Journal of cardiovascular medicine (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2014
Safety and feasibility of dobutamine stress cardiac magnetic resonance for cardiovascular assessment prior to renal transplantation.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ripley David P, Kannoly Sri, Gosling Oliver E, Hossain Ejaz, Chawner Rebecca R, Moore Jason, Shore Angela C, Bellenger Nick G
Аннотация
AIMS: Current guidelines recommend cardiovascular risk assessment prior to renal transplantation. There is currently no evidence for the role of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in this population, despite an established evidence base in the non-chronic kidney disease (CKD) population. Our aim is to determine the feasibility and safety of dobutamine stress CMR (DSCMR) imaging in the risk stratification of CKD patients awaiting renal transplantation.
METHODS: CKD patients who were deemed at high risk for coronary artery disease (CAD) and awaiting renal transplantation underwent DSCMR.
RESULTS: Forty-one patients whose median age was 56 years (range 28–73 years) underwent DSCMR. Nineteen were undergoing haemodialysis, 10 peritoneal dialysis and 12 pre-dialysis. The aetiology of the renal failure was diabetes mellitus in 29%, glomerulonephritis in 24%, hypertension in 22% and autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease in 10%. Thirty-eight patients (93%) achieved the end point, either positive for ischaemia or negative, achieving at least 85% of age-predicted heart rate. Two of them did not achieve target heart rate and one was discontinued because of severe headache. Of the 38 patients who achieved the end point, 35 (92%) were negative for inducible wall motion abnormalities and four (10%) were positive. There were no serious adverse effects.
CONCLUSION: DSCMR is a well tolerated and viable investigation for the cardiovascular risk stratification of high-risk CKD patients prior to renal transplantation. DSCMR already has an established evidence base in the non-CKD population with superiority over other noninvasive techniques. Larger studies with outcome data are now required to define its true utility in the CKD population.
METHODS: CKD patients who were deemed at high risk for coronary artery disease (CAD) and awaiting renal transplantation underwent DSCMR.
RESULTS: Forty-one patients whose median age was 56 years (range 28–73 years) underwent DSCMR. Nineteen were undergoing haemodialysis, 10 peritoneal dialysis and 12 pre-dialysis. The aetiology of the renal failure was diabetes mellitus in 29%, glomerulonephritis in 24%, hypertension in 22% and autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease in 10%. Thirty-eight patients (93%) achieved the end point, either positive for ischaemia or negative, achieving at least 85% of age-predicted heart rate. Two of them did not achieve target heart rate and one was discontinued because of severe headache. Of the 38 patients who achieved the end point, 35 (92%) were negative for inducible wall motion abnormalities and four (10%) were positive. There were no serious adverse effects.
CONCLUSION: DSCMR is a well tolerated and viable investigation for the cardiovascular risk stratification of high-risk CKD patients prior to renal transplantation. DSCMR already has an established evidence base in the non-CKD population with superiority over other noninvasive techniques. Larger studies with outcome data are now required to define its true utility in the CKD population.