No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background/AimsSerum procalcitonin (PCT) levels are low in healthy individuals but are elevated in patients with a serious bacterial infection or sepsis. In this study, we examined the ability of serum PCT concentration to diagnose infections in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, and sought to determine an appropriate threshold level.MethodsSerum PCT levels were measured in ESRD patients on antibiotic therapy for a suspected bacterial infection (ESRD infection [iESRD] group, n = 21), and compared with those of ESRD patients on hemodialysis with no sign of infection (ESRD control [cESRD] group, n = 20).ResultsThe mean serum PCT concentration of the iESRD group was significantly higher than in the cESRD group (2.95 ± 3.67 ng/mL vs. 0.50 ± 0.49 ng/mL, p = 0.006), but serum PCT concentrations did not correlate with severity of infection. The optimized threshold level derived for serum PCT was 0.75 ng/mL, rather than the currently used 0.5 ng/mL; this threshold demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 76.2% and 80.0% for infection and 100% and 60.6% for systemic inflammatory response syndrome, respectively, compared with the cutoff of 0.5 ng/mL.ConclusionsThis study suggests that serum PCT at a cutoff value of 0.75 ng/mL is an appropriate indicator of infection in ESRD patients.

Renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) blockade is thought to slow renal progression in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, it remains uncertain if the habitual use of RAS inhibitors affects renal progression and outcomes in pre-dialysis patients with advanced CKD. In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we identified 2,076 pre-dialysis patients with advanced CKD (stage 4 or 5) from a total of 33,722 CKD patients. RAS blockade users were paired with non-users for analyses using inverse probability of treatment-weighted (IPTW) and propensity score (PS) matching. The outcomes were renal death, all-cause mortality, hospitalization for hyperkalemia, and interactive factors as composite outcomes. RAS blockade users showed an increased risk of renal death in PS-matched analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.381; 95% CI, 1.071–1.781; P = 0.013), which was in agreement with the results of IPTW analysis (HR, 1.298; 95% CI, 1.123–1.500; P < 0.001). The risk of composite outcomes was higher in RAS blockade users in IPTW (HR, 1.154; 95% CI, 1.016–1.310; P = 0.027), but was marginal significance in PS matched analysis (HR, 1.243; 95% CI, 0.996–1.550; P = 0.054). The habitual use of RAS blockades in pre-dialysis patients with advanced CKD may have a detrimental effect on renal outcome without improving all-cause mortality. Further studies are warranted to determine whether withholding RAS blockade may lead to better outcomes in these patients.