RESUMO
Effective management of chronic kidney disease (CKD), a major health problem worldwide, requires accurate and timely diagnosis, prognosis of progression, assessment of therapeutic efficacy, and, ideally, prediction of drug response. Multiple biomarkers and algorithms for evaluating specific aspects of CKD have been proposed in the literature, many of which are based on a small number of samples. Based on the evidence presented in relevant studies, a comprehensive overview of the different biomarkers applicable for clinical implementation is lacking. This review aims to compile information on the non-invasive diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarkers currently available for the management of CKD and provide guidance on the application of these biomarkers. We specifically focus on biomarkers that have demonstrated added value in prospective studies or those based on prospectively collected samples including at least 100 subjects. Published data demonstrate that several valid non-invasive biomarkers of potential value in the management of CKD are currently available.
Assuntos
Insuficiência Renal Crônica , Humanos , Estudos Prospectivos , Biomarcadores , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/diagnóstico , Fibrose , RimRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: This population-based cohort study investigated mid-term outcome after surgical aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve prosthesis in patients aged <50 years in a European social welfare state. METHODS: We analysed patient data from the main social insurance carriers in Austria (2010-2020). Subsequent patient-level record linkage with national health data provided patient characteristics and clinical outcome. Survival, reoperation, myocardial infarction, heart failure, embolic stroke or intracerebral haemorrhage, bleeding other than intracerebral haemorrhage and major adverse cardiac events were evaluated as outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 991 patients were analysed. Regarding demographics, no major differences between groups were observed. Multivariable Cox regression revealed no significant difference in overall survival (P = 0.352) with a median follow-up time of 6.2 years. Reoperation-free survival was decreased (hazard ratio = 1.560 [95% CI: 1.076-2.262], P = 0.019) and the risk for reoperation was increased (hazard ratio = 2.770 [95% CI: 1.402-5.472], P = 0.003) in patients who received bioprostheses. Estimated probability of death after reoperation was 0.23 (CL: 0.08-0.35) after 2 years and 0.34 (CL: 0.06-0.53) after 10 years over both groups. Regarding further outcomes, no significant differences between the two groups were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In patients below 50 years of age receiving aortic valve replacement, implantation of bioprostheses when compared to mechanical heart valve prostheses was associated with a significantly higher rate of reoperations and reduced reoperation-free survival. Nevertheless, we could not observe a difference in overall survival. However, long-term follow-up has to evaluate that a significantly lower rate of reoperations may translate in consistently improved long-term survival.
Assuntos
Bioprótese , Implante de Prótese de Valva Cardíaca , Próteses Valvulares Cardíacas , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Próteses Valvulares Cardíacas/efeitos adversos , Valva Aórtica/cirurgia , Implante de Prótese de Valva Cardíaca/métodos , Estudos de Coortes , Desenho de Prótese , Reoperação , Bioprótese/efeitos adversos , Hemorragia Cerebral/etiologia , Pontuação de Propensão , Resultado do Tratamento , Estudos Retrospectivos , Falha de PróteseRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The present population-based cohort study investigated long-term mortality after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) with bioprosthetic (B) or mechanical aortic valve prostheses (M) in a European social welfare state. METHODS: We analysed patient data from health insurance records covering 98% of the Austrian population between 2010 and 2018. Subsequent patient-level record linkage with national health data provided patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Further reoperation, myocardial infarction, heart failure and stroke were evaluated as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 13,993 patients were analysed and the following age groups were examined separately: <50 years (727 patients: 57.77% M, 42.23% B), 50-65 years (2612 patients: 26.88% M, 73.12% B) and >65 years (10,654 patients: 1.26% M, 98.74% B). Multivariable Cox regression revealed that the use of B-AVR was significantly associated with higher mortality in patients aged 50-65 years compared to M-AVR (HR = 1.676 [1.289-2.181], p < 0.001). B-AVR also performed worse in a competing risk analysis regarding reoperation (HR = 3.483 [1.445-8.396], p = 0.005) and myocardial infarction (HR = 2.868 [1.255-6.555], p = 0.012). However, the risk of developing heart failure and stroke did not differ significantly after AVR in any age group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients aged 50-65 years who underwent M-AVR had better long-term survival, and a lower risk of reoperation and myocardial infarction. Even though anticoagulation is crucial in patients with M-AVR, we did not observe significantly increased stroke rates in patients with M-AVR. This evident survival benefit in recipients of mechanical aortic valve prostheses aged <65 years critically questions current guideline recommendations.