4.7 Article

Longitudinal Changes of Cardiac Structure and Function in CKD (CASCADE Study)

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 7, Pages 1599-1608

Publisher

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2013080899

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Sanofi Renal, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Little is known regarding the natural longitudinal changes in cardiac structure and function in CKD. We hypothesized that baseline CKD stage is associated with progressive worsening in cardiac structure and function. We conducted a prospective longitudinal study, recruiting 300 patients with stages 3-5 CKD from a major regional tertiary center and university teaching hospital in Hong Kong. Baseline CKD stages were studied in relation to natural longitudinal changes in echocardiographic and tissue Doppler imaging derived parameters. Over 1 year, the prevalence of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy increased from 40.3% to 48.9%, median left atrial volume index increased 4.8 (interquartile range [IQR], 2.1, 7.7) ml/m(2) (P<0.001), peak systolic mitral annular velocity decreased 0.5 (IQR, -1.5, 0.5) cm/s (P<0.001), early diastolic mitral annular velocity decreased 0.5 (IQR, -1.5, 0.5) cm/s (P<0.001), and eGFR declined 2.0 (IQR, -5.0, 0.0) ml/min per 1.73 m(2). CKD stages 4 and 5 were associated with more baseline abnormalities in cardiac structure and function and predicted greater longitudinal progression in LV mass index (odds ratio [On 3.02; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.39 to 6.58), volume index (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.18 to 5.62), and left atrial volume index (OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.20 to 5.69) and worse diastolic dysfunction grade (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.16 to 8.69) compared with stage 3a in the fully adjusted analysis. In conclusion, more advanced CKD at baseline may be associated with larger longitudinal increases in LV mass and volume and greater deterioration in diastolic function.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available