Carlos E Diaz-Castrillon1, Lauren V Huckaby1, Gavin Hickey2, Ibrahim Sultan1, Arman Kilic3. 1. Division of Cardiac Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. Division of Cardiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. Division of Cardiac Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: kilica2@upmc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study explores the use of induction therapy in orthotopic heart transplantation as it relates to preoperative renal function and evaluates the impact of its utilization on post-transplant outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis using the United Network for Organ Sharing database from 2000 to 2018 evaluating the initiation of de novo dialysis after transplantation. We examined the relationship between induction immunosuppression and pre-transplant estimated glomerular filtration rate with post-transplant outcomes, accounting for inter-center variability through a mixed-effects logistic regression model. RESULTS: In total, 16,201 patients were included with a median age of 57 y (interquartile range 47, 63); 26% were women (n = 4222) and 28% (n = 4552) had a history of diabetes mellitus. The median estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 67.5 mL/min (interquartile range 53.1, 86.7); 51.2% (n = 3068) of the recipients with eGFR < 60 received induction therapy compared to 42.5% (n = 4336) within the eGFR ≥ 60 group (P < 0.001). Adjusted multivariable analysis found that induction therapy was associated with de novo dialysis (odds ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.43, P < 0.001), with the most significant effect on patients with eGFR ≥ 60. Although significant, there was a weak correlation between center-level induction utilization and mean eGFR (r = -0.2, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this analysis, the use of induction immunosuppression in orthotopic heart transplantation varied widely between centers and did not correlate strongly with pre-transplant eGFR. In addition, its utilization did not mitigate the risk of renal replacement therapy after transplantation and in fact was associated with increased risk even after adjusting for confounders most notably in patients with eGFR ≥ 60.
BACKGROUND: This study explores the use of induction therapy in orthotopic heart transplantation as it relates to preoperative renal function and evaluates the impact of its utilization on post-transplant outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis using the United Network for Organ Sharing database from 2000 to 2018 evaluating the initiation of de novo dialysis after transplantation. We examined the relationship between induction immunosuppression and pre-transplant estimated glomerular filtration rate with post-transplant outcomes, accounting for inter-center variability through a mixed-effects logistic regression model. RESULTS: In total, 16,201 patients were included with a median age of 57 y (interquartile range 47, 63); 26% were women (n = 4222) and 28% (n = 4552) had a history of diabetes mellitus. The median estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 67.5 mL/min (interquartile range 53.1, 86.7); 51.2% (n = 3068) of the recipients with eGFR < 60 received induction therapy compared to 42.5% (n = 4336) within the eGFR ≥ 60 group (P < 0.001). Adjusted multivariable analysis found that induction therapy was associated with de novo dialysis (odds ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.43, P < 0.001), with the most significant effect on patients with eGFR ≥ 60. Although significant, there was a weak correlation between center-level induction utilization and mean eGFR (r = -0.2, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this analysis, the use of induction immunosuppression in orthotopic heart transplantation varied widely between centers and did not correlate strongly with pre-transplant eGFR. In addition, its utilization did not mitigate the risk of renal replacement therapy after transplantation and in fact was associated with increased risk even after adjusting for confounders most notably in patients with eGFR ≥ 60.
Authors: Arman Kilic; Eric S Weiss; Jeremiah G Allen; John V Conte; Ashish S Shah; William A Baumgartner; David D Yuh Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-05-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: J Thomas Heywood; Gregg C Fonarow; Maria Rosa Costanzo; Vandana S Mathur; John R Wigneswaran; Janet Wynne Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Alpesh A Amin; Faris G Araj; Venkatesh K Ariyamuthu; Mark H Drazner; Mehmet U S Ayvaci; Pradeep P A Mammen; Mutlu Mete; Marcus A Urey; Bekir Tanriover Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2019-07-19 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: A M Escoresca Ortega; Z Ruíz de Azúa López; R Hinojosa Pérez; C M Ferrándiz Millón; A Díaz Martín; Y Corcia Palomo; E Lage Gallé Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: Paul B Rosenberg; Ank E Vriesendorp; Mark H Drazner; Daniel L Dries; Patricia A Kaiser; Linda S Hynan; J Michael Dimaio; Daniel Meyer; W Steves Ring; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Einar Gude; Arne K Andreassen; Satish Arora; Lars Gullestad; Ingelin Grov; Anders Hartmann; Torbjørn Leivestad; Arnt E Fiane; Odd R Geiran; Mari Vardal; Svein Simonsen Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2010 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Catherine Cornu; Christophe Dufays; Ségolène Gaillard; François Gueyffier; Michel Redonnet; Laurent Sebbag; Ana Roussoulières; Christian A Gleissner; Jan Groetzner; Hans B Lehmkuhl; Luciano Potena; Lars Gullestad; Marcelo Cantarovich; Pascale Boissonnat Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Maria E Ostermann; Chris A Rogers; Imran Saeed; Stephen R Nelson; Andrew J Murday Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Oliver K Jawitz; Marat Fudim; Vignesh Raman; Vanessa Blumer; Kadir Caliskan; Adam D DeVore; Robert J Mentz; Carmelo Milano; Osama Soliman; Joseph Rogers; Chetan B Patel Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2020-01-03 Impact factor: 4.330