Sibel Gulcicek1, Carmine Zoccali2, Deniz Çebi Olgun3, Giovanni Tripepi4, Selma Alagoz1, Serkan Feyyaz Yalın1, Sinan Trabulus1, Mehmet R Altiparmak1, Nurhan Seyahi1. 1. Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey. 2. Nephrology and Renal Transplantation Division, Ospedali Riuniti, Reggio Calabria, Italy. 3. Department of Radiology, Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey. 4. CNR-IFC, Institute of Clinical Epidemiology (IFC), Clinical Epidemiology and Physiopathology of Renal Diseases and Hypertension of Reggio Calabria, Reggio Calabria, Italy.
Abstract
AIMS: Compared to the general population, mortality is significantly increased in renal transplant recipients. In the general population, coronary artery calcification (CAC) and its evolution over time are associated with cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, and the study of this biomarker could provide useful information for describing the long-term progression of coronary heart disease in renal transplant recipients. METHODS: We followed up a cohort of 113 renal transplant patients by performing three multi-detector computed tomography studies over 83.6 ± 6.8 months. Data analysis was performed by logistic regression analysis and by mixed linear modelling. RESULTS: Progression was observed in 34.5% of patients. Baseline CAC and time-to-transplantation were the sole variables that predicted CAC evolution over time. Neither classical nor nontraditional risk factors, biomarkers of renal function (GFR) and kidney damage (albuminuria) or biomarkers of bone mineral disorder (BMD), such as serum phosphorus, calcium, and PTH, were associated with the long-term progression of coronary calcification. Serum triglycerides predicted CAC progression only in logistic regression analysis, while in addition to baseline CAC, time to transplantation was the sole variable predicting CAC progression when the data were analyzed by mixed linear modelling. These data suggested that, in addition to the background calcification burden, other unmeasured factors play major roles in promoting the evolution of coronary calcification in the transplant population. CONCLUSION: CAC progression continued over the long-term follow-up of renal transplant patients. This phenomenon was unaccounted for by classical and nontraditional risk factors, as well as by biomarkers of renal dysfunction and renal damage.
AIMS: Compared to the general population, mortality is significantly increased in renal transplant recipients. In the general population, coronary artery calcification (CAC) and its evolution over time are associated with cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, and the study of this biomarker could provide useful information for describing the long-term progression of coronary heart disease in renal transplant recipients. METHODS: We followed up a cohort of 113 renal transplant patients by performing three multi-detector computed tomography studies over 83.6 ± 6.8 months. Data analysis was performed by logistic regression analysis and by mixed linear modelling. RESULTS: Progression was observed in 34.5% of patients. Baseline CAC and time-to-transplantation were the sole variables that predicted CAC evolution over time. Neither classical nor nontraditional risk factors, biomarkers of renal function (GFR) and kidney damage (albuminuria) or biomarkers of bone mineral disorder (BMD), such as serum phosphorus, calcium, and PTH, were associated with the long-term progression of coronary calcification. Serum triglycerides predicted CAC progression only in logistic regression analysis, while in addition to baseline CAC, time to transplantation was the sole variable predicting CAC progression when the data were analyzed by mixed linear modelling. These data suggested that, in addition to the background calcification burden, other unmeasured factors play major roles in promoting the evolution of coronary calcification in the transplant population. CONCLUSION: CAC progression continued over the long-term follow-up of renal transplant patients. This phenomenon was unaccounted for by classical and nontraditional risk factors, as well as by biomarkers of renal dysfunction and renal damage.
Authors: Ambarish Gopal; Khurram Nasir; Sandy T Liu; Ferdinand R Flores; Lynn Chen; Matthew J Budoff Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2006-07-26 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: James K Min; Fay Y Lin; David S Gidseg; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Daniel S Berman; Leslee J Shaw; Alan Rozanski; Tracy Q Callister Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-03-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: John W McEvoy; Michael J Blaha; Andrew P Defilippis; Matthew J Budoff; Khurram Nasir; Roger S Blumenthal; Steven R Jones Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-11-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Akinlolu O Ojo; José María Morales; Miguel González-Molina; Diane E Steffick; Fu L Luan; Robert M Merion; Tammy Ojo; Francesc Moreso; Manuel Arias; Josep María Campistol; Domingo Hernandez; Daniel Serón Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2012-07-02 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: A-S Bargnoux; A-M Dupuy; V Garrigue; I Jaussent; G Gahide; S Badiou; I Szwarc; S Deleuze; H Vernhet; J-P Cristol; G Mourad Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2009-09-22 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Leandro C Baia; Jelmer K Humalda; Marc G Vervloet; Gerjan Navis; Stephan J L Bakker; Martin H de Borst Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2013-08-08 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Richard A Kronmal; Robyn L McClelland; Robert Detrano; Steven Shea; João A Lima; Mary Cushman; Diane E Bild; Gregory L Burke Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-05-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Moayad Mustafa Hejazi; Ala Osman Bacha; Mohammed Kaleemuddin; Fahad A Al-Abassi; Abdulbasit I Al-Alsieni; Imran Kazmi; Firoz Anwar Journal: Mol Cell Biochem Date: 2017-12-16 Impact factor: 3.396