Comparison between clinical stratification and myocardial perfusion scintigraphy as a predictor of cardiovascular events in kidney transplant candidates / Comparação entre a estratificação clínica e a cintilografia de perfusão miocárdica como preditores de eventos cardiovasculares em candidatos a transplante renal

Rodolfo Leite Arantes

Cardiovascular (CV) disease is a common condition in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients and is the leading cause of fatal events during and after renal transplantation. The best strategy for CV evaluation and coronary risk stratification in renal transplant candidates remains controversial. Moreover, there is no consensus regarding the best strategy for detection of coronary artery disease (CAD). We still do not know if all patients should be evaluated by noninvasive testing or if this approach should be restricted to individuals with clinical evidence of CAD, as in the general population. The objective of this study was to compare CV risk stratification based on nonivasive testing for CAD with two clinical stratification methods as advanced by The American Society of Transplantation (AST) and by The European Renal Association (ERA), respectively. The AST divides patients in high risk (age50 years and/or diabetes and/or CV disease) and low risk (all others).The ERA divides : high risk (CV disease), intermediate risk (age 50 years and/or diabetes), and low risk (as above). We studied 386 CKD patients treated by hemodyalisis, to CV evaluation before being admitted to the renal transplant waiting list. All patients were stratified for the risk of future major cardiovascular events (MACE) using the clinical algorithms and also by myocardial scintigraphy (SPECT-MIBI) with dipyridamol and followedup until death, transplant or MACE. Clinical algorithms (RR:1,8 [IC95% 1,3 2,6-P<0,0001] and SPECT-MIBI(RR:1,5 [IC95% 1,2-1,9-P=0,002] identified patients at increased risk of events. The combined use of clinical stratification followed by SPECT showed that the only patients that would benefit from SPECT risk stratification were those belonging the AST-high risk (RR1,4 [IC95%1,1-1,8-P=0,002] and ERA-intermediate risk groups (RR:1,7 [IC95% 1,2-2,3-P=0,003]. In all other groups :ERA-high-risk (RR:1,1[IC95% 0,8-1,5- P=0,41] and ERA and AST-low-risk (P=0,50) SPECT did not add to the probability of events defined by clinical stratification alone. We conclude that SPECT should not be applied to all renal transplant candidates but should be restricted to those considered at a category of risk as defined by clinical algorithms. These results delineate a more rational approach to risk stratification in renal transplant candidates with a better utilization of economical resources.

AUTOR(ES)

DATA DE PUBLICAÇÃO

RESUMO

ASSUNTO(S)

ACESSO AO ARTIGO

Documentos Relacionados