4.7 Article

High prevalence of occult coronary artery stenosis in patients with chronic kidney disease at the initiation of renal replacement therapy: An angiographic examination

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 1141-1148

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2004090765

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prevalence of coronary artery stenosis (CAS) at the initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and no previous history of angina and/or myocardial infarction (MI) has not been fully elucidated. The prevalence of significant CAS was evaluated in 30 asymptomatic stage 5 CKD patients without a history of angina and/or MI by coronary angiography at the initiation of RRT. The correlations of various parameters with the prevalence of CAS were also examined. Atherosclerotic surrogate markers, including intima-media thickness of carotid artery and ankle-brachial BP index (ABI), were also evaluated. Significant CAS (> 50% stenosis) was seen in 16 (53.3%) of 30 asymptomatic CKD patients on coronary angiography at the start of RRT. Stress cardiac scintigraphy was not effective for detecting hidden cardiac ischemia among the CKD patients. Univariate analysis showed that diabetes (P = 0.01), left ventricular mass index (P = 0.04), hyperlipidemia (P = 0.04), total cholesterol (P = 0.02), LDL cholesterol (P < 0.01), intima-media thickness (P = 0.04), and fibrinogen (P = 0.01) were positively correlated with the presence of CAS, whereas ABI (P < 0.01) showed a negative correlation with CAS. Stepwise logistic regression analysis revealed that diabetes and fibrinogen were significant and independent risk factors for CAS in asymptomatic CKD patients who started RRT. The results clearly demonstrated that despite the absence of cardiac events, stage 5 CKD patients are already in a very high risk group for CAS at the initiation of RRT, which was also closely associated with a significant decrease in ABI.

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