “My Records” shows cycle 0 had a drain as predicted yesterday. Going down the columns, All cycle fill volumes, as are the times, are reasonable. The dwell time, supposed to be 120 minutes/2 hrs, is inconsistent. Why was cycle 1 133 minutes? Regarding drains, note that the first three drains left fluid in my gut, thus the negative UF (Ultra Filtration, negative indicates fluid left it, positive taken out) readings. Note especially the last drain of 3178 taking 29 minutes. I was up and moving around during this drain, probably resulting in it being quite large and positive. Something is not right in Dialysisville.

From cited article

In a March 22, 2023 article in SciTechDaily linked here, there was an interesting research report titled “Stay Sharp: Healthy Lifestyle Linked to Slower Memory Decline in Older Adults”

The researchers found that each individual healthy behavior (healthy diet, regular exercise, active social contact, cognitive activity, non-smoking, and never drinking alcohol) was associated with a slower-than-average decline in memory over ten years after accounting for other health, economic, and social factors. A healthy diet, cognitive activity, and physical exercise strongly affected slowing memory decline.

Since cognitive impairment is of central concern to dialysis patients, the research strongly suggests eating right, using your brain, and doing physical exercise. However, we all know this, right? Getting it done is another matter.

Picture from TIME article below.

The second research article I recently read has to do with the Widowhood Effect. With the widowhood effect, older adults grieving a spouse’s death have an increased mortality risk compared to those whose spouses are living. This effect has even been documented by researchers. A 2013 study that appeared in the Journal of Public Health showed that people had a 66% higher risk of dying within the first 90 days of losing their spouse. This discovery held true for both men and women.

An article on March 22, 2023, in Time BY HALEY WEISS titled “Losing a Spouse Makes Men 70% More Likely to Die Within a Year,” found that Gender and Age were two of the most influential risk factors for the widowhood effect. So if you are on Dialysis and want to beat the odds of dying within 4.5 years of going on the treatment, take good care of your spouse else you are a dead duck.

By the way, our goose is still in her nest in one of our gutters. Many people are interested in her activities up and down our street.

More Fresenius Cycler Alarms + CGM update #2 + VA

Data from last night’s Cycler performance – screenshot

Recall from yesterday’s blog that Fresenius Tech Support recommended turning off alarms to solve my cycler throwing alarms consistently during most night’s cycler use. With alarms off, last night on drain one I received another alarm, this one with the Stop Button flashing and a warning not to stop the patient’s drain or something like that. I was 3/4 asleep on my feet. After pressing the OK button, and staying on my feet upright, the drain proceeded until about 1700 mL had been drained, at which point I got back in bed.

Referring to the screenshot at the blog top, fill times are pretty much right on the 10-minute spec. Dwell times, except the last one, are NOT on the 120-minute spec. Drain volumes are all over the place – disregard the Cycle 0 327 drain, that was left over from yesterday’s cycle. So we have drains of 1944, 1516, 1965, and 2217. Drain time of 36, 17, 25, and 20 where only the last meets spec of 20. Disregarding the 327 Cycle 0, we had UF (fluid left in gut) of -57, -485, -37, and + 292, for a net of -287mL. This is over a cup (236.6 mL) of fluid left. I expect when I hook up to the cycler tonight that drain 0, that is upon startup, there will be a drain of at least this amount.

Add to the above that my weight was up another pound to 154 this morning leads me to the conclusion that all is not right in my Fresenius-lead treatment at this point. I have passed this data on to my Team Nurse and we’ll have to see what falls out. The alarm panel is at the blog’s end.

CGM: Had a call this morning from my pharmacy ExpressScripts about another matter, and at the conversation close asked about the status of my Freestyle Libre 3 order. I was told that it had been approved and should ship somewhere around April 4, 2023. Until such time as I have firm shipping info, I’m not going to cancel my out-of-pocket order which is prudent given we ARE dealing with government resources!

VA: I happened to check the status of my request to the VA to up my kidney failure to 100% from 80% due to the fact that I am now on Dialysis. I saw that it had been approved and that the rating package with info on how they arrived at their decision was in the mail. I received the package and was informed that the monthly disability payment had been increased which I did not ask for or anticipate. Turns out that since with the new rating of 100% for being on Dialysis, and the fact that I have another non-related rating of at least 60% (actually have a triple-bypass at 60% plus a host of others), I now fall under Special Monthly Compensation tables which resulted in the unanticipated increase. Blind squirrels etc.

Screen capture of cycler alarms panel

Fresenius Liberty Cycler Tech Support Call & CGMs

As stated in my blog entry last Friday, yesterday (Monday), I called Fresenius Tech Support concerning the seemingly continuous throwing of drain alarms by my Liberty Cycler. We spent over 20 minutes with the tech rep requesting data from various cycler screens. As of the phone call, the cycler was throwing drain alarms for exactly 50% of the evening dialysis treatments. Let me explain this so those not acquainted with the cycler have a little more insight into what I’m talking about.

The Cycler is a computer-controlled pumping device that controls the three phases of my evening dialysis treatment. After turning on and plugging my catheter into the cycler, it first checks to see if any fluid is left in my stomach cavity and if so pumps it out. It defaults to 50mL or more of such fluid. If there previously had been a “good” drain, the machine can’t remove at least 50mL of fluid so guess what, yes, it throws an alarm. You have to manually bypass this phase to move on.

From here on what takes place depends on what your nephrologist has ordered. From me, I am on 8000 mL total fluids, pumped in and out of my stomach lining 2000mL at a time, for four cycles total. So initially 2000mL is pumped in – called “fill,” which is left in my lining for two hours – called dwell, then pumped out – called a drain. Each fill is supposed to take 10 minutes, and each drain is 20 minutes. If you add up the total fill times 4×10=40 minutes and drain 4×20 = 80 minutes, you have 120 minutes or two hours ideally spent on fill and drain, plus 4×2 hrs = 8 hrs total dwell. So altogether, 10 hours in an ideal world. My best time is 10 hrs 11 minutes, and the worst is right at 11 hours. The problem is with the drain. For me, as previously stated, 50% or more of the time my system has problems with drains. Is it me, the cycler, or God knows?

On the me vector, I have been doing EVERYTHING my team has suggested. We tested my plumbing, and everything is working properly. I am on my second cycler; I have read that some patients have gone through more than 10 with drain problems. The internet is full of complaints by patients concerning drain problems with the Fresenius Cycler. The PR fluff Fresenius has released on their new cycler touts improvement in this area which is moot acknowledgment on their part of the cycler’s intrinsic problems with the current cycler. I guess other than the cycler, it’s in God’s bailiwick.

This morning I received a call from my Dialysis Team Nurse who had been contacted by Fresenius Tech Support. The bottom line is this: Tech Support’s solution to grossly excessive alarms is to turn them off. I was directed to a section in the Cycler manual called “Flow Alerts” wherein it states that if both flow alert and flow alert sound are set to “NO” the sound will not occur, but the cycler will display an alarm when you are draining or filling slowly. So I fired up my Cycler, went to the proper panel, and turned off the flow alert, defaulting the sound to N/A. Note the differences between what the manual stated needed to be accomplished and what took place on my Cycler.

Regardless, the alarm is now off, and we’ll soon know what effect this “fix” has. I’m going to watch what happens to the overall time I’m on the cycler. I suspect it will increase, perhaps drastically, because I’m not getting up to increase the drain flow as I have in the past. We’ll see, and I’ll report back.

CGM: Last week I had a conversation with my online pharmacy, ExpressScripts about an unrelated matter. Upon conclusion of this call, I inquired about their provision of Libre3 CGMs. I was assured that they either have them or will provide them when presented with a valid prescription by my doctor. I call my GP who sent them a script yesterday. My ExpressScripts app notified me they had received a script to fill. Today I received notification from ExpressScripts that a “Prior Authorization Required” has to be in place before they can ship my CGM order. My benefits plan must be approved through prior authorization to ensure my plan covers this medicine.

It looks like governmental red tape is taking over. Meanwhile, I’m paying $204.xx out-of-pocket for the Libre 3. I’ll keep you posted.

Hank

s

.

Fresenius Medical Care – The Company

This updates a previous post about Fresenius, the company that provides Dialysis Support for me and thousands of others.

Fresenius Medical Care is a German company specializing in providing dialysis products and services. The company was founded in 1996 as a result of the merger of Fresenius AG and the American company National Medical Care. However, the roots of the company’s involvement in the dialysis business can be traced back to the 1960s.

In 1966, Fresenius AG was founded in Germany as a pharmaceutical company. In the early 1970s, the company began manufacturing dialysis machines and equipment, and by the mid-1970s, Fresenius had become one of the leading suppliers of dialysis equipment in Europe.

In 1987, Fresenius acquired a controlling stake in National Medical Care (NMC), a US-based dialysis company. NMC was founded in 1971 by Dr. Stanley Shaldon and was one of the largest dialysis providers in the United States at the time of its acquisition. Fresenius gained a significant presence in the US dialysis market through the acquisition.

In 1996, Fresenius AG merged with NMC to form Fresenius Medical Care. The merger created one of the largest dialysis companies in the world, with operations in over 100 countries. Fresenius Medical Care continued to expand its business through acquisitions and partnerships, including the acquisition of Gambro AB in 2013, a Swedish company that specialized in dialysis products and services.

Today, Fresenius Medical Care is one of the leading providers of dialysis products and services globally, with over 3,900 dialysis clinics and a workforce of approximately 120,000 employees. The company’s products and services include dialysis machines, dialyzers, renal pharmaceuticals, and related laboratory and diagnostic services.

In conclusion, Fresenius Medical Care’s involvement in the dialysis business began in the 1960s with the manufacturing of dialysis machines and equipment by Fresenius AG. The acquisition of NMC in 1987 and the subsequent merger with Fresenius AG in 1996 further expanded the company’s presence in the dialysis market, leading to its current position as a leading provider of dialysis products and services worldwide.

In general, employee reviews on websites such as Glassdoor and Indeed suggest that Fresenius Medical Care is a good place to work, with many employees citing good benefits, supportive colleagues, and opportunities for career growth. However, some reviews also mention a high workload and demanding job responsibilities, which may be expected given the nature of the healthcare industry.

In terms of industry recognition, Fresenius Medical Care has received several awards and accolades as an employer. In 2020, the company was named one of the “World’s Most Admired Companies” by Fortune magazine and was recognized as a “Best Place to Work for LGBTQ Equality” by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation.

Fresenius Medical Care has also received recognition for its commitment to diversity and inclusion in the workplace. In 2020, the company was named a “Top 50 Employer” by the National Association of Female Executives and was recognized as a “Best Employer for Diversity” by Forbes magazine.

Overall, while individual experiences may vary, Fresenius Medical Care appears to be a company that values its employees and strives to create a supportive and inclusive workplace culture.

Fresenius Medical Care is publicly traded on several stock exchanges, including the Frankfurt Stock Exchange in Germany and the New York Stock Exchange in the United States. The company’s stock symbol is FME in Germany and FMS in the United States.

Historically, Fresenius Medical Care has performed well in the stock market, with steady growth in share price over the years. For example, between 2016 and 2020, the company’s share price in Germany increased from around €70 to over €80 per share. In the United States, the company’s share price increased from around $43 to over $50 per share during the same period.

The History of Peritoneal Dialysis: How It All Began

Since I am a Peritoneal Dialysis user/patient, I must have a rudimentary understanding of the history behind this life-saving procedure. Thus, the following blog entry: Please note the many links included in this blog entry to explain the terms and concepts introduced.

From Stable Diffusion with prompt “Original dialysis machine”

Introduction:

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a life-saving treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The history of PD dates back to ancient times when physicians used peritoneal lavage as a therapeutic tool to treat patients with abdominal infections. However, the modern use of peritoneal dialysis for the treatment of renal failure started in the 20th century. This blog will discuss the history of peritoneal dialysis, from its inception to the present day.

Ancient Times:

Peritoneal lavage was first described in ancient Greek medical texts as a treatment for abdominal infections. In the 1st century AD, the Roman physician Asclepiades used peritoneal lavage to treat a patient with peritonitis. This involved injecting warm water into the peritoneal cavity and then draining it out. The use of peritoneal lavage continued through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, but it was not until the 19th century that peritoneal dialysis began to take shape as a medical procedure.

19th Century:

In the 19th century, the Italian physiologist Carlo Matteucci conducted experiments in which he injected saline solution into the peritoneal cavity of dogs and observed the osmotic transfer of fluid across the peritoneal membrane. In 1856, the German physiologist Carl Ludwig described the transfer of fluids and solutes across the peritoneal membrane in his book “Physiology of the Circulation.” However, it was not until the early 20th century that peritoneal dialysis became a practical treatment option.

Early 20th Century:

In the early 1900s, Russian surgeon Dimitri Ivanovich Abrikossoff used peritoneal lavage as a treatment for uremia. He injected saline solution into the peritoneal cavity of patients with renal failure and then drained it out. Although Abrikossoff’s technique was not very effective, it laid the foundation for using peritoneal dialysis to treat renal failure.

In 1923, the American surgeon Leonard Rowntree and his colleagues at the University of Minnesota performed the first successful peritoneal dialysis in a dog. They injected saline solution into the peritoneal cavity of a dog with uremia and then drained it out. The dog’s condition improved, and it lived for several months after the procedure. Rowntree and his colleagues then performed peritoneal dialysis on a patient with renal failure, but the patient did not survive the procedure.

Mid-20th Century:

In the mid-20th century, several advances in peritoneal dialysis technology were made. In 1959, the Dutch physician Willem Kolff and his colleagues developed the first commercial peritoneal dialysis machine, the Kolff-Brigham dialysis machine. See the picture below. This machine used gravity to circulate the dialysis solution through the peritoneal cavity. In 1965, the American nephrologist Henry Tenckhoff developed the Tenckhoff catheter, which is still used today for peritoneal dialysis.

Artificial kidney. MG*291118, catalog number M-13845.

Late 20th Century:

In the late 20th century, peritoneal dialysis became a widely accepted treatment for ESRD. In 1976, the National Cooperative Dialysis Study showed that peritoneal dialysis was as effective as hemodialysis in the treatment of ESRD. In 1980, the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis was founded to promote the development of peritoneal dialysis as a treatment for renal failure.

Current Era:

In the current era, peritoneal dialysis remains an important treatment option for patients with ESRD. In 2016, there were approximately 240,000 patients worldwide receiving peritoneal dialysis, with the majority of patients living in developing countries.

Advancements in technology have improved the safety and effectiveness of peritoneal dialysis. Newer machines use automated cycling to circulate the dialysis solution through the peritoneal cavity, reducing the risk of infection and improving patient outcomes. Additionally, the development of newer dialysis solutions has improved the removal of waste products from the blood.

Conclusion:

Peritoneal dialysis has a long and storied history, dating back to ancient times. The modern use of peritoneal dialysis for the treatment of renal failure started in the 20th century, with the development of peritoneal lavage techniques and the first successful peritoneal dialysis procedures. Advancements in technology and the widespread acceptance of peritoneal dialysis as a treatment for ESRD have improved patient outcomes and made peritoneal dialysis an important treatment option for patients around the world.

References:

  1. Golper, T. A., & Piraino, B. (2015). Peritoneal dialysis: Its history and current status. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 66(5), 932-936. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2015.07.008
  2. Bleyer, A. J., & Diaz-Buxo, J. A. (2002). The history of peritoneal dialysis. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 13(Supplement 1), S23-S28. doi: 10.1097/01.asn.0000031473.60357.2b
  3. Oreopoulos, D. G. (1996). Peritoneal dialysis: A personal history. Peritoneal Dialysis International, 16(Supplement 1), S12-S18.
  4. Krediet, R. T. (2008). Peritoneal dialysis: From its origins to the twenty-first century. Kidney International, 73(Supplement 108), S3-S12. doi: 10.1038/sj.ki.5002713
  5. Li, P. K., Szeto, C. C., & Piraino, B. (2016). Peritoneal dialysis in the modern era: How did we get here and where are we going? American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 68(4), 692-699. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.05.020

Overview of the latest technologies and innovations in dialysis treatment and their impact on social acceptance

Introduction:

Dialysis treatment is a vital medical procedure that allows individuals with kidney failure to live healthier and longer lives. Since the first dialysis machine was invented in the 1940s, advancements in technology have revolutionized the way in which dialysis treatment is administered. These advancements have improved patient outcomes and quality of life. In this blog, we will explore the latest technologies and innovations in dialysis treatment and their impact on societal acceptance.

  1. Wearable Dialysis Devices: Wearable dialysis devices such as wearable artificial kidneys (WAK) are a promising innovation in dialysis treatment. The development of these devices began in the early 2000s, and they are still in the testing phase. However, early results have shown that WAKs have the potential to improve patients’ quality of life by allowing them to receive dialysis treatment while going about their daily activities. This technology has the potential to reduce the burden on patients and caregivers by eliminating the need for frequent visits to a dialysis center.
  2. High-Flux Dialyzers: High-flux dialyzers are a newer type of dialyzer that removes more toxins from the blood than traditional dialyzers. These devices were introduced in the 1990s and have become increasingly common in dialysis centers. High-flux dialyzers work by allowing more water to flow through the membrane, which improves the removal of toxins from the blood. This technology has been shown to improve patient outcomes, reduce treatment times, and lower the risk of complications.
  3. Online Hemodiafiltration: Online hemodiafiltration (HDF) is a type of dialysis that combines the processes of hemodialysis and hemofiltration. This technology was introduced in the early 2000s and has been shown to improve patient outcomes. Online HDF removes more toxins from the blood than traditional dialysis and has been associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality rates.
  4. Remote Monitoring: Remote monitoring technology has been developed to allow healthcare providers to monitor patients’ vital signs and dialysis treatment remotely. This technology has the potential to improve patient outcomes by detecting potential complications before they become severe. Remote monitoring technology has been introduced in the past decade and is becoming increasingly common in dialysis centers.
  5. Personalized Dialysis: Personalized dialysis is an emerging field that uses a patient’s individual characteristics to develop a personalized dialysis treatment plan. This technology has the potential to improve patient outcomes and reduce the risk of complications. Personalized dialysis is still in the early stages of development, but early results have shown promising results.

Overall, these technological advancements have the potential to improve dialysis treatment outcomes and increase societal acceptance. However, issues of accessibility and affordability must be addressed to ensure that all individuals with kidney failure have access to the latest dialysis treatments.

References:

  1. Wearable Artificial Kidney (WAK) Clinical Trial. (2022). National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). Retrieved from https://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/research-programs/kidney-disease/wearable-artificial-kidney-wak-clinical-trial
  2. Kuhlmann, M. K. (2003). Advances in dialysis technology: high-flux dialysis. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 14(1), 265-269.
  3. Maduell, F., Arias, M., & Rodas, L. (2019). Hemodiafiltration versus Hemodialysis: A Review. Seminars in Dialysis, 32(6), 527-538.
  4. Perl, J., & Chan, C. T. (2015). Remote monitoring: a comprehensive review of the literature. Journal of

A Little of This, a Little of That re Dialysis

Egyptian Goose

Look at this as an unstructured chat about whatever comes to mind that’s taking place in my universe as we speak.

Yesterday Fresenius made a delivery of Dialysate for the next thirty days. They started with the delivery of several boxes of manual Dialysate, which is not usable in the Liberty Cycle Dialysis Machine I am currently using. I had to refuse delivery, get on the line with Fresenius Custom Service, and reorder several boxes of Dialysate. What happened doesn’t matter. Perhaps I screwed up the order when I placed it using the PatientHub app, or Fresenius. Regardless, a corrected order is now scheduled for 3/27/23. My Dialysis Nurse through the backdoor got involved and called to make certain I have enough Dialysate to last until delivery which I think I do.

The bottom line here is that Fresenius is taking care of me. I have seen gripes that Fresenius is not responsive which I find NOT to be the case.

For the past five nights, I have not received ANY Drain Alarms!!!!! So what is different? After constant probing by my Dialysis Team, I finally started taking MiraLAX daily. I took the cover off the plastic line leading from the Cycler to my catheter, and I rerouted the line on my stomach that leads from the catheter outbound to the Cycler – three changes that appear to be working. I’ll keep you posted. Hope I haven’t jinxed my current success by reporting the same.

I’ve been thinking about Mindfulness, and how we can apply this concept to our daily lives. As a starting point, during my morning walk with our Golden Retriever Dickens, I have with malice of forethought paused several times, just to “smell a rose,” listen to morning sounds of birds chirping, mowers mowing, PickleBall balls going whack, and in general, being more observant and at peace with our surroundings. It is working. I seem to be less tense and more in tune with nature.

Speaking of Nature, we have an Egyptian Goose that has laid eggs on the roof dormer over our master bedroom. The pair paraded around our and our neighbor’s yards for several weeks. They went missing for several days, and a neighbor who faces our bedroom side of the house said he has been watching them come and go on the leaf and stick nest they mashed up on our roof. Looks like we will be blessed with little geese running around our yard in the near future. Worse things could certainly happen.

Lastly, before my kidney failure, my fighting weight was around 162 pounds, and stayed there for years and years. As my kidneys started failing and my eGFR became lower and lower, I started losing weight. Just before I started Dialysis, I was down to 137 pounds. Once I started on Dialysis, initially I did not gain any appreciable weight. In the last month or so, I have been able to start gaining weight again and am up to about 150 pounds. There is a God.

« Older posts Newer posts »