Review Article

Validity of Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Models in Kidney Transplant Recipients

Table 2

Characteristics of studies included in systematic review of cardiovascular risk prediction models in renal transplant recipients.

StudyObjectiveOutcomeDesignSample size and inclusion criteriaAge/sex/eventsFollow-upScoring systemSummary of resultsMethodology quality

Kasiske
et al. [25] 2000
To compare observed and expected incidence of IHD based on relationships of risk factors and IDH in FRSIHD defined by MI or coronary revascularization or death due to IHDRetrospective cohort study
(United States)

(excluding IHD pretransplant ( ) and within the 1st year ( ), as well as RTR that did not survive >1 year with a functioning graft ( ))  

(including IHD pre- or <1 year posttransplant)
40.1 ± 12.8 years
(at time of transplant)


56.4% male
123 events excluding those with IHD within the 1st year posttransplant
At least 12 months
Chart records reviewed from 1963 to 1997
Framingham [11]

(variables included age, gender, blood pressure, HDL cholesterol, diabetes, current smoking)
FRS predicted IHD but underpredicted risk in some populations, especially diabetes;
overall actual to predicted risk of IHD was 1.28 (CI 1.20–1.40; )
Sample population intentionally excluded angina pectoris and CHF, in contrast to the original Framingham cohort; IHD pretransplant and within the 1st year were also excluded; robust measures of performance were not included in this analysis.

Ducloux
et al. [10] 2004
To determine incidence and risk factors for IHD and assess relevance of FRS in RTRCoronary heart disease defined by document MI or coronary
revascularization or typical angina
Prospective cohort study
(France)


RTR free of vascular disease, >12 months posttransplant, without acute rejection or Scr > 400 umol/L
51 ± 13.7 years

63% male
( )

27 events in total
72 ± 14 monthsFramingham [11]
  
(C-reactive protein and serum homocysteine also investigated)
Although the FRS predicted IHD in low-risk patients, it was underpredicted in high-risk patients: observed versus expected incidences were low-FRS = 0.6% versus 0.51%; high-FRS = 6.4% versus 2.8%Sample population not identical to FRS; hypertension not significantly associated with CVD leading the authors to question sample size and follow up; c-statistics not used

Kiberd and
Panek [28] 2008
To assess the ability of the FRS to predict CV eventsMACE defined as fatal and nonfatal MI and invasive coronary artery therapy, cerebral vascular events, and other (CHF and PVD, rhythmic)Prospective cohort study
(United States)


RTR >6 months posttransplant
48 ± 12 years

59% male ( )
events:
for cardiac
for stroke
for all combined
4.73 yearsFramingham CV and stroke score [11]FRS underestimated CVE across the entire cohort (observed to predicted risk 1.64 CI 1.19–2.94), but more so in patients aged 45–60 with CVD or diabetes (observed to predicted risk 2.74 CI 1.7–4.24)Small number of events and sample limited ability to validate or develop new score; study used prevalent RTR > 6 months posttransplantation versus incident patients

Israni
et al. [33] 2010
PORT dataset used to identify CHD predictive risk factors to develop risk-prediction equations at clinically important time pointsCHD defined as fatal or nonfatal AMI, coronary revascularization, or sudden death.
Retrospective cohort study
(14 centers worldwide)
5 
for FRS comparison* 

kidney-only transplants; only centers that could report on required variables were included
18–34 years = 22%
35–49 years = 36%
50–64 years = 34%
≥65 = 8%

60% male
689 events in year 1; 669 events in years 1–5; 143 events for FRS comparison*
4.5 years

(data collected from Jan 1, 1990, to 2007)
2 models were developed to predict CV risk within 1 year and 1 model to predict risk within years 1–5 posttransplant (8, 7, and 12 variables, resp.)The 3 models performed reasonably well with a time-dependent c-statistic of >0.75. Transplant related factors (e.g., DGR, AR, and eGFR) could predict CVE without FRS and FRS added little predicted valueMulticenter data with large sample size; models developed had many variables (8, 7, and 12), which predicted risk at clinically important time points. The model was not externally validated.

Silver
et al. [11] 2011
To quantify predictive value of FRS and determine whether novel factors could improveMACE defined by fatal or nonfatal MI or coronary revascularization or cardiac deathRetrospective cohort study
(Canada—ethnically diverse cohort)


Transplanted between 1998 and 2008, with >3 months of graft function
RTR with CVE:
58.3 ± 11 years RTR without CVE:
52.3 ± 12 years

RTR with CVE: 81% male
RTR without CVE: 61% male
89 events in total
4.15 yearsFramingham [11]

(C-reactive protein, uric acid, urine albumin-creatinine ratio also investigated)
FRS underpredicted events in all subgroups (actual to predicted event ratio was 1.2–8.4; ), but most notably in RTR with a history of diabetes or smoking. GFR was only non-FRS variable of predictive value after MVA (CRP, UA, and urine ACR did not).Definition of MACE did not include angina or silent MI yet a much more inclusive definition was used for pretransplant CV history resulting in inconsistency; ethnicity was not accounted for as a confounder; small sample size

Soveri
et al. [21] 2012
ALERT (a multicenter clinical trial) dataset used to develop and validate an equation for CV risk and mortality prediction in RTR MACE defined by cardiac death, nonfatal MI, or coronary revascularizationRetrospective cohort study
(multicenter-Northern Europe and Canada)


Renal and combined renal/pancreas, >6 months posttransplant; all were on CSA based IS, none were on statins: unstable angina within prior 6 months were excluded
50 ± 10.9 years

65.5% male ( )
165 events in total
6.7 yearsA 7-year MACE and mortality calculator for RTR

Variables included age, CHD, SCr, LDL, smoking, diabetes, time on dialysis, and number of transplants
A formula for a 7-year MACE and mortality prediction was developed using a 7-variable model; MACE model had a c-statistic of 0.738 and 0.740 in the assessment and test samples, and mortality model had a c-statistic of 0.734 and 0.720 in assessment and test samples, respectivelyMACE prediction tool developed from population specific variables in a sufficiently sized dataset; model was internally validated and discrimination and calibration were both reported; generalizability limited to dataset inclusion criteria

Soveri
et al. [35] 2013
To externally validate the 7-year MACE and mortality calculators for RTR using the PORT datasetMACE defined by cardiac death, nonfatal MI, or coronary revascularization

All patient follow-up was censored at graft loss.
Retrospective cohort study
(Europe and the United States)


Kidney-only transplants; only centers that could report on required variables were included
Age and sex not reported

(211 events in total)
Median follow-up with
functioning graft was 4.7 years (33% had at least 7 years of follow-up)
7-year MACE and mortality calculator for RTRMACE could be predicted with a discrimination of 0.740 but calibration indicated significant underestimation in risk in decile 5 and 9; mortality c-statistic was 0.721; underestimation of risk in decile 7 and overestimation in the highest risk decileExternal validation of the 7-year MACE and mortality calculator for renal transplants in a large database. Some limitations with respect to model performance which can be attributed to differences in datasets.

FRS: Framingham risk score; RTR: renal transplant recipients; IHD: ischemic heart disease; MI: myocardial infarction; CHF: congestive heart failure; SCr: serum creatinine; CV: cardiovascular; CVD: cardiovascular disease; MACE: major adverse cardiovascular event; CHF: congestive heart failure; PVD: peripheral vascular disease; DGF: delayed graft function; AR: acute rejection; eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate; CRP: C-reactive protein; UA: uric acid; urine ACR: urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio; MVA: multivariate analysis; ALERT: Assessment of Lescol in Renal Transplantation; CSA: cyclosporine; IS: immunosuppression; CHD: coronary heart disease; PORT: patient outcomes in renal transplant; LDL: low density lipoprotein cholesterol.