4.7 Article

Atherosclerotic renovascular disease in the United States

期刊

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
卷 77, 期 1, 页码 37-43

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2009.406

关键词

atherosclerosis; epidemiology; renal circulation; renovascular hypertension

资金

  1. United States Renal Data System (National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland) [HHSN267200715002C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Atherosclerotic renovascular disease (ARVD) is an increasingly recognized clinical condition that is diagnosed predominantly in older patients. Here we used annual United States Medicare 5% Denominator Files and studied 16,036,904 patients, 66 years of age and older, to quantify trends in diagnostic rates, associations, treatment, and outcomes of ARVD over a 13-year period. Overall, there was an ARVD rate of 3.09 per 1000 patient-years, which rose progressively with an adjusted hazard ratio of 3.35, comparing data from 1992 to 2004. Within 6 months of disease diagnosis, 13.4% of patients had undergone revascularization. A biphasic pattern of revascularization was found where the adjusted hazard ratios significantly increased in a progressive manner until 1999, following which there was a decline through 2004, which was not significant. The method of revascularization changed markedly over time with endovascular intervention steadily replacing direct surgical revascularization. As a time-dependent variable, ARVD was associated with excess mortality in each calendar year, albeit with declining hazard ratio estimates in more recent years. Among patients with this disease, revascularization was associated with mortality adjusted hazard ratios < 1 in each year. Our study shows the diagnosis of ARVD has substantially risen in the United States but the survival implications were not fully explained by other comorbid vascular diseases. Kidney International (2010) 77, 37-43; doi:10.1038/ki.2009.406; published online 28 October 2009

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据