4.6 Article

Predictive value of cardio-ankle vascular index for the risk of end-stage renal disease

Journal

CLINICAL KIDNEY JOURNAL
Volume 14, Issue 1, Pages 255-260

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfaa116

Keywords

arterial stiffness; cardio-ankle vascular index; end-stage renal disease; mortality; pulse wave velocity

Funding

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea - Ministry of Education [NRF-2017R1D1A1B03031642]
  2. Veterans Health Service Medical Center Research Grant, Republic of Korea [VHSMC 20017]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that CAVI is an indicator that can predict the risk of ESRD. Higher CAVI values are associated with an increased risk of ESRD.
Background. Arterial stiffness is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, the predictive value of the cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI), one of the indicators for arterial stiffness, for the risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) remains unknown. Methods. A total of 8701 patients with documented CAVI measurements by pulse wave velocity (PWV) were included in the study. Patients were divided according to the quartiles of CAVI. The hazard ratio (HR) of ESRD was calculated using the Cox model, after adjustment for multiple variables or death. Results. During the median follow-up period of 7 years (maximum 12 years), ESRD and mortality occurred in 203 and 1071 patients, respectively. The median value of CAVI was 8.5 (interquartile range 7.7-9.3). The risk of ESRD was higher in the fourth-quartile group than the first-quartile group [adjusted HR 2.46 (IQR 1.62-3.71), P < 0.001]. When a death-adjusted risk analysis was performed, the fourth quartile of CAVI had a higher risk of ESRD than the first quartile [adjusted HR 2.35 (IQR 1.58-3.49), P < 0.001]. Conclusions. The measurement of CAVI by PWV may be needed to predict the risk of ESRD.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available