Dialysis world news


Second Medical Marijuana Patient Denied Transplant by Cedars-Sinai in the Last ... - eNews Park Forest

Patient advocates urge world-renowned hospital to change its discriminatory, politically-motivated policy

Los Angeles, CA --(ENEWSPF)--June 11, 2012.  Patient advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA) recently discovered that a second patient at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center has been denied a transplant in the past year because of their medical marijuana use. In response, ASA sent a letter today to the Cedars-Sinai Transplant Center on behalf of Toni Trujillo, a qualified medical marijuana patient who was removed from the kidney transplant list earlier this year. Trujillo has had kidney problems for most of her life and has been on dialysis for the past 5 years, ever since an existing kidney transplant began failing. The letter urges the world-renowned hospital to promptly re-list Trujillo and change its policy with regard to medical marijuana.

Trujillo came to California 2 years ago from Pennsylvania to take advantage of the specialized treatment offered by Cedars. When she began treatment at Cedars, Trujillo explained to her physicians that she was using medical marijuana as an appetite stimulant in order to increase her protein levels, a critical need for dialysis patients. Getting no push-back from Cedars on her medical marijuana use, Trujillo continued while waiting for her transplant. Then, in April, after being on a waiting list for 6 years, Trujillo was told over the phone that she had been de-listed because her medical marijuana use was considered "substance abuse." She was never sent a formal de-listing letter, confirming her status.

"Denying necessary transplants to medical marijuana patients is the worst kind of discrimination," said ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford, who also authored the letter to Cedars-Sinai. "Cedars-Sinai would not be breaking any laws, federal or otherwise, by granting Toni Trujillo a kidney transplant, and it's certainly the ethical thing to do." Trujillo also commented about her predicament. "I don't know why Cedars would deny me a transplant simply because I use a legal medication that works for me," said Trujillo. "I hope they listen to reason and change their misguided policy, if not for me then at least for the others who will certainly follow."

Last November, ASA wrote a similar letter to Cedars on behalf of Norman B. Smith, a medical marijuana patient who was diagnosed with inoperable liver cancer in 2009. Smith's oncologist at Cedars-Sinai, Dr. Steven Miles, approved of his medical marijuana use as a means to deal with the effects of chemotherapy, but Smith was removed from the liver transplant list in 2011 because of medical marijuana, just two months before he would have been eligible. Last week, Smith was told he had 90-days to live.

Trujillo and Smith were both told that they must not only test negative for marijuana for 6 months to re-qualify for the wait list, but also take drug abuse counseling for the same period. Both are complying with the requirements and have chosen to forgo using medical marijuana, though it has a significant therapeutic benefit for them. Smith could especially benefit as he is currently undergoing chemotherapy for his cancer, and his appetite is severely diminished. It appears Trujillo and Smith may eventually be put back on the list, but at the bottom. Trujillo recently contracted peritonitis, a bacterial infection, as a result of her dialysis.

In addition to equating medical marijuana with drug abuse, Cedars has in the past relied on claims that Aspergillus, a fungus, could adversely affect patients who undergo transplants. However, no scientific links have yet been made between medical marijuana use, Aspergillus, and negative side-effects from organ transplants. The Trujillo letter was sent today to Dr. Andrew S. Klein, Director of the Comprehensive Transplant Center, and Dr. Stanley C. Jordan, Director of Kidney Transplantation at Cedars-Sinai.

Further information:
ASA letter to Cedars-Sinai on behalf of Trujillo: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/Cedars_Letter2_ASA.pdf
Video of Norman Smith: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_kYTwQ6jdY&;feature=youtu.be
Cedars-Sinai transplant denial letter sent to Smith: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/Smith_Transplant_Denial.pdf

Soruce: http://www.safeaccessnow.org

...

 
Anxiety about sale of dialysis centers for nought - Bangor Daily News

Much has been made in the press recently about the agreement between Eastern Maine Medical Center and DaVita to transfer ownership of the three regional dialysis centers to DaVita. Open discussion about this agreement and the involved parties is of paramount importance and will allow those most affected by this agreement — the patients, their families and the staff at these centers — to have an accurate picture of what they can expect in the coming months.

I have, unfortunately, been disappointed by what has been left out of the discussion thus far.

The reports and comments have focused on how big a company DaVita is and any negative press the company has had in the past. Recently, an opinion piece in the BDN asked questions about local oversight, local care by local people and where the money will go.

The operation will continue to be licensed and inspected by the state of Maine, as it is now, and directed by the same physicians the patients know now. The physicians’ compensation arrangement with DaVita will be the same as it has been with EMMC and ensures that physicians are guiding the course of care, and no one else.

As for keeping local dollars local, the largest portion of any health care budget is wages for the staff providing the care, all of whom are local people. In addition, water, power, rent and other operational costs will also be going to Maine organizations. While these discussions have their place, in my opinion they do nothing to educate the most affected individuals about what they can expect.

As a physician, my primary focus is always the welfare of my patients. The leadership at DaVita has been very open about their practices and welcomed questions about patient care. More than a half dozen of their team, including the regional nephrologist from Connecticut, made the trip to Bangor to answer all of our questions and concerns.

In the world of dialysis, we use various factors such as anemia management, dialysis access type and efficiency of dialysis as metrics to gauge quality of care. The facts are that DaVita consistently has some of the best outcomes in the nation. Their fistula rates — a best practice quality standard for dialysis care — are consistently higher than other providers. This has been shown to decrease infections and hospitalizations and reduce mortality.

I feel these facts should be given more emphasis when we talk about the proposed agreement. While the physicians, RNs and dialysis technicians will remain largely unchanged (most of the staff are planning on working for DaVita) the support that DaVita will be able to provide for other staff — such as dieticians, social workers, home dialysis services — will be augmented. From my perspective as a physician, bringing DaVita to our community is of benefit to my patients. This is a positive development.

During this entire process EMMC has welcomed our input as nephrologists and has worked to find the best fit with regards to a partner in this agreement. I think the public has a right to know that EMMC did its due diligence and had multiple national providers of dialysis present their vision for the dialysis program.

The decision to divest the dialysis program was not taken lightly. The process of replacing the work of the human kidney through man-made means is incredibly complicated and highly regulated. Due to the increasingly complex and ever-evolving nature of the rules and regulations surrounding dialysis, the hospital concluded — finally, and with the support of our independent nephrology group — that patient care would be best served by going with a national company, with dialysis as its only focus.

Questions about the proposed agreement are both welcome and expected, as change always brings about uncertainty. While there will be some changes to the program during this transition, much will remain familiar. Again, because the staff, physicians and locations will remain largely unchanged, this should ease some of the natural anxiety.

I am confident that partnering with DaVita will allow our dialysis program to grow and adapt to the ever-changing landscape of dialysis and continue to provide outstanding patient care.

Michael McGoldrick, MD practices nephrology in Bangor.

...

 
Family looking for answers after mother's death - Winnipeg Free Press
An undated photo of Frances MacKay feeding one of her grandchildren.

FAMILY PHOTO Enlarge Image

An undated photo of Frances MacKay feeding one of her grandchildren.

David and Lorraine MacKay watched helplessly as their mother suffered excruciating pain for weeks before she was diagnosed — too late — with a serious infection in her spine.

Frances MacKay died last Dec. 15 at the age of 71. She had been suffering from kidney failure for years and received regular dialysis treatment from Seven Oaks General Hospital.

But in November of last year, she began to suffer extreme pain in her lower back and pelvic area. This happened not long after a Nov. 9 appointment in which she had an insert changed that allowed her to have dialysis. After some discussion, a Seven Oaks doctor decided to refer her to the Health Sciences Pain Clinic.

In the meantime, Frances MacKay’s pain was so great that David took her to Seven Oak’s emergency room on Nov. 22.

There, the hospital put her on morphine, stabilized her vital signs and sent her home without attempting to diagnose the problem, her son told reporters today at a news conference at the Legislative Building organized by the Opposition Conservatives.

It wasn’t until the end of November, when her daughter Lorraine took her to St. Boniface General Hospital, that Winnipeg doctors attempted to find out what was causing Frances MacKay’s pain. But by then it was too late. The infection had set in for too long.

"She needed aggressive antibiotic treatments immediately. She waited for months — people die within days when they don’t get appropriate antibiotic treatment," David said.

The woman’s children are also upset that their mother was in so much pain and hospital officials did not seem to take it seriously until she checked into St. Boniface Nov. 29.

But the final insult to the children came when their mother was sent a letter from the pain clinic six months after her referral — and five months after her death — asking her to fill out a questionnaire for an appointment.

"That’s when the irony of this just hit home" and the family decided to speak out, David said. "I just felt that people needed to know that suffering in silence is not going to help."

The Conservatives planned to bring up the case this afternoon during question period at the Manitoba legislature.

...

 
The Reward for Donating a Kidney: No Insurance - New York Times (blog)
The Reward for Donating a Kidney: No Insurance - New York Times (blog) Derek Montgomery for The New York Times HEALTHY Like most other kidney donors, Radburn Royer was carefully screened.

When Erika Royer’s lupus led to kidney failure four years ago, her father, Radburn, was able to give her an extraordinary gift: a kidney.

Ms. Royer, now 31, regained her kidney function, no longer needs dialysis and has been able to return to work. But because of his donation, her father, a physically active 53-year-old, has been unable to obtain private health insurance.

The Consumer

Advice on money and health.

Like most other kidney donors, Mr. Royer, a retired teacher in Eveleth, Minn., was carefully screened and is in good health. But Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota rejected his application for coverage last year, as well as his appeals, on the grounds that he has chronic kidney disease, even though many people live with one kidney and his nephrologist testified that his kidney is healthy. Mr. Royer was also unable to purchase life insurance.

Officials with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota refused to discuss Mr. Royer’s case because of privacy laws, but said in a statement that Minnesota residents who are rejected by private insurers can buy coverage through the Minnesota Comprehensive Health Association high-risk pool, which is what Mr. Royer said he did, though he is paying more for less comprehensive insurance.

The officials refused several requests for an interview, saying in an e-mailed statement that “healthy individuals who happen to have one kidney can and do receive coverage” through Blue Cross and Blue Shield as long as their test results are within medically accepted normal ranges.

Mr. Royer said he is baffled by the denial. “From my perspective, I’d be a good risk,” he said. “I’d just be putting in premiums and helping balance the system out.”

There is little data on how often kidney donors have trouble obtaining insurance, but advocates say the fear of being uninsurable may be a powerful deterrent to donation. A 2006 study done by an advocacy organization for transplant professionals found that 39 percent of transplant centers reported that they had had eligible donors who declined to donate because they feared having future insurance problems.

The health of living donors is seldom at issue: Though some research suggests that kidney donors may be slightly more prone to develop high blood pressure as they age, long-term studies have found donors live as long as other healthy people. One study reported that donors live even longer.

Most insurers maintain that prior kidney donation does not affect coverage decisions or premiums, but while transplant cases like Mr. Royer’s are rare, advocates and social workers who work closely with donors say the problem may be more common than is recognized. A review study published in 2007 by Canadian researchers found that as many as 11 percent of them have encountered problems with life and health insurance coverage.

It’s a problem with implications for thousands of people. In 2008, the last year for which figures were available from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 17,413 kidney transplants were performed, most of them (11,382) from cadavers. But there were 87,820 people awaiting a kidney transplant as of February 2011, and another 2,249 waiting for both a kidney and a pancreas.

While kidney donation relieves society of the expense of dialysis, it does far more than that, experts say, because it dramatically improves patients’ quality of life. Dialysis keeps patients with chronic kidney disease alive, but they are usually too fatigued to work and often are on disability. A transplant usually enables them to resume a full range of activities.

“One patient’s husband compared dialysis to a transcontinental flight three times a week,” said Dr. Jeffrey J. Connaire, a nephrologist at Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis who testified on behalf of Mr. Royer to Blue Cross and Blue Shield. “People come back after receiving a kidney and say ‘Ah, I have energy, food tastes good again, things smell good again.’ The classic sign of kidney failure is a terrible taste in your mouth.”

As of 2008, 382,343 Americans were receiving kidney dialysis, at a cost of $39.46 billion in public and private spending, according to the National Kidney and Urologic Diseases Information Clearinghouse. Dialysis is so expensive, in fact, that transplant surgery pays for itself in two years, according to one estimate.

Donors who aren’t covered through their employer as part of a large group and are buying an individual policy are more likely to encounter problems, experts say.

Linda Bramblett, a 53-year-old self-employed swim instructor from Great Falls, Va., was denied health insurance in 2010 after telling her prospective insurer that she was planning to donate a kidney to her younger brother. She was in good health and had already been approved for surgery, and went ahead with the donation in December 2010, she said.

“For living donors, the insurance thing isn’t exactly what you’re thinking about,” Ms. Bramblett said. “There is teeny fine print when you sign the paperwork, but you don’t really know what it’s like until you go through it.”

Susan Galbreath, a 42-year-old from New Boston, Mich., who is on dialysis, said a friend was going to donate a kidney to her but changed her mind after a conversation with an official from her insurance company, who said her future coverage would be determined on a “claim by claim” basis.

“The conversation left her feeling very very uneasy, and I told her she shouldn’t do it if anything made her uncomfortable,” Mrs. Galbreath said.

Insurance is not the only problem donors may face. Some run into difficulties at work if they need more time to recuperate than anticipated, said Diane Zocchia, a kidney donor who works for the National Kidney Registry, a nonprofit group that assists in living-kidney donation, and who is starting a new organization, Living Kidney Donors Alliance. Women of childbearing age should ask an obstetrician about the implications for future pregnancies of having one kidney, she said.

“Most donors don’t think about these things,” Ms. Zocchia said. “They develop a sort of tunnel vision once they’ve made that decision to be a donor.”

In Mr. Royer’s case, tests found a high creatinine level in his blood, which was interpreted to mean that Mr. Royer had kidney damage. Dr. Connaire told the Blue Cross panel that heard Mr. Royer’s second appeal that creatinine levels are high in most, if not all, kidney donors.

The kidneys clear creatinine from the blood and pass it out in the urine. When kidneys are damaged, the creatinine level in the urine goes down and the blood creatinine level goes up. But while people with compromised kidney function usually have a condition that progresses and ultimately may lead to kidney failure, Dr. Connaire said, Mr. Royer is healthy. He’s just working with one kidney.

“The literature says that if you have kidney problems you’ll have more heart disease, but taking a kidney out in a situation where everything is fine is a very different story,” said Dr. Connie L. Davis, who is chairwoman of the living donor committee of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. “It does not have the same implications.”

More sophisticated kidney function testing would have made this clear, said Dr. Hassan N. Ibrahim, chairman of nephrology at University of Minnesota and director of the kidney transplant program, who has written extensively about the long-term health outcomes of kidney donation.

New research, not yet published, suggests the risk of developing kidney failure is even smaller for living kidney donors than for the general population, he said.

Dr. Connaire said he was especially disturbed that people who commit such a generous and giving act would be penalized for it.

“Kidney donors are some of the finest people you’d ever want to meet,” he said. “I enjoy working with them very much. It keeps my faith in humanity afloat.”

Many advocates believe that living organ donors should be guaranteed lifelong health coverage. The Affordable Care Act, if upheld by the Supreme Court, is supposed to end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions beginning in 2014.

Individuals considering donating a kidney should give the matter of future insurability, for both life and health coverage, careful consideration. Tell your doctor if you engage in contact sports or other risky activities, because you will need to protect your remaining kidney from trauma after donation.

It’s important to maintain continuous coverage and never let health policies lapse. Many donors encountered problems with coverage because their policy lapsed while they were shopping around for a less expensive plan, often after changing jobs and finding a Cobra policy prohibitively expensive.

Health coverage provided through a large employer group tends to be more secure, but be aware that circumstances beyond your control — like a spouse’s death, illness, divorce or a layoff — may disrupt coverage.


Readers may submit comments or questions for The Consumer by e-mail to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .'; document.write( '' ); document.write( addy_text57501 ); document.write( '<\/a>' ); //--> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

...

 
'Aspirin Lowers Post-Operative Heart Surgery Kidney Failure Risk' - Medical News Today
Editor's Choice
Main Category: Heart Disease
Also Included In: Cardiovascular / Cardiology
Article Date: 11 Jun 2012 - 12:00 PDT

Current ratings for:
'Aspirin Lowers Post-Operative Heart Surgery Kidney Failure Risk'

Heart surgery patients can considerably reduce their risk of developing post-operative acute renal failure by taking aspirin for five days before undergoing surgery.

The study, conducted by Professor Jianzhong Sun (M.D., Ph.D.), professor and attending anesthesiologist at Jefferson Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, US, was presented Sunday June 10th at the European Anesthesiology Congress in Paris.

The researchers enrolled 3,219 patients who were due to undergo coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), valve surgery or both, to participate in the study. Acute kidney failure or injury is a common post-operative complication and has a significant impact on the survival of patients undergoing heart surgery.

2,247 participants were given aspirin for five days before their operation and 972 receive no aspirin. Although the team had no record of the precise dose taken, the normal dose for aspirin that is taken over a period of time is between 80-325mg.

The researchers took into account various factors, such as disease, age, and other medications, and found that acute kidney failure occurred in just 3.8% of patients taking aspirin (86 out of 2,247) versus 6.7% of patients not taking aspirin (65 out of 972). These findings show that aspirin can reduce the risk of acute renal failure by around 50%.

Professor Sun explained:

"Thus, the results of this clinical study showed that pre-operative therapy with aspirin is associated with preventing about an extra three cases of acute renal failure per 100 patients undergoing CABG or/and valve surgery."

According to Professor Sun, acute renal failure or injury "significantly increases hospital stay, the incidence of other complications and mortality. From previous reports, up to 30% of patients who undergo cardiac surgery develop acute renal failure. In our studies, about 16-40% of cardiac surgery patients developed it in various degrees, depending upon how their kidneys were functioning before the operation. Despite intensive studies we don't understand yet why kidney failure can develop after cardiac surgery, but possible mechanisms could involve inflammatory and neurohormonal factors, reduced blood supply, reperfusion injury, kidney toxicity and/or their combinations."

Professor Sun continued:

"For many years, aspirin as an anti-platelet and anti-inflammatory agent has been one of the major medicines in prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease in non-surgical settings. Now its applications have spread to surgical fields, including cardiac surgery, and further, to non-cardiovascular diseases, such as the prevention of cancer.

Looking back and ahead, I believe we can say that aspirin is really a wonder drug, and its wide applications and multiple benefits are truly beyond what we could expect and certainly worthy of further studies both in bench and bedside research."

More trials are needed in order to investigate how aspirin helps prevent post-operative kidney failure, says Sun. He believes that the effect might also be seen in individuals undergoing non-cardiac surgeries.

"For instance, the PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation-2 trial (POISE-2) is ongoing and aims to test whether small doses of aspirin, given individually for a short period before and after major non-cardiac surgeries, could prevent major cardiovascular complications such as heart attacks and death, around the time of surgery."

The team also found that high blood pressure, diabetes, heart failure, heart disease, and diseases of the vascular system were all separate risk factors for post-operative acute renal failure.

Written By Grace Rattue
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today

Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Grace Rattue. "Aspirin Lowers Post-Operative Heart Surgery Kidney Failure Risk." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 11 Jun. 2012. Web.
11 Jun. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/246411.php>
APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.


...

 
<< Start < Prev 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 Next > End >>

Page 320 of 2630
Share |
Copyright © 2024 Global Dialysis. All Rights Reserved.