4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Arterial Stiffness Assessed by Oscillometric Method in Kidney Transplant, Predialysis, and Dialysis Patients

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
卷 52, 期 8, 页码 2337-2340

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2020.01.132

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wroclaw Medical University, Poland [Sub.c160.19.055]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is strongly associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease (CV). An important nontraditional risk factor of cardiovascular disease in renal patients is vascular stiffness, which currently can be evaluated by oscillometric measuring of pulse wave velocity (PWV) and heart rate-corrected augmentation index (AIx@75). Aim. The aim of our study was to compare vascular stiffness between kidney transplant (KTx) recipients, patients on dialysis maintenance, and those in the predialysis period. Materials and methods. A cross-sectional study of 140 patients (52 in CKD stage 3-4; 37 in CKD stage 5 on hemodialysis maintenance [HD]; and 51 KTx recipients) had their PWV and AIx@75 measured with Mobil-O-Graph (IEM Gmbh, Stolberg, Germany) blood and pulse pressure monitor. Results. KTx, HD, and CKD G3-4 were comparable in term of age, sex, body mass index, and diagnoses of diabetes mellitus and hypertension. The PWV was higher in the HD group than in the KTx and CKD G3-4 (9.4 m/s vs 8.4 m/s vs 7.9 m/s respectively; P < .05 for HD vs other groups), while the difference between the KTx and CKD G3-4 was not significant. AIx@75 values were similar in the HD and KTx groups (27.1 and 25.6; P > .05) and significantly lower in CDK G3-4 (17.8; P < .05). Conclusions. According to our results, the highest CV risk expressed by PWV (vascular stiffness) was found in hemodialysis patients. Although patients with CKD 3-4 and after KTx showed comparable large artery stiffness, transplant recipients additionally showed higher stiffness in smaller arteries as measured by heart rate-corrected AIx.

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

4.1
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