| Literature DB >> 33123359 |
Nans Florens1,2, Laurence Dubourg2, Laurent Bitker2, Emilie Kalbacher2, François Philit3,4, Jean François Mornex3,4, François Parant5, Fitsum Guebre-Egziabher1,2, Laurent Juillard1,2, Sandrine Lemoine1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) after lung transplantation (LT) is underestimated. The aim of the present study was to measure the loss of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) 1 year after LT and to identify the risk factors for developing Stage ≥3 CKD.Entities:
Keywords: chronic kidney disease; epidemiology; lung transplant; measured GFR
Year: 2020 PMID: 33123359 PMCID: PMC7577765 DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfaa053
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Kidney J ISSN: 2048-8505
Clinical characteristics of LT recipients
| Variable | Total population, | mGFR post-LT, | ESRD patients after LT, |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 46.5 ± 14.8 | 43.8 ± 15.1 | 51.8 ± 9.7 |
| Male sex, | 49 (54) | 11 (38) | 4 (67) |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 20.5 ± 4.3 | 20.1 ± 4.3 | 22.7 ± 3.4 |
| Primary pulmonary disease, | |||
|
| 32 (35) | 16 (55) | 1 (16) |
|
| 15 (16) | 4 (14) | 1 (17) |
|
| 2 (2) | 1 (3) | 0 |
|
| 6 (7) | 1 (3) | 0 |
|
| 36 (40) | 7 (24) | 4 (67) |
| Type of lung transplant procedure, | |||
| Single LT | 26 (29) | 5 (17) | 0 (0) |
| Bilateral LT | 56 (61) | 20 (69) | 4 (67) |
| Heart-LT | 9 (10) | 4 (14) | 2 (33) |
| Comorbidities prior to LT, | |||
| Stage ≥3 CKD | 6 (7) | 0 (0) | 2 (33) |
|
| 23 (25) | 8 (28) | 5 (83) |
|
| 5 (5) | 1 (3) | 1 (17) |
|
| 14 (15) | 11 (38) | 1 (17) |
|
| 6 (7) | 5 (17) | 1 (17) |
Data are expressed as mean ± SD or n (%). COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease .
FIGURE 1Loss of mGFR and eGFR renal function after LT. (A) The mean ± SD loss of renal function post-LT was 48 ± 22 mL/min/1.73 m2, corresponding to a relative loss of 55%. Pre-LT and post-LT mGFR values were significantly different. mGFR was measured using either inulin or iohexol clearance (see Concise Method section). (B) The mean ± SD loss of renal functionpost-LT was 58 ± 27 mL/min/1.73 m2, corresponding to a relative loss of 52%. Pre-LT and post-LT eGFR values were significantly different. eGFR was estimated with CKD-EPI formula (see Concise Method section). *P < 0.05, paired t-test.
Risk prediction of post-transplantation mGFR Stage ≥3 CKD, n = 35
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds ratio (95% CI) | P-value | Odds ratio (95% CI) | P-value | AIC | BIC | |
| Sex: male | 0.32 (0.06–1.51) | 0.16 | ||||
| Age at time of LT (per 1 year) | 1.09 (1.02–1.19) | 0.02 | ||||
| Age >50 years at time of LT | 10 (1.45–203.74) | 0.02 | ||||
| BMI >18 kg/m2 at time of LT | 5.54 (1.20–25.69) | 0.02 | ||||
| Cystic fibrosis before LT | 0.14 (0.02–0.75) | 0.03 | ||||
| Diabetes mellitus before LT | 0.09 (0.01–0.53) | 0.01 | ||||
| Previous smoker | 2.46 (0.29–52.83) | 0.46 | ||||
| Pre-LT serum creatinine (per 1 U increase) | 1.03 (0.96–1.1) | 0.45 | ||||
| Pre-LT mGFR (per 1 | 0.94 (0.88–0.98) | 0.01 | 0.94 (0.88–0.99) | 0.04 | 33.6 | 38.3 |
| Pre-LT mGFR <90 | 8 (1.15–163.07) | 0.07 | 10.7 (1.5–221.8) | 0.04 | 37.6 | 42.3 |
| Pre-LT mGFR <101 | 10.93 (2.16–85.04) | 0.01 | ||||
| Pre-LT eGFR (per 1 | 0.97 (0.93–1.01) | 0.17 | 1.00 (0.95–1.05) | 0.96 | 39.4 | 44.0 |
| Pre-LT eGFR <90 | 2.1 × 107 (0–+Inf) | 0.99 | 2.8 × 107 (0–+Inf) | 0.99 | 40.0 | 44.6 |
| Pre-LT eGFR <124 | 4.67 (1.01–26.57) | 0.06 | ||||
| Pre-LT albuminuria (per 1 | 1.06 (0.99–1.38) | 0.33 | ||||
| ECC >200 min | 0.28 (0.05–1.38) | 0.13 | ||||
| Length of stay in ICU (per 1 day increase) | 1.14 (1.01–1.42) | 0.13 | ||||
| Mean tacrolimus first month >10 | 0.9 (0.18–4.21) | 0.43 | ||||
| AKI after LT | 1.6 (0.3–8.48) | 0.57 | ||||
Methods: univariate and multivariate logistic regressions, P < 0.05 was considered as significant. eGFR and mGFR are expressed in mL/min/1.73 m2.
The multivariate model was adjusted for age.
AIC, Akaike information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; CF, cystic fibrosis; ECC, extra-corporeal circulation.
FIGURE 2Bland–Altman plot of eGFR – mGFR in pre- and post-LT. (A) Mean bias was 18.7 ± 17.7 mL/min/1.73 m2 for eGFR versus mGFR in pre-LT patients. (B) Mean bias was 5.0 ± 11.1 mL/min/1.73 m2 for eGFR versus mGFR in post-LT patients. The solid line represents the mean difference and the dotted and dashed line the 95% limit of agreement. Pre-LT eGFR exhibited a significantly higher systematic bias and less accuracy compared with mGFR. Post-LT eGFR was as performant as mGFR.