MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4400880591 · doi:10.1016/j.xkme.2024.100872

Pretransplant Cognitive Function and Kidney Transplant Outcomes: A Prospective Cohort Study

2024· article· en· W4400880591 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aditi Gupta, Michael Grasing, Kate Young, Robert N. Montgomery, Daniel J. Murillo, Diane M. Cibrik

Notice bibliographique

RevueKidney Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
Mots-clésKidney transplantMedicineProspective cohort studyCognitionKidney transplantationCohortInternal medicineKidneyPsychiatry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background & HypothesisCognitive impairment is common in patients being evaluated for a kidney transplant (KT). The association between pretransplant cognitive function and posttransplant outcomes is unclear.Study DesignWe performed a prospective cohort study to assess the association between pretransplant cognitive function and clinically relevant posttransplant outcomes.Setting and PopulationIn this single center study, participants from the transplant clinic were evaluated during their pretransplant clinic visits and followed prospectively.OutcomesOur primary outcome measure was allograft function. Secondary outcomes were length of hospitalization for KT, hospital readmission within 30 and 90 days, graft loss, graft rejection within 90 days and 1 year, and mortality.Analytic ApproachWe measured cognitive function with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test. We assessed the association of pretransplant MoCA score with posttransplant outcomes; we used linear mixed effects models to assess the association with the change in estimated glomerular filtration rate, Poisson regression for length of hospitalization, Cox proportional hazard model for graft loss and mortality, and a logistic regression model for readmission and rejection.ResultsWe followed 501 participants for 2.7 ± 1.5 years. The mean age of the patients was 53 ± 14 years and the mean pretransplant MoCA score was 25 ± 3. Lower pretransplant MoCA scores did not adversely affect the primary outcome of allograft function or the secondary outcomes. Although higher MoCA scores predicted a higher decline in graft function (β = −0.28, 95% CI: −0.55 to −0.01, P = 0.04), the effect was small and not clinically significant. Older age was associated with longer hospitalization, lower likelihood of rejection, and higher mortality. Deceased donor KT (vs living donor KT) was associated with longer hospitalization but better graft function. Longer time receiving dialysis before KT was associated with longer hospitalization. A history of diabetes mellitus was associated with higher mortality.LimitationsSingle center study limiting generalizability.ConclusionsPretransplant MoCA scores were not associated with the primary outcome of allograft function or the secondary outcomes.Plain-Language SummaryCognitive impairment (problems with memory and thinking) is common in patients with kidney disease. Cognitive impairment is associated with problems following instructions and remembering to take medications. Medical adherence is important in kidney transplant recipients, and inability to follow instructions and missed doses of immunosuppression increases the risk of rejection of the transplanted kidney. However, kidney transplantation also improves cognition. Hence, transplant centers wonder if cognitive impairment before transplant affects clinical outcomes after kidney transplant. We tried to answer this question by assessing cognitive function before transplantation and examining whether pretransplant cognitive function affects graft function, length of hospitalization, readmission after transplantation, rejection, and death. We did not find any strong link between cognitive function before transplant and these outcomes. Cognitive impairment is common in patients being evaluated for a kidney transplant (KT). The association between pretransplant cognitive function and posttransplant outcomes is unclear. We performed a prospective cohort study to assess the association between pretransplant cognitive function and clinically relevant posttransplant outcomes. In this single center study, participants from the transplant clinic were evaluated during their pretransplant clinic visits and followed prospectively. Our primary outcome measure was allograft function. Secondary outcomes were length of hospitalization for KT, hospital readmission within 30 and 90 days, graft loss, graft rejection within 90 days and 1 year, and mortality. We measured cognitive function with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test. We assessed the association of pretransplant MoCA score with posttransplant outcomes; we used linear mixed effects models to assess the association with the change in estimated glomerular filtration rate, Poisson regression for length of hospitalization, Cox proportional hazard model for graft loss and mortality, and a logistic regression model for readmission and rejection. We followed 501 participants for 2.7 ± 1.5 years. The mean age of the patients was 53 ± 14 years and the mean pretransplant MoCA score was 25 ± 3. Lower pretransplant MoCA scores did not adversely affect the primary outcome of allograft function or the secondary outcomes. Although higher MoCA scores predicted a higher decline in graft function (β = −0.28, 95% CI: −0.55 to −0.01, P = 0.04), the effect was small and not clinically significant. Older age was associated with longer hospitalization, lower likelihood of rejection, and higher mortality. Deceased donor KT (vs living donor KT) was associated with longer hospitalization but better graft function. Longer time receiving dialysis before KT was associated with longer hospitalization. A history of diabetes mellitus was associated with higher mortality. Single center study limiting generalizability. Pretransplant MoCA scores were not associated with the primary outcome of allograft function or the secondary outcomes.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,065
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,980

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,307
Écart entre enseignants0,289 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueKidney MedicineMême sujetRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207