Spectrum of hereditary renal disease in a kidney transplant population

PEDIATRICS ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 106 (4) ◽  
pp. 756-761 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. L. Furth ◽  
P. P. Garg ◽  
A. M. Neu ◽  
W. Hwang ◽  
B. A. Fivush ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashwin Radhakrishnan ◽  
Luke C. Pickup ◽  
Anna M. Price ◽  
Jonathan P. Law ◽  
Kirsty C. McGee ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is common in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and is an adverse prognostic marker. Coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) is a measure of coronary microvascular function and can be assessed using Doppler echocardiography. Reduced CFVR in ESRD has been attributed to factors such as diabetes, hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy. The contributory role of other mediators important in the development of cardiovascular disease in ESRD has not been studied. The aim of this study was to examine the prevalence of CMD in a cohort of kidney transplant candidates and to look for associations of CMD with markers of anaemia, bone mineral metabolism and chronic inflammation. Methods Twenty-two kidney transplant candidates with ESRD were studied with myocardial contrast echocardiography, Doppler CFVR assessment and serum multiplex immunoassay analysis. Individuals with diabetes, uncontrolled hypertension or ischaemic heart disease were excluded. Results 7/22 subjects had CMD (defined as CFVR < 2). Demographic, laboratory and echocardiographic parameters and serum biomarkers were similar between subjects with and without CMD. Subjects with CMD had significantly lower haemoglobin than subjects without CMD (102 g/L ± 12 vs. 117 g/L ± 11, p = 0.008). There was a positive correlation between haemoglobin and CFVR (r = 0.7, p = 0.001). Similar results were seen for haematocrit. In regression analyses, haemoglobin was an independent predictor of CFVR (β = 0.041 95% confidence interval 0.012–0.071, p = 0.009) and of CFVR < 2 (odds ratio 0.85 95% confidence interval 0.74–0.98, p = 0.022). Conclusions Among kidney transplant candidates with ESRD, there is a high prevalence of CMD, despite the absence of traditional risk factors. Anaemia may be a potential driver of microvascular dysfunction in this population and requires further investigation.


2007 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 966-969 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Ramezani ◽  
K. Ghoddousi ◽  
M. Hashemi ◽  
H.-R. Khoddami-Vishte ◽  
S. Fatemi-Zadeh ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
María del Mar Del Águila García ◽  
Antonio M Poyatos Andújar ◽  
Ana Isabel Morales García ◽  
Margarita Martínez Atienza ◽  
Susana García Linares ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and Aims Hereditary renal disease (HRD) is still underdiagnosed: although we know aspects related to autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD), we know little about the incidence and prevalence of other entities such as Alport syndrome. Altogether, HRD can represent 15% of individuals undergoing renal replacement therapy (RRT) or could even be higher. The advancement of genetics at the healthcare level let to achieve accurate and early renal diagnoses, as well as the incorporation of genetic counseling to families, all of which will result in better management of the disease in its initial stages and the possibility of offering reproductive options that avoid transmission to offspring. Our objective is to know the performance offered by the implementation of the ERH panel through Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) in our healthcare area. Method Observational-descriptive study of 259 probands (141 men / 118 women), mean age of 46 years (30 pediatric / 123 over 50 years), with chronic kidney disease and suspected hereditary cause attended in the specialized consultation of our centers from October 2018 to October 2020. The DNA extracted from leukocytes obtained by venipuncture was processed with Nephropathies Solution version 3 panel (SOPHiA Genetics) according to the manufacturer's protocol. This panel covers the coding regions and splicing junctions of 44 HRD-related genes such as nephrotic syndromes, polycystic kidney diseases, Bartter syndromes, Alport syndrome, CAKUT or tubulopathies (table 1). The sequencing of the libraries was done in a MiSeq (Illumina Inc), the bioinformatic analysis of the data and annotation of variants was performed using the SOPHiA DDM 5.8.0.3 software, and the revision of variants by consulting the main databases (ClinVar, Exac, HGMD, NCBI, PKD Foundation, LOVD). Results The panel was informative (pathogenic or probably pathogenic) in 80/259 patients (31%) and 56/259 cases (21.66%) of variants of uncertain significance (VSI) were detected. Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease accounted for 76.2% of the variants identified (56.2% PKD1, 20% PKD2), following Alport syndrome with 15% and the alterations in the PKHD1 gene associated with renal polycystic disease in its recessive form with about 4% (Figure 1). We have also identified a case of autosomal dominant tubulointerstitial kidney disease associated with the UMOD gene that was not suspected until the genetic study was performed. We highlight that 45% (36/80) of the variants identified as responsible for the renal disease are not yet described. Overall, the most prevalent type of mutation is that which produces displacement in the reading frame or frameshift (Figure 2). Individually, frameshift is the most frequent alteration in PKD1, PKD2 and COL4A5, while for PKHD1, COL4A3 and COL4A4 it is missense. Conclusion Our NGS HRD panel a) offers an adequate diagnostic performance at the healthcare level, with definitive results in 1 out of 3 cases and has also allowed the performance of many carrier studies among family members b) is able of diagnosing the most frequent disease, ADPKD and Alport syndrome, as well as unresolved or poorly characterized cases, and c) opens the horizon for new diagnoses, all without increasing costs by outsourcing services. All this makes the genetic study of renal pathology a useful and efficient strategy. These results encourage us to enhance the resources in this area that we consider to be of strategic value.


2006 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 231-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luc Frimat ◽  
Pierre-Yves Durand ◽  
Carole Loos–Ayav ◽  
Emmanuel Villar ◽  
Victor Panescu ◽  
...  

Background We compared, in patients contraindicated for kidney transplant, outcomes between those patients who were only on hemodialysis (HD) and those who were given peritoneal dialysis (PD) as first renal replacement therapy (RRT). Design Prospective, population-based cohort study of incident cases of end-stage renal disease between June 1997 and June 1999. Setting A network of dialysis care: NEPHROLOR, that is, all the renal units in Lorraine, one of the 22 French administrative regions (population over 2.3 million people). Participants 387 patients were contraindicated for kidney transplant during the first 2 years of RRT: 284 were on HD, 103 on PD. Mean age was 67.6 ± 11.3 years for HD patients and 70.8 ± 11.4 years for PD patients ( p = 0.015). Main Outcome Measures Mortality until June 2003, hospitalization over the 2 first years of RRT, and Kidney Disease and Quality of Life Short Form (KDQOL-SF) 6 and 12 months after initiation of RRT. Results HD patients were more likely to die from cardiac or cerebrovascular causes, PD from cachexia or withdrawal from dialysis. Whatever mode of RRT, the unadjusted 2-year and 5-year survival rates were similar ( p = 0.98). The rate of total duration of hospital stay per month of RRT was similar in HD and PD groups: 2.7 ± 4.5 and 2.9 ± 4.2 days respectively ( p = 0.7). PD was associated with better quality of life than HD. The dimensions Role limitation due to emotional function, Burden of kidney disease, and Role limitation due to physical function ranked first, second, and third for PD. Conclusion In Lorraine, end-stage renal disease patients who were given PD as first-line RRT had no excess of death risk or hospitalizations, and better quality of life the first year of RRT.


2019 ◽  
Vol 229 (4) ◽  
pp. e17
Author(s):  
Pablo Serrano Rodríguez ◽  
Brian G. Orleans ◽  
Paula D. Strassle ◽  
Emily Newton ◽  
Chirag S. Desai

Dental Update ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 245-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Imran Saif ◽  
Angela Adkins ◽  
Victoria Kewley ◽  
Alexander Woywodt ◽  
Vanita Brookes

2004 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Goldfarb-Rumyantzev ◽  
J. F. Hurdle ◽  
J. Scandling ◽  
Z. Wang ◽  
B. Baird ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document