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

      Cardiorenal Syndrome in Renal Transplant Recipients: Prevalence, Clinical Presentation, Treatment, and Outcome

      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

          Background: Data on the cardiorenal syndrome (CRS) in renal transplant recipients (RTR) are scarce. We investigated the prevalence, clinical presentation, treatment, and outcomes of patients with CRS in our renal transplant cohort. Methods: Charts and medical records of adult RTR were investigated to identify patients with renal allograft dysfunction and heart failure (HF) with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction. Results: From December 2009 to December 2019, a total of 1,610 patients received a kidney allograft at our institution. CRS was diagnosed in 9 patients (0.56%) a median of 11 years after transplantation (4–20 years). Seven of the patients were male, and 2 were female. The median age when CRS was diagnosed was 71 years (64–80 years). The major presenting symptom was dyspnea. Five patients had HFrEF, and 4 had HFpEF. The patient’s median basal creatinine clearance was 37 mL/min (range 29–77 mL/min). At hospitalization, it was decreased to 24 mL/min (range 13–45 mL/min). The patients were treated with diuretics, but 5 of them required extracorporeal fluid removal. At the 16-month follow-up (median), all patients with HFpEF were alive and had returned to initial levels of creatinine clearance. Two of the 5 HFrEF had died, and 2 needed permanent extracorporeal water removal. Conclusion: CRS after renal transplantation was rare (<1.0%), but CRS in HFreF patients was associated with a poor outcome.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 18

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

          Clinical epidemiology of cardiovascular disease in chronic renal disease.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Cardio-renal syndromes: report from the consensus conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative

            A consensus conference on cardio-renal syndromes (CRS) was held in Venice Italy, in September 2008 under the auspices of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI). The following topics were matter of discussion after a systematic literature review and the appraisal of the best available evidence: definition/classification system; epidemiology; diagnostic criteria and biomarkers; prevention/protection strategies; management and therapy. The umbrella term CRS was used to identify a disorder of the heart and kidneys whereby acute or chronic dysfunction in one organ may induce acute or chronic dysfunction in the other organ. Different syndromes were identified and classified into five subtypes. Acute CRS (type 1): acute worsening of heart function (AHF–ACS) leading to kidney injury and/or dysfunction. Chronic cardio-renal syndrome (type 2): chronic abnormalities in heart function (CHF-CHD) leading to kidney injury and/or dysfunction. Acute reno-cardiac syndrome (type 3): acute worsening of kidney function (AKI) leading to heart injury and/or dysfunction. Chronic reno-cardiac syndrome (type 4): chronic kidney disease leading to heart injury, disease, and/or dysfunction. Secondary CRS (type 5): systemic conditions leading to simultaneous injury and/or dysfunction of heart and kidney. Consensus statements concerning epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and management strategies are discussed in the paper for each of the syndromes.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Evaluation study of congestive heart failure and pulmonary artery catheterization effectiveness: the ESCAPE trial.

              Pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) have been used to guide therapy in multiple settings, but recent studies have raised concerns that PACs may lead to increased mortality in hospitalized patients. To determine whether PAC use is safe and improves clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with severe symptomatic and recurrent heart failure. The Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness (ESCAPE) was a randomized controlled trial of 433 patients at 26 sites conducted from January 18, 2000, to November 17, 2003. Patients were assigned to receive therapy guided by clinical assessment and a PAC or clinical assessment alone. The target in both groups was resolution of clinical congestion, with additional PAC targets of a pulmonary capillary wedge pressure of 15 mm Hg and a right atrial pressure of 8 mm Hg. Medications were not specified, but inotrope use was explicitly discouraged. The primary end point was days alive out of the hospital during the first 6 months, with secondary end points of exercise, quality of life, biochemical, and echocardiographic changes. Severity of illness was reflected by the following values: average left ventricular ejection fraction, 19%; systolic blood pressure, 106 mm Hg; sodium level, 137 mEq/L; urea nitrogen, 35 mg/dL (12.40 mmol/L); and creatinine, 1.5 mg/dL (132.6 micromol/L). Therapy in both groups led to substantial reduction in symptoms, jugular venous pressure, and edema. Use of the PAC did not significantly affect the primary end point of days alive and out of the hospital during the first 6 months (133 days vs 135 days; hazard ratio [HR], 1.00 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.82-1.21]; P = .99), mortality (43 patients [10%] vs 38 patients [9%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.26 [95% CI, 0.78-2.03]; P = .35), or the number of days hospitalized (8.7 vs 8.3; HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.86-1.27]; P = .67). In-hospital adverse events were more common among patients in the PAC group (47 [21.9%] vs 25 [11.5%]; P = .04). There were no deaths related to PAC use, and no difference for in-hospital plus 30-day mortality (10 [4.7%] vs 11 [5.0%]; OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.38-2.22]; P = .97). Exercise and quality of life end points improved in both groups with a trend toward greater improvement with the PAC, which reached significance for the time trade-off at all time points after randomization. Therapy to reduce volume overload during hospitalization for heart failure led to marked improvement in signs and symptoms of elevated filling pressures with or without the PAC. Addition of the PAC to careful clinical assessment increased anticipated adverse events, but did not affect overall mortality and hospitalization. Future trials should test noninvasive assessments with specific treatment strategies that could be used to better tailor therapy for both survival time and survival quality as valued by patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                CRM
                Cardiorenal Med
                10.1159/issn.1664-5502
                Cardiorenal Medicine
                S. Karger AG
                1664-3828
                1664-5502
                2020
                September 2020
                06 July 2020
                : 10
                : 5
                : 333-339
                Affiliations
                aDepartment of Nephrology, Arterial Hypertension, Dialysis, and Transplantation, University Hospital Center Zagreb, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
                bFaculty of Medicine, University of Osijek, Osijek, Croatia
                Author notes
                *Nikolina Basic-Jukic, Department of Nephrology, Arterial Hypertension, Dialysis, and Transplantation, University Hospital Center Zagreb, HR–10000 Zagreb (Croatia), nina_basic@net.hr
                Article
                507728 Cardiorenal Med 2020;10:333–339
                10.1159/000507728
                32629448
                © 2020 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
                Tables: 1, Pages: 7
                Categories
                Research Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article