Systematic review reveals low prevalence of class 1 indications for coronary revascularization in kidney transplant candidates, suggesting routine screening may be unnecessary.
Background: Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of morbidity and mortality in kidney transplant recipients. Screening for coronary disease is frequently required prior to kidney transplantation, but coronary intervention has not been shown to be beneficial except in complex coronary artery disease. The likelihood of finding significant coronary artery disease and the benefits of routine pre-transplant screening are uncertain. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medline & Embase were searched to identify manuscripts published between 1998 and 2024 reporting the results of pre-transplant screening. The primary endpoints were the frequency of detecting significant coronary lesions for which there are AHA class 1 indications for revascularization: a) >50% left main stenosis; or b) multi-vessel disease with ejection fraction < 35% during pre-kidney transplant screening. Secondary endpoints included frequency of detecting multivessel disease, proximal left anterior descending artery (LAD) disease, and number of patients who underwent invasive coronary angiography. Meta-regression was used to explore outcome heterogeneity according to the presence of hypertension, diabetes, and age. Results: We identified 1273 studies out of which 44 met eligibility criteria. The mean prevalence of class 1 indications was 2%, although the heterogeneity was high with estimates ranging from 0% to 17%. Estimated prevalence of proximal LAD disease was 2% and left main stenosis was 1%, whereas 10% of patients had multi-vessel coronary artery disease, and 35% were referred for invasive angiography. There was no evidence of significant heterogeneity according to sex of the population or prevalence of diabetes or hypertension. Conclusions: Identification of class I indications for revascularization during pre-transplant coronary screening was rare.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Israni et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: