Risk of post-transplant cardiovascular events in kidney transplant recipients with preexisting aortoiliac stenosis

Prediction of the risk of cardiovascular events (CVE's) is important to optimize outcomes after kidney transplantation. Aortoiliac stenosis is frequently observed during pre‐transplant screening. We hypothesized that these patients are at higher risk of post‐transplant CVE's due to the joint underlying atherosclerotic disease. Therefore, we aimed to assess whether aortoiliac stenosis was associated with post‐transplant CVE's. This retrospective, single‐center cohort study included adult kidney transplant recipients, transplanted between 2000 and 2016, with contrast‐enhanced imaging available. Aortoiliac stenosis was classified according to the Trans‐Atlantic Inter‐Society Consensus (TASC) II classification and was defined as significant in case of ≥50% lumen narrowing. The primary outcome was CVE‐free survival. Eighty‐nine of 367 patients had significant aortoiliac stenosis and were found to have worse CVE‐free survival (median CVE‐free survival: stenosis 4.5 years (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.8–6.2), controls 8.9 years (95% CI 6.8–11.0); log‐rank test P < .001). TASC II C and D lesions were independent risk factors for a post‐transplant CVE with a hazard ratio of 2.15 (95% CI 1.05–4.38) and 6.56 (95% CI 2.74–15.70), respectively. Thus, kidney transplant recipients with TASC II C and D aortoiliac stenosis require extensive cardiovascular risk management pre‐, peri,‐ and post‐transplantation

To screen or not to screen?: The development of a prediction model for aorto-iliac stenosis in kidney transplant candidates

Screening for aorto-iliac stenosis is important in kidney transplant candidates as its presence affects pre-transplantation decisions regarding side of implantation and the need for an additional vascular procedure. Reliable imaging techniques to identify this condition require contrast fluid, which can be harmful in these patients. To guide patient selection for these imaging techniques, we aimed to develop a prediction model for the presence of aorto-iliac stenosis. Patients with contrast-enhanced imaging available in the pre-transplant screening between January 1st, 2000 and December 31st, 2018 were included. A prediction model was developed using multivariable logistic regression analysis and internally validated using bootstrap resampling. Model performance was assessed with the concordance index and calibration slope. Three hundred and seventy-three patients were included, 90 patients (24.1%) had imaging-proven aorto-iliac stenosis. Our final model included age, smoking, peripheral arterial disease, coronary artery disease, a previous transplant, intermittent claudication and the presence of a femoral artery murmur. The model yielded excellent discrimination (optimism-corrected concordance index: 0.83) and calibration (optimism-corrected calibration slope: 0.91). In conclusion, this prediction model can guide the development of standardized protocols to decide which patients should receive vascular screening to identify aorto-iliac stenosis. External validation is needed before this model can be implemented in patient care

Ipsilateral Aorto-Iliac Calcification is Not Directly Associated With eGFR After Kidney Transplantation: A Prospective Cohort Study Analyzed Using a Linear Mixed Model

Aorto-iliac calcification (AIC) is a well-studied risk factor for post-transplant cardiovascular events and mortality. Its effect on graft function remains unknown. The primary aim of this prospective cohort study was to assess the association between AIC and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in the first year post-transplant. Eligibility criteria were: ≥50 years of age or ≥30 years with at least one risk factor for vascular disease. A non-contrast-enhanced CT-scan was performed with quantification of AIC using the modified Agatston score. The association between AIC and eGFR was investigated with a linear mixed model adjusted for predefined variables. One-hundred-and-forty patients were included with a median of 31 (interquartile range 26-39) eGFR measurements per patient. No direct association between AIC and eGFR was found. We observed a significant interaction between follow-up time and ipsilateral AIC, indicating that patients with higher AIC scores had lower eGFR trajectory over time starting 100 days after transplant (p = 0.014). To conclude, severe AIC is not directly associated with lower post-transplant eGFR. The significant interaction indicates that patients with more severe AIC have a lower eGFR trajectory after 100 days in the first year post-transplant

Covered versus bare-metal stenting of the mesenteric arteries in patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia (CoBaGI):a multicentre, patient-blinded and investigator-blinded, randomised controlled trial

Background: Mesenteric artery stenting with a bare-metal stent is the current treatment for atherosclerotic chronic mesenteric ischaemia. Long-term patency of bare-metal stents is unsatisfactory due to in-stent intimal hyperplasia. Use of covered stents might improve long-term patency. We aimed to compare the patency of covered stents and bare-metal stents in patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia. Methods: We conducted a multicentre, patient-blinded and investigator-blinded, randomised controlled trial including patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia undergoing mesenteric artery stenting. Six centres in the Netherlands participated in this study, including two national chronic mesenteric ischaemia expert centres. Patients aged 18 years or older were eligible for inclusion when an endovascular mesenteric artery revascularisation was scheduled and a consensus diagnosis of chronic mesenteric ischaemia was made by a multidisciplinary team of gastroenterologists, interventional radiologists, and vascular surgeons. Exclusion criteria were stenosis length of 25 mm or greater, stenosis caused by median arcuate ligament syndrome or vasculitis, contraindication for CT angiography, or previous target vessel revascularisation. Digital 1:1 block randomisation with block sizes of four or six and stratification by inclusion centre was used to allocate patients to undergo stenting with bare-metal stents or covered stents at the start of the procedure. Patients, physicians performing follow-up, investigators, and radiologists were masked to treatment allocation. Interventionalists performing the procedure were not masked. The primary study outcome was the primary patency of covered stents and bare-metal stents at 24 months of follow-up, evaluated in the modified intention-to-treat population, in which stents with missing data for the outcome were excluded. Loss of primary patency was defined as the performance of a re-intervention to preserve patency, or 75% or greater luminal surface area reduction of the target vessel. CT angiography was performed at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months post intervention to assess patency. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02428582) and is complete. Findings: Between April 6, 2015, and March 11, 2019, 158 eligible patients underwent mesenteric artery stenting procedures, of whom 94 patients (with 128 stents) provided consent and were included in the study. 47 patients (62 stents) were assigned to the covered stents group (median age 69·0 years [IQR 63·0–76·5], 28 [60%] female) and 47 patients (66 stents) were assigned to the bare-metal stents group (median age 70·0 years [63·5–76·5], 33 [70%] female). At 24 months, the primary patency of covered stents (42 [81%] of 52 stents) was superior to that of bare-metal stents (26 [49%] of 53; odds ratio [OR] 4·4 [95% CI 1·8–10·5]; p&lt;0·0001). A procedure-related adverse event occurred in 17 (36%) of 47 patients in the covered stents group versus nine (19%) of 47 in the bare-metal stent group (OR 2·4 [95% CI 0·9–6·3]; p=0·065). Most adverse events were related to the access site, including haematoma (five [11%] in the covered stents group vs six [13%] in the bare-metal stents group), pseudoaneurysm (five [11%] vs two [4%]), radial artery thrombosis (one [2%] vs none), and intravascular closure device (none vs one [2%]). Six (13%) patients in the covered stent group versus one (2%) in the bare-metal stent group had procedure-related adverse events not related to the access site, including stent luxation (three [6%] vs none), major bleeding (two (4%) vs none), mesenteric artery perforation (one [2%] vs one [2%]), mesenteric artery dissection (one [2%] vs one [2%]), and death (one [2%] vs none). Interpretation: The findings of this trial support the use of covered stents for mesenteric artery stenting in patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia. Funding: Atrium Maquet Getinge Group.</p

Covered versus bare-metal stenting of the mesenteric arteries in patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia (CoBaGI):a multicentre, patient-blinded and investigator-blinded, randomised controlled trial

Background: Mesenteric artery stenting with a bare-metal stent is the current treatment for atherosclerotic chronic mesenteric ischaemia. Long-term patency of bare-metal stents is unsatisfactory due to in-stent intimal hyperplasia. Use of covered stents might improve long-term patency. We aimed to compare the patency of covered stents and bare-metal stents in patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia. Methods: We conducted a multicentre, patient-blinded and investigator-blinded, randomised controlled trial including patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia undergoing mesenteric artery stenting. Six centres in the Netherlands participated in this study, including two national chronic mesenteric ischaemia expert centres. Patients aged 18 years or older were eligible for inclusion when an endovascular mesenteric artery revascularisation was scheduled and a consensus diagnosis of chronic mesenteric ischaemia was made by a multidisciplinary team of gastroenterologists, interventional radiologists, and vascular surgeons. Exclusion criteria were stenosis length of 25 mm or greater, stenosis caused by median arcuate ligament syndrome or vasculitis, contraindication for CT angiography, or previous target vessel revascularisation. Digital 1:1 block randomisation with block sizes of four or six and stratification by inclusion centre was used to allocate patients to undergo stenting with bare-metal stents or covered stents at the start of the procedure. Patients, physicians performing follow-up, investigators, and radiologists were masked to treatment allocation. Interventionalists performing the procedure were not masked. The primary study outcome was the primary patency of covered stents and bare-metal stents at 24 months of follow-up, evaluated in the modified intention-to-treat population, in which stents with missing data for the outcome were excluded. Loss of primary patency was defined as the performance of a re-intervention to preserve patency, or 75% or greater luminal surface area reduction of the target vessel. CT angiography was performed at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months post intervention to assess patency. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02428582) and is complete. Findings: Between April 6, 2015, and March 11, 2019, 158 eligible patients underwent mesenteric artery stenting procedures, of whom 94 patients (with 128 stents) provided consent and were included in the study. 47 patients (62 stents) were assigned to the covered stents group (median age 69·0 years [IQR 63·0–76·5], 28 [60%] female) and 47 patients (66 stents) were assigned to the bare-metal stents group (median age 70·0 years [63·5–76·5], 33 [70%] female). At 24 months, the primary patency of covered stents (42 [81%] of 52 stents) was superior to that of bare-metal stents (26 [49%] of 53; odds ratio [OR] 4·4 [95% CI 1·8–10·5]; p&lt;0·0001). A procedure-related adverse event occurred in 17 (36%) of 47 patients in the covered stents group versus nine (19%) of 47 in the bare-metal stent group (OR 2·4 [95% CI 0·9–6·3]; p=0·065). Most adverse events were related to the access site, including haematoma (five [11%] in the covered stents group vs six [13%] in the bare-metal stents group), pseudoaneurysm (five [11%] vs two [4%]), radial artery thrombosis (one [2%] vs none), and intravascular closure device (none vs one [2%]). Six (13%) patients in the covered stent group versus one (2%) in the bare-metal stent group had procedure-related adverse events not related to the access site, including stent luxation (three [6%] vs none), major bleeding (two (4%) vs none), mesenteric artery perforation (one [2%] vs one [2%]), mesenteric artery dissection (one [2%] vs one [2%]), and death (one [2%] vs none). Interpretation: The findings of this trial support the use of covered stents for mesenteric artery stenting in patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia. Funding: Atrium Maquet Getinge Group.</p