4.5 Article

Total and Individual Coronary Artery Calcium Scores as Independent Predictors of Mortality in Hemodialysis Patients

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEPHROLOGY
Volume 31, Issue 5, Pages 419-425

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000294405

Keywords

Chronic kidney disease; Coronary artery calcium; Dialysis; Inflammation; Phosphorus binder; Sevelamer; Death risk

Funding

  1. Abbott
  2. Amgen
  3. Fresenius
  4. Genzyme
  5. Shire
  6. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [M01RR000425] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  7. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [K23DK061162] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many traditional and nontraditional risk factors contribute to vascular calcification among maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients. It is not clear whether coronary artery calcification (CAC) delineates a higher mortality risk independent of known risk factors. We examined 6-year (10/2001-9/2007) survival of 166 MHD patients, aged 53 +/- 13 years, with baseline CAC scores. Patients were grouped into four CAC groups: 0, 1-100, 101-400, and 400+. The 101-400 and 400+ groups were associated with a significantly higher adjusted risk of death than CAC 0 with hazard ratios (HR) 8.5 (95% CI: 1.1-48.1, p = 0.02) and 13.3 (95% CI: 1.3-65.1, p = 0.01), respectively, independent of demographics, comorbidity, lipids and other cardiovascular risks, surrogates of bone disease, nutritional and inflammatory markers and dialysis dose. Total CAC [HR 6.7 (1.1-21.5, p = 0.03)] followed by the presence of CAC in the left main [4.6 (2.2-9.8, p = 0.001)] and left anterior descending artery [4.3 (2.1-14.2, p = 0.001)] were strong independent predictors of mortality even after adjusting for above covariates. Total and vessel-specific CAC predict mortality in MHD patients independent of traditional and nontraditional risk factors. Copyright (C) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available