4.6 Article

Screening asymptomatic diabetic patients for coronary artery disease prior to renal transplantation

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 79, 期 10, 页码 1453-1458

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.TP.0000164147.60036.67

关键词

diabetes; coronary artery disease; renal failure; cardiac catheterization; body mass index

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a significant contributor to excess mortality in renal transplant candidates with diabetes mellitus (DM). Prior studies relating to risk stratification for significant CAD in diabetics are confined to Caucasian type 1 DM patients. Methods. To assess the prevalence of clinically silent CAD and to identify variables that are associated with CAD, we retrospectively analyzed the cardiac catheterization data of 97 asymptomatic type I and 2 DM kidney and kidney-pancreas transplant candidates. Results. Thirty-three percent of type 1 and 48% of type 2 DM patients had significant stenosis (>= 70%) in I or more coronary arteries. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, body mass index (BMI) > 25 was significantly associated with CAD (relative risk 4.8, P = 0.002). The age of the patient (7% increase in risk/year, P = 0.01; or relative risk = 3.0 if age > 47 years, P = 0.032) and smoking history (2% increase in risk/pack-year of smoking, P = 0.10) were also associated with CAD. African American patients, who comprised 30% of the sample, had a 71% lower risk compared with Caucasian patients (P = 0.03). Factors that were not significantly associated with CAD included gender, type of diabetes, and whether dialyzed for > 6 months prior to catheterization. Conclusions. We conclude that a notable proportion (approximately one-third to one-half) of asymptomatic type 1 and type 2 diabetic renal transplant candidates have significant CAD. Additionally, young African American DM patients with no smoking history and a BMI :525 are at reduced risk, and invasive tests may not be necessary in this group.

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

4.6
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