Blog
About

0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Diabetic Nephropathy, Percutaneous Coronary Interventions, and Blockade of the Renin-Angiotensin System

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Since recent studies demonstrated an impaired outcome after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients with chronic renal failure but did not address the aetiology of renal failure, we now analysed the outcome of patients with diabetic nephropathy in 721 consecutive patients undergoing PCI. Diabetic nephropathy was present in 37 patients (5.1%), and diabetes alone in 126 patients (17.5%); 178 patients (24.7%) suffered from renal insufficiency of other causes; the other 380 patients (52.7%) were used as controls. Although angiographic success rates were similar in the subgroups (94–97%), 30-day and long-term mortality after 4 years was significantly higher in patients with diabetic nephropathy (8.1 and 27%, respectively) than in diabetics (1.6 and 8.7%, respectively), patients with renal insufficiency (3.9 and 16.8%, respectively), or controls (2.4 and 5.0%, respectively, each p < 0.001, log-rank test). Treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers was associated with a marked decrease in 2-year mortality in patients with diabetic nephropathy (19.4 vs. 33.3%, respectively, p = 0.02, log-rank test).

          Related collections

          Most cited references 12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Proteinuria, a target for renoprotection in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy: lessons from RENAAL.

          Proteinuria or albuminuria is an established risk marker for progressive renal function loss. Albuminuria can be effectively lowered with antihypertensive drugs that interrupt the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). We investigated whether albuminuria could not only serve as a marker of renal disease, but also function as a monitor of the renoprotective efficacy of RAS intervention by the angiotensin II (Ang II) antagonist, losartan, in patients with diabetic nephropathy. The data from the RENAAL (Reduction in End Points in Noninsulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan) study, a double-blind, randomized trial, were used to examine the effects of losartan on the renal outcome [i.e., the primary composite end point of doubling of serum creatinine, end-stage renal disease (ESRD) or death] in 1513 type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy. We examined the effect of the degree of albuminuria at baseline, initial antiproteinuric response to therapy, and the degree of remaining (residual) albuminuria on renal outcome (either the primary composite end point of RENAAL or ESRD). We also evaluated the contribution to renal protection of the antiproteinuric effect of losartan independently of changes in blood pressure. Baseline albuminuria is almost linearly related to renal outcome, and is the strongest predictor among all measured well-known baseline risk parameters. After adjusting for baseline risk markers of age, gender, race, weight, smoking, sitting diastolic blood pressure, sitting systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, serum creatinine, albuminuria, hemoglobin, and hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) patients with high baseline albuminuria (> or =3.0 g/g creatinine) showed a 5.2-fold (95% CI 4.3-6.3) increased risk for reaching a renal end point, and a 8.1-fold (95% CI 6.1-10.8) increased risk for progressing to ESRD, compared to the low albuminuria group (<1.5 g/g). The changes in albuminuria in the first 6 months of therapy are roughly linearly related to the degree of long-term renal protection: every 50% reduction in albuminuria in the first 6 months was associated with a reduction in risk of 36% for renal end point and 45% for ESRD during later follow-up. Albuminuria at month 6, designated residual albuminuria, showed a linear relationship with renal outcome, almost identical to the relationship between baseline albuminuria and renal risk. Losartan reduced albuminuria by 28% (95% CI -25% to -36%), while placebo increased albuminuria by 4% (95% CI +8% to -1%) in the first 6 months of therapy. The specific (beyond blood pressure lowering) renoprotective effect of the Ang II antagonist, losartan, in this study is for the major part explained by its antialbuminuric effect (approximately 100% for the renal end point, and 50% for ESRD end point). Albuminuria is the predominant renal risk marker in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy on conventional treatment; the higher the albuminuria, the greater the renal risk. Reduction in albuminuria is associated with a proportional effect on renal protection, the greater the reduction the greater the renal protection. The residual albuminuria on therapy (month 6) is as strong a marker of renal outcome as is baseline albuminuria. The antiproteinuric effect of losartan explains a major component of its specific renoprotective effect. In conclusion, albuminuria should be considered a risk marker for progressive loss of renal function in type 2 diabetes with nephropathy, as well as a target for therapy. Reduction of residual albuminuria to the lowest achievable level should be viewed as a goal for future renoprotective treatments.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The impact of renal insufficiency on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions.

            We sought to determine the effect of varying degrees of renal insufficiency on death and cardiac events during and after a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Patients with end-stage renal disease have a high mortality from coronary artery disease. Little is known about the impact of mild and moderate renal insufficiency on clinical outcomes after PCI. Cardiac mortality and all-cause mortality were determined for 5,327 patients undergoing PCI from January 1, 1994, to August 31, 1999, at the Mayo Clinic, based on the estimated creatinine clearance or whether the patient was on dialysis. In-hospital mortality was significantly associated with renal insufficiency (p = 0.001). Even after successful PCI, one-year mortality was 1.5% when the creatinine clearance was > or =70 ml/min (n = 2,558), 3.6% when it was 50 to 69 ml/min (n = 1,458), 7.8% when it was 30 to 49 ml/min (n = 828) and 18.3% when it was < 30 ml/min (n = 141). The 18.3% mortality rate for the group with < 30 ml/min creatinine clearance was similar to the 19.9% mortality rate in patients on dialysis (n = 46). The mortality risk was largely independent of all other factors. Renal insufficiency is a strong predictor of death and subsequent cardiac events in a dose-dependent fashion during and after PCI. Patients with renal insufficiency have more baseline cardiovascular risk factors, but renal insufficiency is associated with an increased risk of death and other adverse cardiovascular events, independent of all other measured variables.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Comparative survival of dialysis patients in the United States after coronary angioplasty, coronary artery stenting, and coronary artery bypass surgery and impact of diabetes.

              The optimal method of coronary revascularization in dialysis patients is controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term survival of dialysis patients in the United States after PTCA, coronary stenting, or CABG. Dialysis patients hospitalized from 1995 to 1998 for first coronary revascularization procedures after renal replacement therapy initiation were identified from the US Renal Data System database. All-cause and cardiac survival was estimated by the life-table method and compared by the log-rank test. The impact of independent predictors on survival was examined in a Cox regression model. The in-hospital mortality was 8.6% for 6668 CABG patients, 6.4% for 4836 PTCA patients, and 4.1% for 4280 stent patients. The 2-year all-cause survival (mean+/-SEM) was 56.4+/-1.4% for CABG patients, 48.2+/-1.5% for PTCA patients, and 48.4+/-2.0% for stent patients (P<0.0001). After comorbidity adjustment, the relative risk (RR) for CABG (versus PTCA) patients was 0.80 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.84, P<0.0001) for all-cause death and 0.72 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.77, P<0.0001) for cardiac death. For stent (versus PTCA) patients, the RR was 0.94 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99, P=0.03) for all-cause death and 0.92 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.99, P=0.04) for cardiac death. In diabetic (versus PTCA) patients, the RR for CABG surgery was 0.81 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.88, P<0.0001) for all-cause death and 0.71 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.78, P<0.0001) for cardiac death, and the RR for the stent procedure was 0.99 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.08, P=NS) for all-cause death and 0.99 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.11, P=NS) for cardiac death. In this retrospective study, dialysis patients in the United States had better long-term survival after CABG surgery than after percutaneous coronary intervention. Stent outcomes were relatively worse in diabetic patients. Our data support the need for large clinical registries and prospective trials of surgical and percutaneous coronary revascularization procedures in dialysis patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                CRD
                Cardiology
                10.1159/issn.0008-6312
                Cardiology
                S. Karger AG
                0008-6312
                1421-9751
                2005
                August 2005
                19 August 2005
                : 104
                : 1
                : 24-30
                Affiliations
                aDepartment of Cardiology and Angiology, Medical Clinic and Policlinic C, bDepartment of Nephrology, Medical Clinic and Policlinic D, and cInstitute of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital of Münster, Münster, Germany
                Article
                86050 Cardiology 2005;104:24–30
                10.1159/000086050
                15942180
                © 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 4, References: 20, Pages: 7
                Categories
                General Cardiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article