Zhihui Yao1,2, Congxia Wang2, Qiaona Zhang1, Shan Ma1, Baosong Gui1, Chaoyang Duan3. 1. Department of Nephrology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710004, Shaanxi, China. 2. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710004, Shaanxi, China. 3. Department of Nephrology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710004, Shaanxi, China. duanzhaoyang2005@126.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To systematically determine the prevalence of abdominal artery calcification (AAC) in dialysis patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and identify reasons for heterogeneity. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from database inception to March 2017. Cross-sectional or cohort (only used baseline data) studies reporting estimates of AAC prevalence in dialysis adult patients with ESRD were included. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to generate pooled prevalence estimates. Subgroup analyses were used to compare differences within categorical variables (geographic region, AAC detection instruments, dialysis methods, study design, and sample size), and meta-regression analyses to assess the impact of continuous variables (participants' age, duration of dialysis, and male proportion). RESULTS: A total of 44 studies with 9883 dialysis patients were included. The pooled prevalence for AAC was 68.5% (95% CI 63-73.9%). Subgroup analyses suggested that AAC prevalence varied significantly by geographical region and AAC detection instruments, not by dialysis methods, study design and sample size. Meta-regression analysis suggested that positive correlations were found between AAC prevalence and the age of participants as well as the male proportion (r = 1.01477, P = 0.002 and r = 2.034413, P = 0.01, respectively), but not with the duration of dialysis (P = 0.576). CONCLUSION: The pooled and nearest estimate of AAC prevalence among dialysis patients was as high as 65%. Geographical region, AAC detection instruments, age of participants, and male proportion potentially lead to the high variance of the reported prevalence. Considering the high AAC prevalence, effective treatment for preventing vascular calcification in these patients is badly needed.
PURPOSE: To systematically determine the prevalence of abdominal artery calcification (AAC) in dialysis patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and identify reasons for heterogeneity. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from database inception to March 2017. Cross-sectional or cohort (only used baseline data) studies reporting estimates of AAC prevalence in dialysis adult patients with ESRD were included. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to generate pooled prevalence estimates. Subgroup analyses were used to compare differences within categorical variables (geographic region, AAC detection instruments, dialysis methods, study design, and sample size), and meta-regression analyses to assess the impact of continuous variables (participants' age, duration of dialysis, and male proportion). RESULTS: A total of 44 studies with 9883 dialysis patients were included. The pooled prevalence for AAC was 68.5% (95% CI 63-73.9%). Subgroup analyses suggested that AAC prevalence varied significantly by geographical region and AAC detection instruments, not by dialysis methods, study design and sample size. Meta-regression analysis suggested that positive correlations were found between AAC prevalence and the age of participants as well as the male proportion (r = 1.01477, P = 0.002 and r = 2.034413, P = 0.01, respectively), but not with the duration of dialysis (P = 0.576). CONCLUSION: The pooled and nearest estimate of AAC prevalence among dialysis patients was as high as 65%. Geographical region, AAC detection instruments, age of participants, and male proportion potentially lead to the high variance of the reported prevalence. Considering the high AAC prevalence, effective treatment for preventing vascular calcification in these patients is badly needed.
Authors: Carmine Zoccali; Davide Bolignano; Graziella D'Arrigo; Friedo W Dekker; Danilo Fliser; Gunnar H Heine; Kitty J Jager; Mehmet Kanbay; Francesca Mallamaci; Ziad Massy; Alberto Ortiz; Gianfranco Parati; Patrick Rossignol; Giovanni Tripepi; Raymond Vanholder; Andrzej Wiecek; Gerard London Journal: Hypertension Date: 2015-05-11 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Robert Freercks; Charles Swanepoel; Henri Carrara; Sulaiman Moosa; Anthony Lachman; Brian Rayner Journal: Nephrology (Carlton) Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Nisha I Parikh; Shih-Jen Hwang; Martin G Larson; Udo Hoffmann; Daniel Levy; James B Meigs; Christopher J O'Donnell; Caroline S Fox Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2008-05-22 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Mieke J Peeters; Jan Ajg van den Brand; Arjan D van Zuilen; Yelka Koster; Michiel L Bots; Marc G Vervloet; Peter J Blankestijn; Jack Fm Wetzels Journal: J Nephrol Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 3.902
Authors: Kevin Leow; Pawel Szulc; John T Schousboe; Douglas P Kiel; Armando Teixeira-Pinto; Hassan Shaikh; Michael Sawang; Marc Sim; Nicola Bondonno; Jonathan M Hodgson; Ankit Sharma; Peter L Thompson; Richard L Prince; Jonathan C Craig; Wai H Lim; Germaine Wong; Joshua R Lewis Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 5.501