Key result
Invasive strategy fails to reduce death or MI over conservative management in kidney transplant candidates.
Why the study?
Does an invasive strategy improve outcomes compared to conservative management in patients with advanced CKD and chronic coronary syndromes listed for kidney transplant?
RCT (n=777)
Does an invasive strategy improve outcomes compared to conservative management in patients with advanced CKD and chronic coronary syndromes listed for kidney transplant?
An invasive strategy does not improve clinical outcomes compared with conservative management in patients with advanced CKD and chronic coronary syndromes who are listed for kidney transplant, challenging the practice of routine preemptive revascularization.
BACKGROUND Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and coronary artery disease frequently undergo preemptive revascularization before kidney transplant listing. OBJECTIVES In this post-hoc analysis from ISCHEMIA-CKD, we compared outcomes of patients not listed versus those listed according to management strategy. METHODS In ISCHEMIA-CKD (n=777), 194 patients (25%) with chronic coronary syndromes and at least moderate ischemia were listed for transplant. The primary (all-cause mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI]) and secondary (death, nonfatal MI, hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or stroke) outcomes were analyzed using Cox multivariable modeling. Heterogeneity of randomized treatment effect between listed versus not listed groups was assessed. RESULTS Compared with those not listed, listed patients were younger (60 versus 65 years), less likely of Asian race (15% versus 29%), more likely on dialysis (83% versus 44%), had fewer anginal symptoms, and more likely to have coronary angiography and coronary revascularization irrespective of treatment assignment. Among patients assigned to an invasive strategy versus conservative strategy, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) for the primary outcome were 0.91 (0.54-1.54) and 1.03 (0.78-1.37) for those listed and not listed, respectively (pinteraction=0.68). Adjusted HR for secondary outcomes were 0.89 (0.55-1.46) in listed and 1.17 (0.89-1.53) in those not listed (pinteraction=0.35). CONCLUSIONS In ISCHEMIA-CKD, an invasive strategy in kidney transplant candidates did not improve outcomes compared with conservative management. These data do not support routine coronary angiography or revascularization in patients with advanced CKD and chronic coronary syndromes listed for transplant.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Herzog et al. (2021) conducted an RCT in Chronic kidney disease and chronic coronary syndromes (n=777). Invasive strategy vs. Conservative strategy was evaluated on All-cause mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction (aHR 0.91, 95% CI 0.54-1.54, p=pinteraction=0.68). An invasive strategy did not improve the primary outcome of death or nonfatal MI compared with conservative management in kidney transplant candidates (aHR 0.91; 95% CI 0.54-1.54).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: