Why the study?
Does tacrolimus improve arterial function compared to cyclosporine A in stable renal transplant recipients?
Does tacrolimus improve arterial function compared to cyclosporine A in stable renal transplant recipients?
Tacrolimus is associated with a more favorable augmentation index compared to cyclosporine A in renal transplant recipients, suggesting a potentially better arterial stiffness profile.
Tacrolimus was associated with lower AI75 than cyclosporine A in renal transplant recipients; leaves open whether this affects outcomes or should influence regimen choice.
Cardiovascular complications are the leading cause of death in renal transplant recipients and constitute one of the leading causes of graft failure. Calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) induce an acceleration of atherosclerotic processes in the arterial wall. There are conflicting data whether cyclosporine A (CsA) and tacrolimus (Tac) differ in their deleterious effects on arterial stiffening. The present study combines several measurement techniques to provide a global and reliable assessment of the differential effects of CNI on the gold-standard parameters of arterial function. Pulse wave analysis was performed by the SphygmoCor (AtCor(®) ), HEM-9000AI (Omron(®) ), and CR-2000 device (Hypertension Diagnostics(®) ) in 56 stable renal transplant recipients (29 CsA, 27 Tac). Groups were homogeneous for age, gender, body mass index, time on dialysis prior to transplantation, and graft function. Whereas systolic and diastolic blood pressure, central aortic blood pressure, cardiac index, large and small artery compliance index (C(1) and C(2) ), and pulse wave velocity did not significantly differ between CsA and Tac, augmentation index (AI(75) ) was significantly lower in patients treated with Tac. This finding was consistent as assessed by two different measurement systems (P < 0.05). Compared to CsA, Tac has a favorable impact on augmentation index, a strong independent predictor for cardiovascular mortality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Seibert et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: