Which patients are more likely to benefit from renal transplantation?

Background: We evaluated whether the advantages conferred by renal transplantation encompass all individuals or whether they favor more specific groups of patients. Methods: One thousand and fifty-eight patients on the transplant waiting list and 270 receiving renal transplant were studied. End points were the composite incidence of CV events and death. Patients were followed up from date of placement on the list until transplantation, CV event, or death (dialysis patients), or from the date of transplantation, CV event, return to dialysis, or death (transplant patients). Results: Younger patients with no comorbidities had a lower incidence of CV events and death independently of the treatment modality (log-rank = 0.0001). Renal transplantation was associated with better prognosis only in high-risk patients (p = 0.003). Conclusions: Age and comorbidities influenced the prevalence of CV complications and death independently of the treatment modality. A positive effect of renal transplantation was documented only in high-risk patients. These findings suggest that age and comorbidities should be considered indication for early transplantation even considering that, as a group, such patients have a shorter survival compared with low-risk individuals.

The role of myocardial scintigraphy in the assessment of cardiovascular risk in patients with end-stage chronic kidney disease on the waiting list for renal transplantation

The usefulness of stress myocardial perfusion scintigraphy for cardiovascular (CV) risk stratification in chronic kidney disease remains controversial. We tested the hypothesis that different clinical risk profiles influence the test. We assessed the prognostic value of myocardial scintigraphy in 892 consecutive renal transplant candidates classified into four risk groups: very high (aged epsilon 50 years, diabetes and CV disease), high (two factors), intermediate (one factor) and low (no factor). The incidence of CV events and death was 20 and 18, respectively (median follow-up 22 months). Altered stress testing was associated with an increased probability of cardiovascular events only in intermediate-risk (one risk factor) patients [30.3 versus 10, hazard ratio (HR) 2.37, confidence interval (CI) 1.693.33, P 0.0001]. Low-risk patients did well regardless of scan results. In patients with two or three risk factors, an altered stress test did not add to the already increased CV risk. Myocardial scintigraphy was related to overall mortality only in intermediate-risk patients (HR 2.8, CI 1.55.1, P 0.007). CV risk stratification based on myocardial stress testing is useful only in patients with just one risk factor. Screening may avoid unnecessary testing in 60 of patients, help stratifying for risk of events and provide an explanation for the inconsistent performance of myocardial scintigraphy.