Literature DB >> 31308019

Proteinuria and Risk of Lower-Extremity Amputation in Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease.

Jung-Im Shin1, Morgan E Grams1,2, Josef Coresh1,2, Alex R Chang3, Kunihiro Matsushita4,2.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 31308019      PMCID: PMC6702610          DOI: 10.2337/dc19-0764

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Care        ISSN: 0149-5992            Impact factor:   19.112


× No keyword cloud information.
Lower-extremity amputation (LEA) is a devastating complication of peripheral artery disease (PAD). Early identification of PAD patients at high risk of LEA is important to enable targeted monitoring and treatment strategies. Although chronic kidney disease is recognized as a high-risk condition for foot complications in diabetes, most previous studies focused on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Proteinuria, a marker of kidney damage, has been less studied than eGFR in this context but is a promising predictor of LEA. A small cross-sectional study in the U.K. suggested that albuminuria was associated with foot ulceration in diabetes (1). A recent meta-analysis showed proteinuria as a strong independent predictor of incident PAD and LEA among those without PAD (2). However, whether proteinuria is associated with LEA among patients with diagnosed PAD is unknown. This is an important clinical question since most PAD patients have diabetes or hypertension, two major clinical conditions that merit proteinuria assessment according to clinical guidelines (3,4), and many of them should have data on proteinuria readily available. Using data from the Geisinger Health System, a fully integrated rural health care system in Pennsylvania (1 March 1997–2 February 2017), we investigated the prospective association between dipstick proteinuria and risk of LEA in a primary cohort of 4,657 patients (2,412 with diabetes) with clinical diagnosis of PAD. Subsequently, we explored urine albumin-creatinine ratio (ACR) in a secondary cohort of 2,506 patients with PAD and diabetes. The exposure was defined as the closest outpatient dipstick proteinuria and ACR within 2 years prior to the baseline date (i.e., the first recorded date of PAD diagnosis) for the primary and secondary cohorts, respectively. LEA was determined by ICD codes (84.1x, Z89.4x, Z89.5x, Z89.6x, and 0Y6x). We used Cox proportional hazards regression models and adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline year, smoking, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, medication use, eGFR, duration of diabetes, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic neuropathy. We further adjusted for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in the analysis of the secondary cohort of patients with diabetes. We estimated the difference in Harrell C-statistics between prediction models that included or excluded dipstick proteinuria/ACR. This study was reviewed and approved by the Geisinger and Johns Hopkins University institutional review boards. The mean baseline age of 4,657 individuals in the primary cohort was 69.5 (SD 12.9) years, 45% were women, 52% had diabetes, and mean eGFR was 63.7 (SD 29.2) mL/min/1.73 m2. The 5-year incidence of LEA was 7% for dipstick protein negative, 9% for trace, 13% for 1+, and 21% for ≥2+. This dose-response relationship remained significant even after accounting for potential confounders (Ptrend <0.001), with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1.44 (95% CI 1.10–1.88) for 1+ and 1.70 (95% CI 1.32–2.19) for ≥2+, compared with negative (Table 1). The addition of dipstick proteinuria slightly but significantly improved LEA risk discrimination (∆ in the C-statistic = 0.008 [95% CI 0.001–0.014] from 0.714 with the base model with all covariates).
Table 1

Adjusted HR (95% CI) of LEA associated with dipstick proteinuria and ACR

ExposureEvents/NPerson-yearsHR (95% CI)
Primary cohort: analysis among patients with PAD (N = 4,657); median follow-up 3.5 years (IQI 1.1–6.9 years)
Dipstick proteinuria categoryModel 1Model 2Model 3
Negative192/2,59612,781ReferenceReferenceReference
Trace56/5392,5921.38 (1.03–1.87)1.42 (1.05–1.92)1.32 (0.97–1.78)
1+77/6602,5531.74 (1.34–2.27)1.61 (1.23–2.11)1.44 (1.10–1.88)
≥2+140/8622,6692.70 (2.17–3.37)2.18 (1.69–2.80)1.70 (1.32–2.19)
Ptrend<0.001<0.001<0.001
Secondary cohort: analysis among patients with PAD and diabetes (N = 2,506); median follow-up 4.3 years (IQI 1.6–7.1 years)
ACR, mg/gModel 1Model 2Model 3
ACR <1047/6473,674ReferenceReferenceReference
ACR 10–2976/6042,9421.78 (1.25–2.54)1.74 (1.22–2.49)1.47 (1.03–2.11)
ACR 30–300113/8813,8591.96 (1.41–2.71)1.82 (1.32–2.54)1.50 (1.07–2.09)
ACR >30059/3741,3522.56 (1.77–3.72)2.14 (1.43–3.19)1.61 (1.07–2.43)
Ptrend<0.001<0.0010.02

Model 1: adjusted for age, sex, and race. Model 2: model 1 adjustments + baseline year, smoking, hypertension, cardiovascular disease (coronary artery disease, heart failure, or stroke), medication use (renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, antiplatelets, and statins), and eGFR. Model 3: model 2 adjustments + duration of diabetes, diabetic retinopathy, diabetic neuropathy, and HbA1c (secondary cohort only). IQI, interquartile interval.

Adjusted HR (95% CI) of LEA associated with dipstick proteinuria and ACR Model 1: adjusted for age, sex, and race. Model 2: model 1 adjustments + baseline year, smoking, hypertension, cardiovascular disease (coronary artery disease, heart failure, or stroke), medication use (renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, antiplatelets, and statins), and eGFR. Model 3: model 2 adjustments + duration of diabetes, diabetic retinopathy, diabetic neuropathy, and HbA1c (secondary cohort only). IQI, interquartile interval. Among 2,506 individuals with PAD and diabetes in the secondary cohort, mean age at baseline was 69.2 (SD 11.2) years, 39% were women, mean HbA1c was 7.5% (SD 1.6%), and mean eGFR was 66.5 (SD 26.3) mL/min/1.73 m2. Results in the secondary cohort were consistent with the primary analysis, with an adjusted HR of 1.50 (95% CI 1.07–2.09) for ACR 30–300 mg/g and 1.61 (95% CI 1.07–2.43) for ACR >300 mg/g, compared with ACR <10 mg/g (Ptrend = 0.02) (Table 1). Notably, even ACR 10–29 mg/g showed significant associations with LEA (HR 1.47 [95% CI 1.03–2.11]). Again, LEA risk discrimination was significantly improved by adding ACR to the base model with all covariates (∆ in the C-statistic = 0.015 (95% CI 0.004–0.026) from 0.678). We observed similar results in rigorous sensitivity analyses, including competing risk models and different definitions of exposure (e.g., the highest dipstick proteinuria value within 2 years prior to the baseline date and a 2-year average of ACR). Our study showed that proteinuria was robustly associated with future risk of LEA in PAD patients, independent of eGFR. Proteinuria significantly improved risk discrimination of LEA beyond demographic and other clinical factors. The American Diabetes Association recommends an annual foot evaluation for patients with diabetes (3), but the adherence to this recommendation is still suboptimal (5). Our results indicate that providers should be particularly cognizant of PAD patients with diabetes with elevated proteinuria and encourage annual foot monitoring and optimal PAD management. As the evaluation of proteinuria is already recommended in some clinical conditions such as diabetes, it is important that health care providers pay attention to its value, when available, in risk assessment of limb loss in patients with PAD.
  5 in total

1.  Measures of chronic kidney disease and risk of incident peripheral artery disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of individual participant data.

Authors:  Kunihiro Matsushita; Shoshana H Ballew; Josef Coresh; Hisatomi Arima; Johan Ärnlöv; Massimo Cirillo; Natalie Ebert; Jade S Hiramoto; Heejin Kimm; Michael G Shlipak; Frank L J Visseren; Ron T Gansevoort; Csaba P Kovesdy; Varda Shalev; Mark Woodward; Florian Kronenberg
Journal:  Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 32.069

2.  Characteristics among adult patients with diabetes who received a foot exam by a health care provider in the past year: An analysis of NHANES 2011-2016.

Authors:  Elizabet Peraj; Maham R Subhani; Janet Jeong; Oren S Vaknin; John P Twarog
Journal:  Prim Care Diabetes       Date:  2018-12-18       Impact factor: 2.459

3.  2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension.

Authors:  Bryan Williams; Giuseppe Mancia; Wilko Spiering; Enrico Agabiti Rosei; Michel Azizi; Michel Burnier; Denis L Clement; Antonio Coca; Giovanni de Simone; Anna Dominiczak; Thomas Kahan; Felix Mahfoud; Josep Redon; Luis Ruilope; Alberto Zanchetti; Mary Kerins; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Reinhold Kreutz; Stephane Laurent; Gregory Y H Lip; Richard McManus; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Frank Ruschitzka; Roland E Schmieder; Evgeny Shlyakhto; Costas Tsioufis; Victor Aboyans; Ileana Desormais
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 29.983

Review 4.  11. Microvascular Complications and Foot Care: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2019.

Authors: 
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 19.112

5.  Risk factors for non-ischaemic foot ulceration in diabetic nephropathy.

Authors:  D J Fernando; A Hutchison; A Veves; R Gokal; A J Boulton
Journal:  Diabet Med       Date:  1991-04       Impact factor: 4.359

  5 in total
  2 in total

1.  Prognostic significance of reverse dipping status on lower limb event in type 2 diabetic patients without peripheral arterial disease.

Authors:  Pascal Delsart; Madleen Lemaitre; Anne Vambergue; Sandro Ninni; Christophe Bauters; Guillaume Ledieu; Diane-Flore Eymard; Florence Baudoux; Agathe Le Chevalier De Preville; Jonathan Sobocinski; David Montaigne; Claire Mounier-Vehier
Journal:  Acta Diabetol       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 4.280

2.  Temporal Trends in Incidence Rates of Lower Extremity Amputation and Associated Risk Factors Among Patients Using Veterans Health Administration Services From 2008 to 2018.

Authors:  Miao Cai; Yan Xie; Benjamin Bowe; Andrew K Gibson; Mohamed A Zayed; Tingting Li; Ziyad Al-Aly
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-01-04
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.