BMC Public Health (Feb 2019)

Influence of age on the effect of reduced renal function on outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease

  • Fei Chen,
  • Zhi-liang Zuo,
  • Fang-yang Huang,
  • Tian-li Xia,
  • Bao-tao Huang,
  • Hua Chai,
  • Qiao Li,
  • Xiao-bo Pu,
  • Yi-yue Gui,
  • Yong Peng,
  • Mao Chen,
  • De-jia Huang

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6498-6
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 19, no. 1
pp. 1 – 7

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Ageing is a risk factor for both coronary artery disease (CAD) and reduced renal function (RRF), and it is also associated with poor prognosis in patients with CAD or RRF. However, little is known about whether the impact of RRF on clinical outcomes are different in CAD patients at different age groups. This study aimed to investigate whether ageing influences the effect of RRF on long-term risk of death in patients with CAD. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted using data from a single-center cohort study. Three thousand and two consecutive patients with CAD confirmed by coronary angiography were enrolled. RRF was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60 ml/min. The primary endpoint in this study was all-cause mortality. Results The mean follow-up time was 29.1 ± 12.5 months and death events occurred in 275 cases (all-cause mortality: 9.2%). The correlation analysis revealed a negative correlation between eGFR and age (r = − 0.386, P < 0.001). Comparing the younger group (age ≤ 59) with the elderly one (age ≥ 70), the prevalence of RRF increased from 5.9 to 27.5%. Multivariable Cox regression revealed that RRF was independently associated with all-cause mortality in all age groups, and the relative risks in older patients were lower than those in younger ones (age ≤ 59 vs. age 60–69 vs. age ≥ 70: hazard ratio [HR] 2.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04–6.37 vs. HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.17–3.42 vs. HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.06–2.02). There was a significant trend for HRs for all-cause mortality according to the interaction terms for RRF and age group (RRF*age [≤59] vs. RRF*age [60–69] vs. RRF*age [≥70]: HR 1.00[reference] vs. HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.23–1.54 vs. HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.14–0.75; P for trend = 0.010). Conclusions RRF may have different impacts on clinical outcomes in CAD patients at different age groups. The association of RRF with the risk of all-cause mortality was attenuated with ageing.

Keywords