Treating coronary heart disease in kidney failure patients

Among the two available procedures for opening blocked arteries surrounding the heart, one appears to be safer than the other for dialysis patients, according to a study appearing in an upcoming issue of the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology (JASN). The findings may help lead to better care for kidney failure patients with coronary heart disease.

While 30% to 60% of kidney failure patients on dialysis have blocked arteries surrounding the heart, there is little information regarding how to optimally fix the life-threatening problem in these individuals. That's because dialysis patients have been excluded from clinical trials on the two available procedures: (, or CABG) and angioplasty (percutaneous coronary intervention, or PCI).

Tara Chang, MD, Wolfgang Winkelmayer, MD, ScD (Stanford University School of Medicine) and their colleagues examined a database of all patients on dialysis in the United States with primary to determine which is the best revascularization strategy: CABG or PCI. They identified nearly 22,000 who underwent CABG or PCI between 1997 and 2009.

Among the major findings:

  • Overall survival rates were poor, with five-year survival rates of 22% to 25% irrespective of revascularization strategy. (Five-year survival rates in patients without kidney disease are over 90%.)
  • CABG was associated with a 13% lower risk of death and a 12% lower risk of either dying or having a heart attack.
"It is important to note that because our study was observational, our results cannot prove that CABG is better; only a randomized trial can do that," said Dr. Chang. "However, our study does offer guidance to patients and providers who must make these tough decisions and suggests that in carefully selected patients on dialysis with multivessel , CABG may be preferred rather than PCI." Because organizing a randomized trial of CABG and PCI in patients on dialysis would be quite difficult, observational studies such as this one may be the best way to compare the two strategies.

More information: The article, entitled "Multivessel Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ESRD," will appear online at jasn.asnjournals.org/ on November 29, 2012.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Increased stroke risk at 30-days post-CABG versus PCI

Aug 21, 2012

(HealthDay) -- The risk of stroke at 30 days is significantly higher in patients who undergo coronary revascularization with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery compared to those who undergo percutaneous ...

Recommended for you

Volunteer guidelines for clinicians in the Ebola epidemic

3 minutes ago

Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness Journal has released a novel, informative article that speaks to volunteers within the Ebola epidemic. The article, contributed by a consortium of Boston-based hospitals, is ent ...

US lawmaker: New case raises questions on Ebola

1 hour ago

The new case of Ebola diagnosed in New York City has raised "even more questions about procedures in treating patients and risks to Americans," a Republican committee chairman said Friday.

Aid group: Ebola contagion risk can't be zero

1 hour ago

Despite stringent infection-control measures, the risk of Ebola's spread cannot be entirely eliminated, Doctors Without Borders said Friday after one of its doctors caught the dreaded disease while working in Guinea and went ...

WHO eyes mass Ebola vaccines by mid-2015

1 hour ago

Hundreds of thousands of Ebola vaccine doses could be rolled out to west Africa by the middle of next year, the World Health Organization said Friday, after new cases of the killer virus were reported in New York and Mali.

User comments