BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Candidates for renal transplantation are at increased risk for complications related to cardiovascular disease; however, the optimal strategy to reduce this risk is not clear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the variability among existing guidelines for preoperative cardiac evaluation of renal transplant candidates. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A consecutive series of renal transplant candidates (n=204) were identified, and four prominent preoperative cardiac evaluation guidelines, pertaining to this population, were retrospectively applied to determine the rate at which each guideline recommended cardiac stress testing. RESULTS: The rate of pretransplant cardiac stress testing would have ranged from 20 to 100% depending on which guideline was applied. The American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (ACC/AHA) guideline resulted in the lowest rate of testing (20%). In our population, 178 study subjects underwent stress testing: 17 were found to have ischemia and 10 underwent revascularization. The ACC/AHA approach would have decreased the number of noninvasive tests from 178 to 39; it would have identified only 4 of the 10 patients who underwent revascularization. The three other guidelines (renal transplant-specific guidelines) recommended widespread pretransplant cardiac testing and thus identified nearly all patients who had ischemia on stress testing. CONCLUSIONS: The ACC/AHA perioperative guideline may be inadequate for identifying renal transplant candidates with coronary disease; however, renal transplant-specific guidelines may provoke significant overtesting. An intermediate approach based on risk factors specific to the ESRD population may optimize detection of coronary disease and limit testing.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Candidates for renal transplantation are at increased risk for complications related to cardiovascular disease; however, the optimal strategy to reduce this risk is not clear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the variability among existing guidelines for preoperative cardiac evaluation of renal transplant candidates. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A consecutive series of renal transplant candidates (n=204) were identified, and four prominent preoperative cardiac evaluation guidelines, pertaining to this population, were retrospectively applied to determine the rate at which each guideline recommended cardiac stress testing. RESULTS: The rate of pretransplant cardiac stress testing would have ranged from 20 to 100% depending on which guideline was applied. The American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (ACC/AHA) guideline resulted in the lowest rate of testing (20%). In our population, 178 study subjects underwent stress testing: 17 were found to have ischemia and 10 underwent revascularization. The ACC/AHA approach would have decreased the number of noninvasive tests from 178 to 39; it would have identified only 4 of the 10 patients who underwent revascularization. The three other guidelines (renal transplant-specific guidelines) recommended widespread pretransplant cardiac testing and thus identified nearly all patients who had ischemia on stress testing. CONCLUSIONS: The ACC/AHA perioperative guideline may be inadequate for identifying renal transplant candidates with coronary disease; however, renal transplant-specific guidelines may provoke significant overtesting. An intermediate approach based on risk factors specific to the ESRD population may optimize detection of coronary disease and limit testing.
Authors: Bertram L Kasiske; Charles B Cangro; Sundaram Hariharan; Dondald E Hricik; Ronald H Kerman; David Roth; David N Rush; Miguel A Vazquez; Matthew R Weir Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2001 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Edward O McFalls; Herbert B Ward; Thomas E Moritz; Steven Goldman; William C Krupski; Fred Littooy; Gordon Pierpont; Steve Santilli; Joseph Rapp; Brack Hattler; Kendrick Shunk; Connie Jaenicke; Lizy Thottapurathu; Nancy Ellis; Domenic J Reda; William G Henderson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: R A Wolfe; V B Ashby; E L Milford; A O Ojo; R E Ettenger; L Y Agodoa; P J Held; F K Port Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-12-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christian G Rabbat; Darin J Treleaven; J David Russell; David Ludwin; Deborah J Cook Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Paul Atkinson; Diana Y Y Chiu; Raj Sharma; Paul R Kalra; Christopher Ward; Robert N Foley; Mike C Venning; Stephen Waldek; Donal J O'Donoghue; Philip A Kalra Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2009-07-24 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Mark J Sarnak; Andrew S Levey; Anton C Schoolwerth; Josef Coresh; Bruce Culleton; L Lee Hamm; Peter A McCullough; Bertram L Kasiske; Ellie Kelepouris; Michael J Klag; Patrick Parfrey; Marc Pfeffer; Leopoldo Raij; David J Spinosa; Peter W Wilson Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-10-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Angela Yee Moon Wang; K Scott Brimble; Gillian Brunier; Stephen G Holt; Vivekanand Jha; David W Johnson; Shin-Wook Kang; Jeroen P Kooman; Mark Lambie; Chris McIntyre; Rajnish Mehrotra; Roberto Pecoits-Filho Journal: Perit Dial Int Date: 2015 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Xingxing S Cheng; Daniel J Watford; Hiroyuki Arashi; Margaret R Stedman; Glenn M Chertow; Jane C Tan; William F Fearon Journal: Cardiorenal Med Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 4.360
Authors: Kelsey Anderson; Chirag Bavishi; Dhaval Kolte; Reginald Gohh; James A Arrighi; Philip Stockwell; J Dawn Abbott Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ulrich Siering; Michaela Eikermann; Elke Hausner; Wiebke Hoffmann-Eßer; Edmund A Neugebauer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Navdeep K Bhatti; Keyvan Karimi Galougahi; Yehuda Paz; Tamim Nazif; Jeffrey W Moses; Martin B Leon; Gregg W Stone; Ajay J Kirtane; Dimitri Karmpaliotis; Sabahat Bokhari; Mark A Hardy; Geoffrey Dube; Sumit Mohan; Lloyd E Ratner; David J Cohen; Ziad A Ali Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 5.501