ObjectiveTo compare maternal and perinatal outcomes of migrant Venezuelan women with local pregnant patients in a Colombian institution in the context of a migratory crisis.Study DesignThis cross‐sectional study included 11 304 deliveries from the Clínica de Maternidad Rafael Calvo in Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, a tertiary referral center on the north coast of Colombia. Data on maternal demographics and perinatal outcomes were obtained by chart review.ResultsIn total, 595 patients were identified as Venezuelan migrants, and their perinatal outcomes were compared against those of 10 709 local pregnant patients. Despite similar baseline maternal conditions in both groups, poorer prenatal follow‐up care (3 [1–5] vs. 5 [4–7] visits; P < 0.001) and severe complications were more common in Venezuelan migrant pregnant patients and their children. In addition, maternal hypertension was significantly more common in migrants (11.4% [68/595] vs. 8.3% [887/10709]; P = 0.009). Furthermore, in the group of pregnant migrant patients, the rates of severe maternal morbidity (13.4% [80/575] vs. 9.45%, [1013/10709]; P = 0.002), neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (22/595 [3.7%] vs. 237/10709 [2.23%]; P = 0.03), and perinatal mortality (11/586 [1.88%] vs. 67/10651 [0.63%]; P = 0.003) were significantly higher than in the local pregnant population.ConclusionForced migration during pregnancy may be associated with poorer prenatal care, which may predispose women and their newborns to more frequent adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes.

some kind of CAM for their disease. A wide range of CAM was used by patients to reduce side effects due to conventional therapies. Data analysis revealed a total of three themes: patient's understanding towards CAM, reasons of using or rejecting CAM and barriers to the CAM use. Patients recognize CAM as traditional ways of healing with not much scientific evidence. Those reported to use CAM were in favor to boost body's own resources to improve hemoglobin together with conventional therapies. Lack of scientific evidence was given as major reasons of not using CAM. Fear of CAM interaction with the conventional therapies was among other few reasons of not using CAM. Slow progression of CAM modalities and cost was given as a major barrier to CAM use. ConClusions: In conclusion, slow progression of CAM effects and treatment cost were among the major barrier to CAM use. Further investigations are required to establish the scientific evidence on the type of CAM used by Thalaseemia patients. Patients should be advised to disclose their CAM use to their health care professionals to avoid any harmful interactions.

El 19,5% (n= 124) de pacientes habían egresado del programa al final de periodo de observación. Las causas de egreso fueron: mejoría a TFG > 60 ml/min/año (40,3%), muerte (29,0%), ingreso a diálisis (12,1%), suspensión voluntaria (5,7%), otros (12,9%). Seguimos a los pacientes 31582 pacientes-mes, equivalente a 2631 pacientes-año y la mortalidad fue 0.0137 muertes por paciente-año en el programa. ConClusiones: Los meses evitados de diálisis por paciente en ERC 5 son 11. Una proporción sustancial de pacientes alcanzaron las metas de progresión de ERC. La principal causa de egreso del programa fue por mejoría de la TFG. PUK2CliniCal Benefits of immUnosUPPression theraPy in renal trasPlant Patients. systematiC review and meta-analysis

No abstract