Mild-to-Moderate Kidney Dysfunction and Cardiovascular Disease: Observational and Mendelian Randomization Analyses.

BACKGROUND: End-stage renal disease is associated with a high risk of cardiovascular events. It is unknown, however, whether mild-to-moderate kidney dysfunction is causally related to coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke. METHODS: Observational analyses were conducted using individual-level data from 4 population data sources (Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration, EPIC-CVD [European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Cardiovascular Disease Study], Million Veteran Program, and UK Biobank), comprising 648 135 participants with no history of cardiovascular disease or diabetes at baseline, yielding 42 858 and 15 693 incident CHD and stroke events, respectively, during 6.8 million person-years of follow-up. Using a genetic risk score of 218 variants for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), we conducted Mendelian randomization analyses involving 413 718 participants (25 917 CHD and 8622 strokes) in EPIC-CVD, Million Veteran Program, and UK Biobank. RESULTS: There were U-shaped observational associations of creatinine-based eGFR with CHD and stroke, with higher risk in participants with eGFR values <60 or >105 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2, compared with those with eGFR between 60 and 105 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2. Mendelian randomization analyses for CHD showed an association among participants with eGFR <60 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2, with a 14% (95% CI, 3%-27%) higher CHD risk per 5 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 lower genetically predicted eGFR, but not for those with eGFR >105 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2. Results were not materially different after adjustment for factors associated with the eGFR genetic risk score, such as lipoprotein(a), triglycerides, hemoglobin A1c, and blood pressure. Mendelian randomization results for stroke were nonsignificant but broadly similar to those for CHD. CONCLUSIONS: In people without manifest cardiovascular disease or diabetes, mild-to-moderate kidney dysfunction is causally related to risk of CHD, highlighting the potential value of preventive approaches that preserve and modulate kidney function.

Risk factors and prediction models for incident heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: This study aims to develop the first race-specific and sex-specific risk prediction models for heart failure with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We created a cohort of 1.8 million individuals who had an outpatient clinic visit between 2002 and 2007 within the Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System and obtained information on HFpEF, HFrEF, and several risk factors from electronic health records (EHR). Variables were selected for the risk prediction models in a 'derivation cohort' that consisted of individuals with baseline date in 2002, 2003, or 2004 using a forward stepwise selection based on a change in C-index threshold. Discrimination and calibration were assessed in the remaining participants (internal 'validation cohort'). A total of 66 831 individuals developed HFpEF, and 92 233 developed HFrEF (52 679 and 71 463 in the derivation cohort) over a median of 11.1 years of follow-up. The HFpEF risk prediction model included age, diabetes, BMI, COPD, previous MI, antihypertensive treatment, SBP, smoking status, atrial fibrillation, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), while the HFrEF model additionally included previous CAD. For the HFpEF model, C-indices were 0.74 (SE = 0.002) for white men, 0.76 (0.005) for black men, 0.79 (0.015) for white women, and 0.77 (0.026) for black women, compared with 0.72 (0.002), 0.72 (0.004), 0.77 (0.017), and 0.75 (0.028), respectively, for the HFrEF model. These risk prediction models were generally well calibrated in each race-specific and sex-specific stratum of the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Our race-specific and sex-specific risk prediction models, which used easily obtainable clinical variables, can be a useful tool to implement preventive strategies or subtype-specific prevention trials in the nine million users of the VA healthcare system and the general population after external validation.

Risk of stroke in relation to degree of asymptomatic carotid stenosis: a population-based cohort study, systematic review, and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty around which patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis should be offered surgical intervention. Although stroke rates were unrelated to the degree of stenosis in the medical-treatment-only groups in previous randomised trials, this could simply reflect recruitment bias and there has been no systematic analysis of a stenosis-risk association in cohort studies. We aimed to establish whether there is any association between the degree of asymptomatic stenosis and ipsilateral stroke risk in patients on contemporary medical treatment. METHODS: We did a prospective population-based study (Oxford Vascular Study; OxVasc), and a systematic review and meta-analysis. All patients in OxVasc with a recent suspected transient ischaemic attack or stroke, between April 1, 2002, and April 1, 2017, who had asymptomatic carotid stenosis were included in these analyses. We commenced contemporary medical treatment and determined ipsilateral stroke risk in this cohort by face-to-face follow-up (to Oct 1, 2020). We also did a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published studies (from Jan 1, 1980, to Oct 1, 2020) reporting ipsilateral stroke risk in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and included both observational cohort studies and medical treatment groups of randomised controlled trials if the number of patients exceeded 30, ipsilateral stroke rates (or the raw data to calculate these) were provided, and were published in English. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2002, and April 1, 2017, 2354 patients were consecutively enrolled in OxVasc and 2178 patients underwent carotid imaging, of whom 207 had 50-99% asymptomatic stenosis of at least one carotid bifurcation (mean age at imaging: 77·5 years [SD 10·3]; 88 [43%] women). The 5-year ipsilateral stroke risk increased with the degree of stenosis; patients with 70-99% stenosis had a significantly greater 5-year ipsilateral stroke risk than did those with 50-69% stenosis (six [14·6%; 95% CI 3·5-25·7] of 53 patients vs none of 154; p<0·0001); and patients with 80-99% stenosis had a significantly greater 5-year ipsilateral stroke risk than did those with 50-79% stenosis (five [18·3%; 7·7-29·9] of 34 patients vs one [1·0%; 0·0-2·9] of 173; p<0·0001). Of the 56 studies identified in the systematic review (comprising 13 717 patients), 23 provided data on ipsilateral stroke risk fully stratified by degree of asymptomatic stenosis (in 8419 patients). Stroke risk was linearly associated with degree of ipsilateral stenosis (p<0·0001); there was a higher risk in patients with 70-99% stenosis than in those with 50-69% stenosis (386 of 3778 patients vs 181 of 3806 patients; odds ratio [OR] 2·1 [95% CI 1·7-2·5], p<0·0001; 15 cohort studies, three trials) and a higher risk in patients with 80-99% stenosis than in those with 50-79% stenosis (77 of 727 patients vs 167 of 3272 patients; OR 2·5 [1·8-3·5], p<0·0001; 11 cohort studies). Heterogeneity in stroke risk between studies for patients with severe versus moderate stenosis (phet<0·0001) was accounted for by highly discrepant results (pdiff<0·0001) in the randomised controlled trials of endarterectomy compared with cohort studies (trials: pooled OR 0·8 [95% CI 0·6-1·2], phet=0·89; cohorts: 2·9 [2·3-3·7], phet=0·54). INTERPRETATION: Contrary to the assumptions of current guidelines and the findings of subgroup analyses of previous randomised controlled trials, the stroke risk reported in cohort studies was highly dependent on the degree of asymptomatic carotid stenosis, suggesting that the benefit of endarterectomy might be underestimated in patients with severe stenosis. Conversely, the 5-year stroke risk was low for patients with moderate stenosis on contemporary medical treatment, calling into question any benefit from revascularisation. FUNDING: NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome Trust, Wolfson Foundation, and the British Heart Foundation.