Dataset Information

Kidney Transplant List Status and Outcomes in the ISCHEMIA-CKD Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and coronary artery disease frequently undergo preemptive revascularization before kidney transplant listing.

Objectives

In this post hoc analysis from ISCHEMIA-CKD (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness of Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease), we compared outcomes of patients not listed versus those listed according to management strategy.

Methods

In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial (n = 777), 194 patients (25%) with chronic coronary syndromes and at least moderate ischemia were listed for transplant. The primary (all-cause mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction) and secondary (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or stroke) outcomes were analyzed using Cox multivariable modeling. Heterogeneity of randomized treatment effect between listed versus not listed groups was assessed.

Results

Compared with those not listed, listed patients were younger (60 years vs 65 years), were less likely to be of Asian race (15% vs 29%), were more likely to be on dialysis (83% vs 44%), had fewer anginal symptoms, and were more likely to have coronary angiography and coronary revascularization irrespective of treatment assignment. Among patients assigned to an invasive strategy versus conservative strategy, the adjusted hazard ratios for the primary outcome were 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54-1.54) and 1.03 (95% CI: 0.78-1.37) for those listed and not listed, respectively (p_interaction= 0.68). Adjusted hazard ratios for secondary outcomes were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.55-1.46) in listed and 1.17 (95% CI: 0.89-1.53) in those not listed (p_interaction = 0.35).

Conclusions

In ISCHEMIA-CKD, an invasive strategy in kidney transplant candidates did not improve outcomes compared with conservative management. These data do not support routine coronary angiography or revascularization in patients with advanced CKD and chronic coronary syndromes listed for transplant. (ISCHEMIA-Chronic Kidney Disease Trial [ISCHEMIA-CKD]; NCT01985360).

SUBMITTER: Herzog CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8319110 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on dialysis (CKD G5D) have worse cardiovascular outcomes than patients with advanced nondialysis CKD (CKD G4-5: estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/[min·1.73m2]). Our objective was to evaluate the relationship between achievement of cardiovascular guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) goals and clinical outcomes for CKD G5D versus CKD G4-5.MethodsThis was a subgroup analysis of ISCHEMIA-CKD (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease) participants with CKD G4-5 or CKD G5D and moderate-to-severe myocardial ischemia on stress testing. Exposures included dialysis requirement at randomization and GDMT goal achievement during follow-up. The composite outcome was all-cause mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction. Individual GDMT goal (smoking cessation, systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <70 mg/dL, statin use, aspirin use) trajectory was modeled. Percentage point difference was estimated for each GDMT goal at 24 months between CKD G5D and CKD G4-5, and for association with key predictors. Probability of survival free from all-cause mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction by GDMT goal achieved was assessed for CKD G5D versus CKD G4-5.ResultsA total of 415 CKD G5D and 362 CKD G4-5 participants were randomized. Participants with CKD G5D were less likely to receive statin (-6.9% [95% CI, -10.3% to -3.7%]) and aspirin therapy (-3.0% [95% CI, -5.6% to -0.6%]), with no difference in other GDMT goal attainment. Cumulative exposure to GDMT achieved during follow-up was associated with reduction in all-cause mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.87-0.90]; per each GDMT goal attained over 60 days), irrespective of dialysis status.ConclusionsCKD G5D participants received statin or aspirin therapy less often. Cumulative exposure to GDMT goals achieved was associated with lower incidence of all-cause mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction in participants with advanced CKD and chronic coronary disease, regardless of dialysis status.RegistrationURL: https://www.Clinicaltrialsgov; Unique identifier: NCT01985360.

Project description:BackgroundAfrican American (AA) recipients of deceased-donor (DD) kidney transplants (KT) have shorter allograft survival than recipients of other ethnic groups. Reasons for this disparity encompass complex interactions between donors and recipients characteristics.MethodsOutcomes from 3872 AA and 19,719 European American (EA) DDs who had one kidney transplanted in an AA recipient and one in an EA recipient were analyzed. Four donor/recipient pair groups (DRP) were studied, AA/AA, AA/EA, EA/AA, and EA/EA. Survival random forests and Cox proportional hazard models were fitted to rank and evaluate modifying effects of DRP on variables associated with allograft survival. These analyses sought to identify factors contributing to the observed disparities in transplant outcomes among AA and EA DDKT recipients.ResultsTransplant era, discharge serum creatinine, delayed graft function, and DRP were among the top predictors of allograft survival and mortality among DDKT recipients. Interaction effects between DRP with the kidney donor risk index and transplant era showed significant improvement in allograft survival over time in EA recipients. However, AA recipients appeared to have similar or poorer outcomes for DDKT performed after 2010 versus before 2001; allograft survival hazard ratios (95% CI) were 1.15 (0.74, 1.76) and 1.07 (0.8, 1.45) for AA/AA and EA/AA, compared to 0.62 (0.54, 0.71) and 0.5 (0.41, 0.62) for EA/EA and AA/EA DRP, respectively. Recipient mortality improved over time among all DRP, except unemployed AA/AAs. Relative to DDKT performed pre-2001, employed AA/AAs had HR = 0.37 (0.2, 0.69) versus 0.59 (0.31, 1.11) for unemployed AA/AA after 2010.ConclusionRelative to DDKT performed before 2001, similar or worse overall DCAS was observed among AA/AAs, while EA/EAs experienced considerable improvement regardless of employment status, KDRI, and EPTS. AA recipients of an AA DDKT, especially if unemployed, had worse allograft survival and mortality and did not appear to benefit from advances in care over the past 20 years.

Project description:Rational & objectiveMany drugs, metabolites, and toxins are cleared by the kidneys via tubular secretion. Whether novel endogenous measures of tubular secretion provide information about kidney, cardiovascular, and mortality risk is uncertain.Study designLongitudinal subgroup analysis of clinical trial participants.Setting & participants2,089 Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial participants with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 at baseline.ExposureSummary score incorporating urine-to-plasma ratios of 10 endogenous secretion markers measured in paired urine and plasma samples at baseline.OutcomeThe primary outcome was longitudinal change in eGFR. Secondary outcomes included chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression (≥50% eGFR decline or incident kidney failure requiring dialysis or kidney transplantation), a cardiovascular disease (CVD) composite (myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes), and mortality.Analytical approachLinear mixed-effect models were used to evaluate the association between the secretion score and change in eGFR, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate associations with CKD progression, CVD, and mortality.ResultsAt baseline, mean age was 73 ± 9 years and eGFR was 46 ± 11 mL/min/1.73 m2. During a median follow-up of 3.3 years, mean change in eGFR was -1.44% per year, and 72 CKD progression events, 272 CVD events, and 144 deaths occurred. In multivariable analyses, lower secretion score was associated with faster eGFR decline and greater risk of CKD progression, CVD, and mortality. After further adjustment for baseline eGFR and albuminuria, each 1-standard deviation lower secretion score was associated with faster eGFR decline (-0.65% per year; 95% CI, -0.84% to -0.46%), but not CKD progression (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.96-1.58), CVD (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89-1.18), or mortality (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74-1.09). The secretion score association with eGFR decline appeared stronger in participants with baseline eGFR <45 mL/min/1.73 m2 (P for interaction < 0.001).LimitationsPersons with diabetes and proteinuria >1 g/d were excluded.ConclusionsAmong SPRINT participants with CKD, lower estimated tubular secretion was associated with faster eGFR decline, independent of baseline eGFR and albuminuria, but not with CKD progression, CVD, or mortality.

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding how frailty affects patients listed for transplantation has been identified as a priority research need. Frailty may be associated with a high risk of death or wait-list withdrawal, but this has not been evaluated in a large multicenter cohort of Canadian wait-listed patients.ObjectiveThe primary objective is to evaluate whether frailty is associated with death or permanent withdrawal from the transplant wait list. Secondary objectives include assessing whether frailty is associated with hospitalization, quality of life, and the probability of being accepted to the wait list.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingSeven sites with established renal transplant programs that evaluate patients for the kidney transplant wait list.PatientsIndividuals who are being considered for the kidney transplant wait list.MeasurementsWe will assess frailty using the Fried Phenotype, a frailty index, the Short Physical Performance Battery, and the Clinical Frailty Scale at the time of listing for transplantation. We will also assess frailty at the time of referral to the wait list and annually after listing in a subgroup of patients.MethodsThe primary outcome of the composite of time to death or permanent wait-list withdrawal will be compared between patients who are frail and those who are not frail and will account for the competing risks of deceased and live donor transplantation. Secondary outcomes will include number of hospitalizations and length of stay, and in a subset, changes in frailty severity over time, change in quality of life, and the probability of being listed. Recruitment of 1165 patients will provide >80% power to identify a relative hazard of ≥1.7 comparing patients who are frail to those who are not frail for the primary outcome (2-sided α = .05), whereas a more conservative recruitment target of 624 patients will provide >80% power to identify a relative hazard of ≥2.0.ResultsThrough December 2019, 665 assessments of frailty (inclusive of those for the primary outcome and all secondary outcomes including repeated measures) have been completed.LimitationsThere may be variation across sites in the processes of referral and listing for transplantation that will require consideration in the analysis and results.ConclusionsThis study will provide a detailed understanding of the association between frailty and outcomes for wait-listed patients. Understanding this association is necessary before routinely measuring frailty as part of the wait-list eligibility assessment and prior to ascertaining the need for interventions that may modify frailty.Trial registrationNot applicable as this is a protocol for a prospective observational study.