» Articles » PMID: 24251918

Impact of the Reduction of Calcineurin Inhibitors on Renal Function in Heart Transplant Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract

Aims: Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) taken after heart transplantation lead to excellent short-term outcomes, but long-term use may cause chronic nephrotoxicity. Our aim was to identify, appraise, select and analyse all high-quality research evidence relevant to the question of the clinical impact of CNI-sparing strategies in heart transplant patients.

Methods: We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on CNI reduction in heart transplant recipients. Primary outcomes were kidney function and acute rejection after 1 year. Secondary outcomes included graft loss, all-cause mortality and adverse events.

Results: Eight open-label studies were included, with 723 patients (four tested de novo CNI reduction and four maintenance CNI reduction). Calcineurin inhibitor reduction did not improve creatinine clearance at 12 months 5.46 [-1.17, 12.03] P = 0.32 I(2)  = 65.4%. Acute rejection at 12 months (55/360 vs. 52/332), mortality (18/301 vs. 15/270) and adverse event rates (55/294 vs. 52/281) did not differ between the low-CNI and standard-CNI groups. There was significant benefit on creatinine clearance in patients with impaired renal function at 6 months [+12.23 (+5.26, +18.82) ml min(-1) , P = 0.0003] and at 12 months 4.63 [-4.55, 13.82] P = 0.32 I(2)  = 75%.

Conclusions: This meta-analysis did not demonstrate a favourable effect of CNI reduction on kidney function, but there was no increase in acute rejection. To provide a better analysis of the influence of CNI reduction patterns and associated treatments, a meta-analysis of individual patient data should be performed.

Citing Articles

Kidney disease in non-kidney solid organ transplantation.

Swanson K World J Transplant. 2022; 12(8):231-249.

PMID: 36159075 PMC: 9453292. DOI: 10.5500/wjt.v12.i8.231.


Induction Immunosuppression and Renal Outcomes in Adult Heart Transplantation.

Diaz-Castrillon C, Huckaby L, Hickey G, Sultan I, Kilic A J Surg Res. 2020; 259:14-23.

PMID: 33278793 PMC: 9015732. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.11.021.


Impact of tacrolimus versus cyclosporin A on renal function during the first year after heart transplant.

Shiraishi Y, Amiya E, Hatano M, Katsuki T, Bujo C, Tsuji M ESC Heart Fail. 2020; 7(4):1842-1849.

PMID: 32445260 PMC: 7373882. DOI: 10.1002/ehf2.12749.


Complications of Cardiac Transplantation.

Potena L, Zuckermann A, Barberini F, Aliabadi-Zuckermann A Curr Cardiol Rep. 2018; 20(9):73.

PMID: 29992503 DOI: 10.1007/s11886-018-1018-3.


Advantageous effects of immunosuppression with tacrolimus in comparison with cyclosporine A regarding renal function in patients after heart transplantation.

Helmschrott M, Rivinius R, Ruhparwar A, Schmack B, Erbel C, Gleissner C Drug Des Devel Ther. 2015; 9:1217-24.

PMID: 25759566 PMC: 4346008. DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S79343.


References
1.
de Sevaux R, Smak Gregoor P, Hene R, Hoitsma A, Vos P, Weimar W . A controlled trial comparing two doses of cyclosporine in conjunction with mycophenolate mofetil and corticosteroids. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2001; 12(8):1750-1757. DOI: 10.1681/ASN.V1281750. View

2.
Waser M, Maggiorini M, Binswanger U, Keusch G, Carrel T, von Segesser L . Irreversibility of cyclosporine-induced renal function impairment in heart transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 1993; 12(5):846-50. View

3.
Jadad A, Moore R, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds D, Gavaghan D . Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials. 1996; 17(1):1-12. DOI: 10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4. View

4.
Wang S, Chou N, Chi N, Huang S, Wu I, Wang C . Can cyclosporine blood level be reduced to half after heart transplantation?. Transplant Proc. 2010; 42(3):930-3. DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2010.03.014. View

5.
Stevens L, Greene T, Levey A . Surrogate end points for clinical trials of kidney disease progression. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007; 1(4):874-84. DOI: 10.2215/CJN.00600206. View