4.7 Article

The Framingham Risk Score Is Associated with Chronic Graft Failure in Renal Transplant Recipients

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 10, Issue 15, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10153287

Keywords

Framingham risk score; transplantation; dyslipidaemia; chronic graft failure; kidney

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The 10-year Framingham risk score is associated with chronic graft failure in renal transplant recipients, with each 1% increase in FRS leading to a 4% increase in the risk of chronic graft failure. Combining FRS with eGFR improves risk prediction for chronic graft failure.
Predicting chronic graft failure in renal transplant recipients (RTR) is an unmet clinical need. Chronic graft failure is often accompanied by transplant vasculopathy, the formation of de novo atherosclerosis in the transplanted kidney. Therefore, we determined whether the 10-year Framingham risk score (FRS), an established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prediction module, is associated with chronic graft failure in RTR. In this prospective longitudinal study, 600 well-characterised RTR were followed for 10 years. The association with death-censored chronic graft failure (n = 81, 13.5%) was computed. An extended Cox model showed that each one percent increase of the FRS significantly increased the risk of chronic graft failure by 4% (HR: 1.04, p < 0.001). This association remained significant after adjustment for potential confounders, including eGFR (HR: 1.03, p = 0.014). Adding the FRS to eGFR resulted in a higher AUC in a receiver operating curve (AUC = 0.79, p < 0.001) than eGFR alone (AUC = 0.75, p < 0.001), and an improvement in the model likelihood ratio statistic (67.60 to 88.39, p < 0.001). These results suggest that a combination of the FRS and eGFR improves risk prediction. The easy to determine and widely available FRS has clinical potential to predict chronic graft failure in RTR.

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