4.6 Article

Effect of Elective Coronary Angiography on Glomerular Filtration Rate in Patients with Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.01480209

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectives: Preemptive transplantation is ideal for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). The practice has been to perform coronary angiography (CA) on all patients aged >50, all diabetics, and all patients with cardiac symptoms or disease with a view to revascularization before transplantation. Historically patients have delayed CA until established on renal replacement therapy due to concerns of precipitating the need for chronic dialysis. The objectives of this study were to establish the risk of contrast nephropathy in patients with advanced CKD who undergo screening CA, and to determine whether or not preemptive transplantation is achievable. Design and setting: This retrospective analysis included 482 patients with stage IV/V CKD seen in West London predialysis clinics from 2004 to 2007. Seventy-six of 482 (15.8%) patients considered as potential transplant recipients filet the authors' criteria for coronary angiography. Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) GFR measurements were recorded for the 12 mo preceding and 1.2 mo following CA unless a defined endpoint was reached (transplantation, dialysis, or death). Results: Mean MDRD GFR at CA was 1.2.51 +/- 3.51 ml/min. The trend was not significantly different 6 mo pre- and postangiography. Cumulative dialysis-free survival was 89.1% 6 mo postangiography. Twenty-three of 76 (30.3%) patients had flow-limiting coronary artery disease. Twenty-five of 76 (32.9%) patients underwent transplantation with 22 of 25 (88.0%) transplants being performed preemptively. Conclusions: The data suggest CA screening does not accelerate the decline in renal function for patients with advanced CKD, facilitating a safe preemptive transplant program. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 4 1907-1913, 2009 dol. 10.2215/CJN 01480209

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