Hsu Hsin-Hui, Kor Chew-Teng, Hsieh Yao-Peng, Chiu Ping-Fang
Department of Internal Medicine, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua 50006, Taiwan.
Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua 50006, Taiwan.
J Clin Med. 2019 Sep 3;8(9):1378. doi: 10.3390/jcm8091378.
Little is known about how incident atrial fibrillation (AF) affects the clinical outcomes in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients and whether there is a different influence between pre-existing and incident AF.
Incident CKD patients from 2000 to 2013 were retrieved from the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) of Taiwan and they were classified as non-AF ( = 15,251), prevalent AF ( = 612), and incident AF ( = 588). The outcomes of interest were end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring dialysis, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke or systemic thromboembolism.
Compared with CKD patients without AF, those with prevalent or incident AF were associated with higher adjusted rates of ESRD (hazard ratio (HR), 1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.32-1.48; HR, 2.91; 95% CI, 2.74-3.09, respectively), stroke or systemic thromboembolism (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.77-2.03; HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.54-1.81, respectively), AMI (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.09-1.41; HR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.75-2.27, respectively), all-cause mortality (HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.56-1.72; HR, 2.17; 95% CI, 2.06-2.29, respectively), and CV mortality (HR, 2.95; 95% CI, 2.62-3.32; HR, 4.61; 95% CI, 4.09-5.20, respectively). Intriguingly, CKD patients with prevalent AF were associated with lower adjusted rates of ESRD, AMI, all-cause mortality, and CV mortality compared with those with incident AF.
Both incident and prevalent AF were independently associated with greater risks of AMI, all-cause mortality, CV mortality, ESRD, and stroke or systemic thromboembolism. Our findings are novel in that, compared with prevalent AF, incident AF possessed an even higher risk of some clinical consequences, including ESRD, all-cause mortality, CV mortality, and AMI.
关于新发房颤(AF)如何影响慢性肾脏病(CKD)患者的临床结局,以及既往存在的房颤和新发房颤之间是否存在不同影响,目前所知甚少。
从台湾地区国民健康保险研究数据库(NHIRD)中检索2000年至2013年的新发CKD患者,并将他们分为非房颤组(n = 15251)、既往房颤组(n = 612)和新发房颤组(n = 588)。感兴趣的结局为需要透析的终末期肾病(ESRD)、全因死亡率、心血管(CV)死亡率、急性心肌梗死(AMI)、中风或全身性血栓栓塞。
与无房颤的CKD患者相比,既往房颤组和新发房颤组患者的ESRD校正发生率更高(风险比[HR]分别为1.40;95%置信区间[CI]为1.32 - 1.48;HR为2.91;95% CI为2.74 - 3.09),中风或全身性血栓栓塞发生率更高(HR分别为1.89;95% CI为1.77 - 2.03;HR为1.67;95% CI为1.54 - 1.81),AMI发生率更高(HR分别为1.24;95% CI为1.09 - 1.41;HR为1.99;95% CI为1.75 - 2.27),全因死亡率更高(HR分别为1.64;95% CI为1.56 - 1.72;HR为2.17;95% CI为2.06 - 2.29),CV死亡率更高(HR分别为2.95;95% CI为2.62 - 3.32;HR为4.61;95% CI为4.09 - 5.20)。有趣的是,与新发房颤组患者相比,既往房颤组CKD患者的ESRD、AMI、全因死亡率和CV死亡率校正发生率更低。
新发房颤和既往房颤均与AMI、全因死亡率、CV死亡率、ESRD以及中风或全身性血栓栓塞的更高风险独立相关。我们的研究结果具有新颖性,即与既往房颤相比,新发房颤在某些临床后果方面具有更高的风险,包括ESRD、全因死亡率、CV死亡率和AMI。