Impact of Training in Interventional Nephrology on Hemodialysis Vascular Access Types

Interventional nephrology: current status and clinical impact in Japan

Background

Current status and clinical significance of interventional nephrology has not been reported from Japan.

Methods

Questionnaires were mailed twice to the directors of all 534 Japanese certificated nephrology training institutions in 2014. The main questions were current performance, categorized annual procedure volume and managers of peritoneal dialysis (PD) access, vascular access (VA) surgery, endovascular intervention, and kidney biopsy. Frequencies of nephrologist involvement between high volume center and low volume center and association between the level of nephrologists’ involvement to each procedure and annual procedure volume were examined.

Results

332 (62.2%) institutions answered performance of all procedures and 328 (61.4%) institutions answered all procedure volume. Kidney biopsy, VA surgery, endovascular intervention and PD access surgery were performed by any doctors in 94.2, 96.3, 88.4, and 76.2% and each involvement of nephrologist was 93.9, 54.1, 53.1 and 47.6%, respectively. Cochran–Armitage analyses demonstrated significant increases in all 4 procedure volume with greater management by nephrologists (p < 0.01). Nephrologists involvement to VA surgery associated with procedure volume increase in not only VA surgery, but also PD catheter insertion (p < 0.01) and kidney biopsy (p < 0.05). And nephrologists involvement to PD catheter insertion also associated with surgical volume increase in both VA surgery (p < 0.01) and endovascular intervention (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Main manager of all 4 procedures was nephrologist in Japan. Each procedure volume increased as nephrologists become more involved. Acquisition of one specific procedure by nephrologist associated with increase not only in this specific procedure volume, but also the other procedure volume.

Vascular access types in patients starting hemodialysis after failed kidney transplant: does close nephrology follow-up matter?

BACKGROUND

Native arteriovenous fistulae (AVFs) are preferred while central venous catheters (CVCs) are least suitable vascular access (VA) in patients requiring hemodialysis (HD). Unfortunately, around 80% of patients start HD with CVCs. Late referral to nephrologist is thought to be a factor responsible for this. We retrospectively analyzed the types of VA at HD initiation in renal transplant recipients followed by nephrologists with failed transplant. If early referral to nephrologist improves AVF use, these patients should have higher prevalence of AVF at HD initiation.

METHODS

All patients who failed their kidney transplants from January 2002 to April 2013 were included in the study. Data regarding planning of VA by nephrologist, documented discussion about renal replacement therapy (RRT), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 6 months and last clinic visit before HD initiation, time of VA referral, and subsequent VA at dialysis initiation were gathered and analyzed.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients failed their transplants during study period. Data were inaccessible in six patients. Eleven patients started peritoneal dialysis (PD) while 66 started HD. Thirty-two had previous functioning VA while 34 needed VA. There were 11/34 patients (32%) with eGFR <15 mL/min at six months while 21/34 (61%) had eGFR <15 mL/min at last clinic visit before HD initiation. Only 11/34 (32%) had documented RRT discussion, 8/34 (24%) had VA referral, and 7/34 (21%) had vein mapping. A total of 30/34 (88.3%) started HD with CVC while 4/34 (11.3%) started HD with AVF (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Early referral to nephrologist by itself may not improve VA care amongst patient with end-stage renal disease.

A Spanish multicentric study to evaluate the clinical activity of nephrology fellows during in-hospital on-call shifts

BACKGROUND

Nephrologists develop their work in diverse scenarios. A training programme must qualify trainees to assist different kinds of problems. The aim of this study was to characterize patients and pathologies that Spanish nephrology fellows face while on-call.

METHODS

This is a descriptive study with clinical and demographic data gathered with a form by 10 nephrology fellows of five university hospitals of Madrid (Spain), throughout their in-hospital 24 h on-call shifts in February and March 2013.

RESULTS

We collected 409 episodes over 338 patients, through 72 shifts. Among these, 16.7% had previous normal renal function, 24.6% chronic kidney disease, 39.5% were on dialysis and 18.2% had a kidney transplant. Most of the consults came from the emergency room (35.9%) or the previous on-call team (13.7%). Afterwards, the most usual destiny was admittance to a nephrology department (32.8%) or discharge (20.5%). The most frequent reason for consulting was a decline in renal function (31.6%) and the second motive an infection. Thirty-four episodes (8.3%) were related to dialysis access problems. Medical treatment was prescribed in 79.2% of the cases, primarily fluids (47.2%) and antibiotics (42.2%). The fellow had to place a central venous catheter in 24 cases (5.9%). Renal replacement therapy was prescribed in 19.8% of the episodes.

CONCLUSIONS

Specific renal reasons for consulting nephrologists are common, such as acute kidney injury or dialysis access complications. These patients benefit from a specialized approach to their problems. Clinical activities during in-hospital out-of-hours shifts are a priceless tool as part of the training programme of nephrology fellows.

Novel educational approaches to enhance learning and interest in nephrology

The number of U.S. medical graduates pursuing careers in nephrology has declined over the last several years. Some of the proposed reasons for this declining interest include difficult-to-understand or unstimulating kidney pathophysiology courses in medical school; disheartening inpatient elective experiences; and few opportunities to experience the other aspects of nephrology careers such as outpatient nephrology clinics, outpatient dialysis, and kidney transplantation. Novel and alternative educational approaches should be considered by the nephrology training community to enhance the understanding of nephrology from medical school to fellowship training. Newer teaching methods and styles should also be incorporated to adapt to today's learner. These innovative educational approaches may not only increase interest in nephrology careers, but they may also enhance and maintain interest during nephrology fellowship. In this article, we will review several educational approaches that may enhance teaching and learning in nephrology.