Objective: The clinical impact of repeat renal biopsies in patients with lupus nephritis (LN) is still debatable. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to assess whether repeat renal biopsy is a reliable tool in guiding therapeutic decisions. Methods: Laboratory and histological parameters and therapeutic changes in 35 patients with LN and repeat renal biopsies were retrospectively analyzed. Biopsies were performed in the presence of clinical evidence of an active glomerular disease. Biopsy specimens were retrospectively re-assessed by two renal pathologists and were compared according to the last International Society of Nephrology/Renal Pathology Society classification. Results: Thirty-five patients had two, 13 had three, 5 had four, 4 had five, and 1 had six renal biopsies. Fifty-eight comparisons of renal biopsies were made. Median times between the first and second, second and third, third and fourth, and fourth and fifth biopsies were 31, 27, 34, and 28 months, respectively. The mean activity indices from the first to the fifth biopsy were 8.7, 6.6, 7.8, 9.4, and 4.7, whereas the mean chronicity indices were 1.7, 2.3, 4.3, 5.2, and 7.7, respectively. Conversion was observed in 65.5% of cases with the most frequent (21%) being between classes III and IV. Conversion to a more severe type of nephritis occurred in 19% of cases. There was no correlation of laboratory parameters to the type of nephritis upon conversion. In 79% of cases, immunosuppressive therapy was modified after repeat biopsy. Conclusion: Repeat biopsy is a reliable tool for monitoring the activity and chronicity status of LN and for tailoring immunosuppressive therapy to the needs of the patient, especially late in the course of the disease. Cite this article as: Marinaki S, Kapsia E, Liapis G, Gakiopoulou H, Skalioti C, Kolovou K, John Boletis. Clinical impact of repeat renal biopsies in patients with lupus nephritis: Renal biopsy is essential especially later in the course of the disease. Eur J Rheumatol 2020; 7(1): 2-8.

Coronavirus disease 2019 has developed as a pandemic. Immunization with the introduction of vaccines against COVID-19 seems be the only way to end this pandemic. We report on a case of a kidney donor, who developed minimal change disease (MCD) within 4 days post-vaccination with the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech). She donated her kidney to her husband 4 years ago. After receiving the 1st vaccine dose, she presented with nephrotic syndrome, with complete remission 5 days later. She proceeded with the second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine at the appointed time. Two days later, she presented with a relapse of full-blown nephrotic syndrome with preserved renal function. We performed an ultrasound-guided percutaneous kidney biopsy and the final diagnosis was consistent with minimal change disease. Oral prednisolone was promptly initiated at a dosage of 1 mg/kg daily and complete remission was achieved 10 days later. More data about this rare appearance of de novo glomerular diseases after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are emerging and should be interpreted rigorously.

VA ECMO has emerged as an effective rescue therapy in patients with cardiogenic shock refractory to standard treatment protocols and its use is rising worldwide in the last decade. Although experience and availability are growing, outcomes remain poor. There is need for evidence to ameliorate clinical practice and improve outcomes. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients who were supported with VA ECMO for cardiogenic shock at our institution between January 2015 and January 2023. The study purpose was to compare outcomes between patients who were supported with central versus peripheral configuration. ECMO was applied in 108 patients of whom central configuration in 48 (44%) and peripheral in 60 (56%). Patients supported with central VA ECMO were more likely to be supported for post cardiotomy shock [OR 4.6 (CI 95% 2.03 - 10.41)], while patients in the peripheral group for chronic heart failure decompensation [OR 9.4 (CI 95% 1.16 - 76.3]. Central VA ECMO had worse survival during ECMO support (29.2% vs 51.7%, p=0.018) and at discharge (8% vs 37%, p=0.001). These patients were at high risk of complications, such as acute kidney injury (AKI), [OR 2.37 (CI 95% 1.06 - 5.3), p = 0.034] and major bleeding [OR 3.08 (CI 95% 1.36 - 6.94), p<0.001]. Patients on central VA ECMO were supported mainly for post cardiotomy shock, presented with more complications such as major bleeding and AKI and had worse survival to hospital discharge, compared with patients on peripheral VA ECMO. Patient selection, timing of implementation, cannulation strategy and configuration remain main determinants of clinical outcome.

Chronic kidney disease patients, especially those on hemodialysis, are at the highest risk of a severe course and death from COVID-19. Moreover, they appear to have suboptimal response in both cellular and humoral immunity after vaccination. The present study investigated humoral and cellular response and safety after two doses of either of the two authorized mRNA vaccines in a cohort of 310 patients on maintenance dialysis. The antibody response rate was 94.5%, with a median (25th, 75th) antibody titer of 3478 (1236, 8141) AU/mL. Only mild adverse effects were observed. Only vaccine type was independently associated with immunogenicity. Α statistically significant difference in favor of mRNA1273 versus BNT162b2 vaccine was observed. Antibody positivity (100% vs. 94.3%, p < 0.001), median (25th, 75th) antibody levels: 9499 (6118, 20,780) AU/mL vs. 3269 (1220, 7807) AU/mL (p < 0.001). Among the 65 patients tested for T-cell response, 27 (41.5%) had a positive one with a median (25th, 75th) antibody titer of 6007 (3405, 12,068) AU/mL, while 38 with no T-cell response presented a lower median (25th, 75th) antibody titer of 1744 (850, 4176) AU/mL (p < 0.001). Both mRNA vaccines are safe for dialysis patients and can trigger humoral and cellular responses, although with lower titers than those that have been reported to healthy individuals.

Background: This study aimed to present the short- and midterm outcomes after complete atrioventricular canal defect (CAVC) repair using a single-patch technique.Methods: This study included 30 children who underwent surgical correction of the CAVC using a single-patch technique.Results: The median age of the patients was 5.7 months (interquartile range [IQR], 5.0–7.5 months), and 23 patients (76.7%) had type A CAVC. Fourteen patients (46.7%) were female and 17 (56.7%) had been diagnosed with Down syndrome. The in-hospital mortality rate was 0%. No deaths were observed during a median follow-up of 4 years (IQR, 3.5–5.0 years). Patients without Down syndrome were associated with late moderate mitral regurgitation (MR) (p=0.02). Late MR less than moderate degree was observed in 96.6%, 78.5%, and 50% of patients after 2, 4, and 5 years of follow-up, respectively, while late tricuspid valve regurgitation less than moderate degree was observed in 96.7%, 85.9%, and 59.0% of patients after 2, 4, and 6 years of follow-up, respectively. After a median follow-up of 4 years, only one patient had required surgical repair of a left ventricular outflow tract obstruction, which occurred 26 months after the first operation. Multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for the type of CAVC, sex, Down syndrome, age, and weight revealed that the absence of Down syndrome was a risk factor for late moderate MR (MR-2) (odds ratio, 0.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.006–0.50; p=0.01).Conclusion: A single-patch technique for CAVC surgical repair is a safe method with acceptable short- and midterm results.