Huseyin Toz

Bio: Huseyin Toz is an academic researcher from Ege University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Transplantation & Kidney transplantation. The author has an hindex of 27, co-authored 154 publications receiving 3543 citations.

Mortality and cardiovascular events in online haemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) compared with high-flux dialysis: results from the Turkish OL-HDF Study

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Online haemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) is considered to confer clinical benefits over haemodialysis (HD) in terms of solute removal in patients undergoing maintenance HD. The aim of this study was to compare postdilution OL-HDF and high-flux HD in terms of morbidity and mortality. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, controlled trial, we enrolled 782 patients undergoing thrice-weekly HD and randomly assigned them in a 1:1 ratio to either postdilution OL-HDF or high-flux HD. The mean age of patients was 56.5 ± 13.9 years, time on HD 57.9 ± 44.6 months with a diabetes incidence of 34.7%. The follow-up period was 2 years, with the mean follow-up of 22.7 ± 10.9 months. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause and nonfatal cardiovascular events. The major secondary outcomes were cardiovascular and overall mortality, intradialytic complications, hospitalization rate, changes in several laboratory parameters and medications used. RESULTS: The filtration volume in OL-HDF was 17.2 ± 1.3 L. Primary outcome was not different between the groups (event-free survival of 77.6% in OL-HDF versus 74.8% in the high-flux group, P = 0.28), as well as cardiovascular and overall survival, hospitalization rate and number of hypotensive episodes. In a post hoc analysis, the subgroup of OL-HDF patients treated with a median substitution volume >17.4 L per session (high-efficiency OL-HDF, n = 195) had better cardiovascular (P = 0.002) and overall survival (P = 0.03) compared with the high-flux HD group. In adjusted Cox-regression analysis, treatment with high-efficiency OL-HDF was associated with a 46% risk reduction for overall mortality {RR = 0.54 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.31-0.93], P = 0.02} and a 71% risk reduction for cardiovascular mortality [RR = 0.29 (95% CI 0.12-0.65), P = 0.003] compared with high-flux HD. CONCLUSIONS: The composite of all-cause mortality and nonfatal cardiovascular event rate was not different in the OL-HDF and in the high-flux HD groups. In a post hoc analysis, OL-HDF treatment with substitution volumes over 17.4 L was associated with better cardiovascular and overall survival.

Gingival crevicular fluid levels of RANKL and OPG in periodontal diseases: implications of their relative ratio

Abstract: Aim: Receptor activator of NF-κB ligand (RANKL) and osteoprotegerin (OPG) are a system of molecules that regulate bone resorption. This study aims to compare the levels of RANKL, OPG and their relative ratio in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) of healthy and periodontal disease subjects. Material and Methods: GCF was obtained from healthy (n=21), gingivitis (n=22), chronic periodontitis (n=28), generalized aggressive periodontitis (n=25) and chronic periodontitis subjects under immunosuppressant therapy (n=11). RANKL and OPG concentrations in GCF were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Results: RANKL levels were low in health and gingivitis groups, but increased in all three forms of periodontitis. OPG levels were higher in health than all three periodontitis, or gingivitis groups. There were no differences in RANKL and OPG levels between chronic and generalized aggressive periodontitis groups, whereas these were lower in the immunosuppressed chronic periodontitis group. The RANKL/OPG ratio was significantly elevated in all three periodontitis forms, compared with health or gingivitis, and positively correlated to probing pocket depth and clinical attachment level. Conclusion: GCF RANKL and OPG levels were oppositely regulated in periodontitis, but not gingivitis, resulting in an enhanced RANKL/OPG ratio. This ratio was similar in all three periodontitis groups and may therefore predict disease occurrence.

The benefit of salt restriction in the treatment of end-stage renal disease by haemodialysis

Abstract: Background. Most haemodialysis (HD) centres use antihypertensive drugs for the management of hypertension, whereas some centres apply dietary salt restriction strategy. In this retrospective cross-sectional study, we assessed the effectiveness and cardiac consequences of these two strategies. Methods. We enrolled all patients from two dialysis centres, who had been on a standard HD programme at the same centre for at least 1 year. All patients underwent echocardiographic evaluation. Clinical data were obtained from patients’ charts. Centre A (n = 190) practiced ‘salt restriction’ strategy and Centre B (n = 204) practiced antihypertensive-based strategy. Salt restriction was defined as managing high blood pressure (BP) via lowering dry weight by strict salt restriction and insistent ultrafiltration without using anti-hypertensive drugs. Results. There was no difference regarding age, gender, diabetes, history of cardiovascular disease and efficiency of dialysis between centres. Antihypertensive drugs were used in 7% of the patients in Centre A and 42% in Centre B( P < 0.01); interdialytic weight gain was significantly lower in Centre A (2.29 ± 0.83 kgversus 3.31 ± 1.12 kg, P < 0.001). Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures were similar in the two centres. However, Centre A had lower left ventricular (LV) mass (indexed for height 2.7 :5 9 ± 16 versus 74 ± 27 g/m 2.7 , P < 0.0001). The frequency of LV hypertrophy was lower in Centre A (74% versus 88%, P < 0.001). Diastolic and systolic functions were better preserved in Centre A. Intradialytic hypotension (hypotensive episodes/100 patient sessions) was more frequent in Centre B (11 versus 27, P <0.01). Conclusions. This cross-sectional study suggests that salt restriction and reduced prescription of antihypertensive drugs may limit LV hypertrophy, better preserve LV functions and reduce intradialytic hypotension in HD patients.

Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice—Evidence-Based Approach from the Writing Committee of the American Society for Apheresis: The Sixth Special Issue

Abstract: The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Journal of Clinical Apheresis (JCA) Special Issue Writing Committee is charged with reviewing, updating, and categorizing indications for the evidence-based use of therapeutic apheresis in human disease. Since the 2007 JCA Special Issue (Fourth Edition), the Committee has incorporated systematic review and evidence-based approaches in the grading and categorization of apheresis indications. This Seventh Edition of the JCA Special Issue continues to maintain this methodology and rigor to make recommendations on the use of apheresis in a wide variety of diseases/conditions. The JCA Seventh Edition, like its predecessor, has consistently applied the category and grading system definitions in the fact sheets. The general layout and concept of a fact sheet that was used since the fourth edition has largely been maintained in this edition. Each fact sheet succinctly summarizes the evidence for the use of therapeutic apheresis in a specific disease entity. The Seventh Edition discusses 87 fact sheets (14 new fact sheets since the Sixth Edition) for therapeutic apheresis diseases and medical conditions, with 179 indications, which are separately graded and categorized within the listed fact sheets. Several diseases that are Category IV which have been described in detail in previous editions and do not have significant new evidence since the last publication are summarized in a separate table. The Seventh Edition of the JCA Special Issue serves as a key resource that guides the utilization of therapeutic apheresis in the treatment of human disease. J. Clin. Apheresis 31:149-162, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The Third International Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Cytomegalovirus in Solid-organ Transplantation

Abstract: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) remains one of the most common infections after solid organ transplantation, resulting in significant morbidity, graft loss, and occasional mortality. Management of CMV varies considerably among transplant centers. A panel of experts on CMV and solid organ transplant was convened by The Infectious Diseases Section of The Transplantation Society to develop evidence and expert opinion-based consensus guidelines on CMV management including diagnostics, immunology, prevention, treatment, drug resistance, and pediatric issues.