Blog
About

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

      Outcome of Renal Insufficiency Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

      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

          Renal insufficiency (RI) is a prognostic marker in patients with cardiovascular disease. In this study, the latest standard of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) calculation, that is the modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD) study equation, is used to measure the difference in the outcome of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in various GFR groups. Between 2000 and 2005, 1,055 patients underwent CABG surgery and were categorized into 5 groups according to the National Kidney Foundation guidelines: stage 1 = normal renal function; stage 2 = mild RI; stage 3 = moderate RI; stage 4 = severe RI; stage 5 = end-stage renal failure (excluded). Precautions were taken in RI patients to avoid perioperative hypotension, fluid overload and limited cardioplegia; cardiopulmonary bypass time was kept at a minimum by performing an essential number of grafts only. Thirty-day mortality occurred in 5 of 1,052 patients (0.48%) with no statistical difference in stages 1–4. There was increase in bleed requiring reoperation and total complications from stages 1 to 4, but it was not statistically significant. Preoperative renal dysfunction in CABG surgery patients is an important predictor of outcome. Patients undergoing CABG surgery can have acceptable results without significant increase in complications and mortality provided that risk factors are minimized perioperatively.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 13

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

          Performance of the modification of diet in renal disease and Cockcroft-Gault equations in the estimation of GFR in health and in chronic kidney disease.

          The performance of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) equations as compared with measured (125)I-iothalamate GFR (iGFR) was analyzed in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and in potential kidney donors. All outpatients (n = 1285) who underwent an iGFR between 1996 and 2003 were considered for analysis. Of these, 828 patients had CKD and 457 were potential kidney donors. Special emphasis was put on the calibration of the serum creatinine measurements. In CKD patients with GFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2), the MDRD equation performed better than the CG formula with respect to bias (-0.5 versus 3.5 ml/min per 1.73 m(2), respectively) and accuracy within 30% (71 versus 60%, respectively) and 50% (89 versus 77%, respectively). Similar results are reported for 249 CKD patients with diabetes. In the kidney donor group, the MDRD equation significantly underestimated the measured GFR when compared with the CG formula, with a bias of -9.0 versus 1.9 ml/min per 1.73 m(2), respectively (P < 0.01), and both the MDRD and CG equations overestimated the strength of the association of GFR with measured serum creatinine. The present data add further validation of the MDRD equation in outpatients with moderate to advanced kidney disease as well as in those with diabetic nephropathy but suggest that its use is problematic in healthy individuals. This study also emphasizes the complexity of laboratory calibration of serum creatinine measurements, a determining factor when estimating GFR in both healthy individuals and CKD patients with preserved GFR.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Predictive performance of renal function equations for patients with chronic kidney disease and normal serum creatinine levels.

            Accurate renal function measurements are important for the diagnosis and treatment of kidney disease, proper medication dosing, interpretation of possible uremic symptoms, and decision-making regarding when to initiate renal replacement therapy. Because the use of highly accurate filtration markers to measure renal function has traditionally been limited by cumbersome and costly techniques and the involvement of radioactivity (among other factors), renal function is typically estimated by using specially derived prediction equations. These formulae usually use serum creatinine levels, i.e., a marker of filtration that is insensitive to mild/moderate decreases in GFR. Although attempts have been made to validate certain renal function prediction equations among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) with abnormal serum creatinine levels, this is the first study to specifically evaluate the predictive performance of these equations for patients with CKD and serum creatinine levels in the normal range. The results of eight prediction equations for 109 patients with CKD and serum creatinine levels of < or =1.5 mg/dl were compared with standard iohexol GFR values. The most accurate results were obtained with the Cockroft-Gault and Bjornsson equations. The most precise formulae were the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equations, although they were highly biased. Even the most accurate results exhibited levels of error that made them suboptimal for clinical treatment of these patients. These results suggest that measurement of GFR with endogenous or exogenous filtration markers might be the most prudent strategy for the assessment of renal function in the CKD population with normal serum creatinine levels. Further studies are needed to confirm the generalizability of these findings for this patient subgroup.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Estimation of glomerular filtration rate in diabetic subjects: Cockcroft formula or modification of Diet in Renal Disease study equation?

              The Cockcroft-Gault formula is recommended for the evaluation of renal function in diabetic patients. The more recent Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study equation seems more accurate, but it has not been validated in diabetic patients. This study compares the two methods. In 160 diabetic patients, we compared the Cockcroft-Gault formula and MDRD equation estimations to glomerular filtration rates (GFRs) measured by an isotopic method ((51)Cr-EDTA) by correlation studies and a Bland-Altman procedure. Their accuracy for the diagnosis of moderately (GFR <60 ml . min(-1) . 1.73 m(-2)) or severely (GFR <30 ml . min(-1) . 1.73 m(-2)) impaired renal function were compared with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Both the Cockcroft-Gault formula (r = 0.74; P < 0.0001) and MDRD equation (r = 0.81; P < 0.0001) were well correlated with isotopic GFR. The Bland-Altman procedure revealed a bias for the MDRD equation, which was not the case for the Cockcroft-Gault formula. Analysis of ROC curves showed that the MDRD equation had a better maximal accuracy for the diagnosis of moderate (areas under the curve [AUCs] 0.868 for the Cockcroft-Gault formula and 0.927 for the MDRD equation; P = 0.012) and severe renal failure (AUC 0.883 for the Cockcroft-Gault formula and 0.962 for the MDRD equation; P = 0.0001). In the 87 patients with renal insufficiency, the MDRD equation estimation was better correlated with isotopic GFR (Cockcroft-Gault formula r = 0.57; the MDRD equation r = 0.78; P < 0.01), and it was not biased as evaluated by the Bland-Altman procedure. Although both equations have imperfections, the MDRD equation is more accurate for the diagnosis and stratification of renal failure in diabetic patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                CRD
                Cardiology
                10.1159/issn.0008-6312
                Cardiology
                S. Karger AG
                0008-6312
                1421-9751
                2008
                July 2008
                01 February 2008
                : 111
                : 1
                : 23-29
                Affiliations
                aUniversity at Buffalo, State University of New York, bDepartment of Biostatistics, University at Buffalo, State University of New York and cKaleida Health, Buffalo, N.Y., USA
                Article
                113423 Cardiology 2008;111:23–29
                10.1159/000113423
                18239388
                © 2008 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: 3, Tables: 3, References: 21, Pages: 7
                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article