The association of chronic kidney disease and dialysis treatment with foot ulceration and major amputation.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 4-5 and dialysis treatment on incidence of foot ulceration and major lower extremity amputation in comparison to CKD stage 3. METHODS: In this retrospective study, all individuals who visited our hospital between 2006 and 2012 because of CKD stages 3 to 5 or dialysis treatment were included. Medical records were reviewed for incidence of foot ulceration and major amputation. The time from CKD 3, CKD 4-5, and dialysis treatment until first foot ulceration and first major lower extremity amputation was calculated and analyzed by Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. Diabetes mellitus, peripheral arterial disease, peripheral neuropathy, and foot deformities were included for potential confounding. RESULTS: A total of 669 individuals were included: 539 in CKD 3, 540 in CKD 4-5, and 259 in dialysis treatment (individuals could progress from one group to the next). Unadjusted foot ulcer incidence rates per 1000 patients per year were 12 for CKD 3, 47 for CKD 4-5, and 104 for dialysis (P < .001). In multivariate analyses, the hazard ratio for incidence of foot ulceration was 4.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-6.3) in CKD 4-5 and 7.6 (95% CI, 4.8-12.1) in dialysis treatment compared with CKD 3. Hazard ratios for incidence of major amputation were 9.5 (95% CI, 2.1-43.0) and 15 (95% CI, 3.3-71.0), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CKD 4-5 and dialysis treatment are independent risk factors for foot ulceration and major amputation compared with CKD 3. Maximum effort is needed in daily clinical practice to prevent foot ulcers and their devastating consequences in all individuals with CKD 4-5 or dialysis treatment.

Stent placement in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis and impaired renal function: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the efficacy and safety of renal artery stenting in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS) and impaired renal function. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of stent placement in patients with ARAS and impaired renal function. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. Randomization was centralized and computer generated, and allocation was assigned by e-mail. Patients, providers, and persons who assessed outcomes were not blinded to treatment assignment. SETTING: 10 European medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: 140 patients with creatinine clearance less than 80 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) and ARAS of 50% or greater. INTERVENTION: Stent placement and medical treatment (64 patients) or medical treatment only (76 patients). Medical treatment consisted of antihypertensive treatment, a statin, and aspirin. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was a 20% or greater decrease in creatinine clearance. Secondary end points included safety and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Forty-six of 64 patients assigned to stent placement had the procedure. Ten of the 64 patients (16%) in the stent placement group and 16 patients (22%) in the medication group reached the primary end point (hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.33 to 1.61]). Serious complications occurred in the stent group, including 2 procedure-related deaths (3%), 1 late death secondary to an infected hematoma, and 1 patient who required dialysis secondary to cholesterol embolism. The groups did not differ for other secondary end points. LIMITATION: Many patients were falsely identified as having renal artery stenosis greater than 50% by noninvasive imaging and did not ultimately require stenting. CONCLUSION: Stent placement with medical treatment had no clear effect on progression of impaired renal function but led to a small number of significant procedure-related complications. The study findings favor a conservative approach to patients with ARAS, focused on cardiovascular risk factor management and avoiding stenting.

Selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibition reduces proteinuria in renal patients.

BACKGROUND: Renoprotection is predicted by the antiproteinuric efficacy of a pharmacological agent. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) interfering non-selectively in the prostaglandin system have strong antiproteinuric potency without reduction of systemic blood pressure. The effect of the selective COX-2 inhibitor rofecoxib in proteinuric patients is unknown, granted recently reported detrimental effects in non-renal patients. Short-term effects of rofecoxib on proteinuria and blood pressure as compared to NSAID and RAAS blockade were studied. METHODS: Sixteen stable patients [mean proteinuria 4.4 g/ day; MAP 103 mmHg)] were included after a wash-out period. Hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg QD was given throughout. Additional blood pressure control was ensured by non-RAAS blocking antihypertensive agents. Patients received rofecoxib 25 mg QD, 50 mg QD and indomethacin 75 mg BID in randomized order for 4 weeks. Thereafter, a subset of the included patients (n = 11) received lisinopril 40 mg QD for 6 weeks preceded by a wash-out period. RESULTS: Rofecoxib exerted a dose-dependent antiproteinuric effect. As compared to rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg, indomethacin was more effective [-18, -28 versus -49% (n = 16; P < 0.05)]. As compared to rofecoxib 50 mg, lisinopril was more effective [-21 versus -51% (n = 11; P < 0.05)]. No significant blood pressure changes were observed after rofecoxib and indomethacin, whereas lisinopril had a significant antihypertensive effect. CONCLUSION: Selective COX-2 inhibition reduces proteinuria without reduction of systemic blood pressure, pointing towards a specific renal effect, and may serve as a novel non-hypotensive adjunct antiproteinuric treatment.

Long-term effects of arterial stenting on kidney function for patients with ostial atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis and renal insufficiency.

It is uncertain whether renal artery stent placement in patients with atherosclerotic renovascular renal failure can prevent further deterioration of renal function. Therefore, the effects of renal artery stent placement, followed by patency surveillance, were prospectively studied in 63 patients with ostial atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis and renal dysfunction (i.e., serum creatinine concentrations of >120 micromol/L (median serum creatinine concentration, 171 micromol/L; serum creatinine concentration range, 121 to 650 micromol/L). Pre-stent renal (dys) function was stable for 28 patients and declining for 35 patients (defined as a serum creatinine concentration increase of > or =20% in 12 mo). The median follow-up period was 23 mo (interquartile range, 13 to 29 mo). Angioplasty to treat restenosis was performed in 12 cases. Five patients reached end-stage renal failure within 6 mo, and this was related to stent placement in two cases. Two other patients died or were lost to follow-up monitoring within 6 mo, with stable renal function. For the remaining 56 patients, the treatment had no effect on serum creatinine levels if function had previously been stable; if function had been declining, median serum creatinine concentrations improved in the first 1 yr [from 182 micromol/L (135 to 270 micromol/L ) to 154 micromol/L (127 to 225 micromol/L ); P < 0.05] and remained stable during further follow-up monitoring. In conclusion, stent placement, followed by patency surveillance, to treat ostial atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis can stabilize declining renal function. For patients with stable renal dysfunction, the usefulness is less clear. The possible advantages must be weighed against the risk of renal failure advancement with stent placement.