4.2 Article

Similar risks for chronic kidney disease in long-term survivors of myeloablative and reduced-intensity allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation

期刊

BIOLOGY OF BLOOD AND MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
卷 14, 期 6, 页码 658-663

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2008.03.008

关键词

allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation; myeloablative conditioning regimen; reduced-intensity conditioning regimen; chronic kidney disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) in recipients of myeloablative (MA) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) has been well characterized. However, the risk of CKD after HCT using reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) is not well known. We compared the incidence of CKD by conditioning regimen in 221 allogeneic HCT recipients (MA = 117, RIC = 104) who had survived for >= 1 year post-HCT and had no history of CKD pretransplant. CKD was defined as glomerular filtration rate (GFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) for >= 3 months anytime after 180 days post-HCT. The median follow-up was 28 months (range: 12-75) for MA and 25 months (range: 12-67) for the RIC group. The 3-year cumulative incidence rate of CKD was 28% (95% confidence intervals [CI], 19%-36%) in MA and 29% (95% CI, 20%-38%) in the RIC group (P = .44). In multivariate analysis, conditioning regimen intensity had no impact on the risk of developing CKD (relative risk [RR] for MA 1.50 [95% CI, 0.78-2.89] versus the RIC regimen). Factors independently associated with an increased risk of CKD were older age at transplant, acute graft-versus-host disease, cyclosporine use for >6 months, and acute kidney injury in the early posttransplant period. CKD is frequent in long-term adult allogeneic HCT survivors, but RIC is associated with similar risks as MA conditioning. Continuous monitoring of renal function is necessary in allogeneic HCT survivors, and studies exploring prevention strategies are needed. CO 2008 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

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

4.2
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