Should we screen for coronary artery disease in asymptomatic chronic dialysis patients?

The hemodialysis population is characterized by a high prevalence of ‘asymptomatic’ coronary artery disease (CAD), which should be interpreted differently from asymptomatic disease in the general population. A hemodynamically significant stenosis may not become clinically apparent owing to impaired exercise tolerance and autonomic neuropathy. The continuous presence of silent ischemia may cause heart failure, arrhythmias, and sudden death. Whether revascularization of an asymptomatic dialysis patient improves outcome remains a moot point, although several observational studies and one small RCT suggest a benefit. It can therefore be defended to screen asymptomatic dialysis patients for CAD. A number of noninvasive screening tests are available, but none has proved equally practical and reliable in the dialysis population as in the general population. Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) before and after a pharmacological stress such as dipyridamole can reveal both ischemia and myocardial scarring. When compared with coronary angiography, low sensitivities were reported and attributed to impaired vasodilation to dipyridamole in dialysis patients. A more likely explanation is that not every anatomical stenosis will lead to impaired coronary blood flow on MPS. Numerous studies have shown an incremental prognostic value of dipyridamole-MPS over clinical data for prediction of adverse cardiac events, in some studies even over coronary angiography. Pending the availability of high-quality evidence, in our opinion asymptomatic dialysis patients could undergo dipyridamole-MPS, followed by coronary angiography in case of an abnormal scan. This combined physiological and anatomical evaluation of the coronary circulation allows us to determine which coronary stenosis is clinically relevant and therefore should be revascularized

Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a critical review

Although contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is common and portends a significant morbidity and mortality, only few large and well designed trials have assessed the available prophylactic measures and there are no clear evidence-based guidelines that can easily be adopted by the clinician. We critically discuss the evidence for periprocedural hydration, pharmacological agents, periprocedural withdrawal of medication, application of renal replacement therapy and the use of contrast media. Recent findings Pending confirmation of the superiority of sodium bicarbonate, NaCl 0.9% remains the fluid of choice for periprocedural hydration. A recent trial found a dose-dependent beneficial effect of acetylcysteine on CIN and mortality, adding to the controversy on the prophylactic use of this agent. Publication bias of acetylcysteine trials may have confounded the results of the meta-analyses, since negative results were more likely to be published as an abstract only. Periprocedural haemofiltration protected against CIN in a high-risk population, but the results require confirmation before the technique can be recommended. Summary Pending randomized controlled trials with rigorous scientific design, we propose practical mixed evidence-based and opinion-based guidelines for the prevention of CIN, using a stratification of patients into three risk groups, based on their renal function and a risk-prediction model

Vitamin K antagonists for stroke prevention in hemodialysis patients with atrial fibrillation : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The use of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in hemodialysis patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is controversial. No randomized trials are available and observational studies have yielded conflicting results, engendering a large clinical practice variability and physician uncertainty. An unresolved but highly relevant question is whether AF poses a true risk of ischemic stroke in hemodialysis and whether any form of oral anticoagulation is therefore warranted. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies that compared the incidence of ischemic stroke and bleeding in hemodialysis patients with AF taking VKA and those not taking VKA. When hemodialysis patients had been pooled with peritoneal dialysis, kidney transplant, or stage V chronic kidney disease patients, unpublished outcome data of the hemodialysis subgroup were obtained through personal communication. The main outcome measures were ischemic stroke/thromboembolic events, all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and hemorrhagic stroke. Combined hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects model. Results: Twelve prospective or retrospective cohort studies were included in the meta-analysis, totaling 17,380 hemodialysis patients of whom 4,010 (23.1%) received VKA. In VKA-treated patients, mean CHADS(2) or CHA(2)DS(2)VASc score was low (range 1.7-2.75) or a sizeable proportion of patients had scores < 2 (range 2%-23%). Time in the therapeutic range or mean international normalized ratio was generally low. Treatment with VKA was associated with a nonsignificant 26% reduction of the risk of ischemic stroke (HR 0.74; 0.51-1.06), a 21% increase in total bleeding risk (HR 1.21; 1.03-1.43), and no effect on mortality (HR 1.00; 0.92-1.09). Vitamin K antagonist almost doubled the risk of hemorrhagic stroke, but this did not reach the limit of statistical significance (4 studies, n = 16.365; HR 1.93; 0.93-3.98). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis revealed a trend for a reduction of the risk of ischemic stroke in hemodialysis patients with AF treated with VKA. The true protective effect may have been underestimated, owing to inclusion of low-risk patients not expected to benefit from anticoagulation and to suboptimal anticoagulation. However, assessment of the overall effect of VKA in hemodialysis patients should also take into account the increased risk of bleeding, in particular of hemorrhagic stroke. Whether new oral anticoagulants provide a better benefit-risk ratio in hemodialysis patients should be the subject of future trials