
==== Front
Open Heart
Open Heart
openhrt
openhrt
Open Heart
2053-3624
BMJ Publishing Group BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR

39277185
10.1136/openhrt-2024-002738
openhrt-2024-002738
Original Research
Special Populations
1506
Pretransplant cardiac stress testing and transplant wait time in kidney transplantation candidates
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6121-6452
Lee Ming-Sum 1mingsum.lee@kp.org

Batiste Columbus 2Columbus.D.Batiste@kp.org

Onwuzurike James 1James.O.Onwuzurike@kp.org

Elkoustaf Rachid 2Rachid.A.Elkoustaf@kp.org

Wu Yi-Lin 3yi-lin.wu@kp.org

Chen Wansu 3Wansu.Chen@kp.org

Kahwaji Joseph 4JOSEPH.M.KAHWAJI@kp.org

Sahota Amandeep 4Amandeep.Sahota@kp.org

Lee Roland L 4Roland.L.Lee@kp.org

1 Department of Cardiology, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
2 Department of Cardiology, Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center, Riverside, California, USA
3 Department of Research & Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, California, USA
4 Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Additional supplemental material is published online only. To view, please visit the journal online (https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2024-002738).

None declared.

DrMing-SumLee; mingsum.lee@kp.org
2024
13 9 2024
11 2 e00273805 5 2024
04 9 2024
Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Abstract

Objective

Routine screening for cardiovascular disease before kidney transplantation remains controversial. This study aims to compare cardiac testing rates in patients with end-stage renal disease, referred and not referred for transplantation, and assess the impact of testing on transplant wait times.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study of 22 687 end-stage renal disease patients from 2011 to 2022, within an integrated health system. Cardiac testing patterns, and the association between cardiac testing and transplant wait times and post-transplant mortality were evaluated.

Results

Of 22 687 patients (median age 66 years, 41.1% female), 6.9% received kidney transplants, and 21.0% underwent evaluation. Compared with dialysis patients, transplant patients had a 5.6 times higher rate of stress nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging with single-photon emission (rate ratio (RR) 5.64, 95% CI 5.37 to 5.92), a 6.5 times higher rate of stress echocardiogram (RR 6.51, 95% CI 5.65 to 7.51) and 16% higher cardiac catheterisation (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.27). In contrast, revascularisation rates were significantly lower in transplant patients (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.58). Transplant wait times were longer for patients who underwent stress testing (median 474 days with no testing vs 1053 days with testing) and revascularisation (1796 days for percutaneous intervention and 2164 days for coronary artery bypass surgery). No significant association was observed with 1-year post-transplant mortality (adjusted OR 1.99, 95% CI 0.46 to 8.56).

Conclusions

This study found a higher rate of cardiac testing in dialysis patients evaluated for kidney transplants. Cardiac testing was associated with longer transplant wait time, but no association was observed between testing and post-transplant mortality.

Diagnostic Imaging
Outcome Assessment, Health Care
Atherosclerosis
Regional Research Committee of Kaiser Permanente Southern California KP-RRC-20230401
==== Body
pmcWHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

Recent studies suggest cardiac stress testing for potential kidney transplant candidates may be of low value.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

Compared to dialysis patients, patients undergoing kidney transplant evaluation had a significantly higher rate of stress testing.

Transplant wait times were longer for patients who underwent stress testing, and no association was observed between stress testing and post-transplant mortality.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

Minimising unnecessary cardiac testing could streamline and enhance the efficiency of the pretransplant evaluation process. The current system could benefit from a re-evaluation, followed by a comprehensive overhaul and adoption of standardised processes.

Introduction

Coronary artery disease is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in kidney and liver transplant candidates.1 Cardiac stress testing is used routinely in asymptomatic kidney transplant candidates to screen for occult coronary artery disease. However, the benefit of routine use of cardiac testing to improve clinical outcomes remains unclear. Studies performed outside of the transplant setting failed to show screening for coronary artery disease in asymptomatic individuals improves survival.24 Given the absence of data regarding the benefit of cardiac testing, there is substantial variability among transplant centres.5 6 Many US programmes do not have a standardised protocol for pretransplant cardiac evaluation.68 Screening frequency and modality are often left to the discretion of local clinicians. In 217 US facilities, the use of stress testing in the 18 months preceding transplant ranged from 11% to 96%.8

Clinical practice guidelines from national societies vary widely regarding which patients to screen, how frequently screening should be performed and which screening modality to use.9 A recent cohort study showed that pretransplant coronary artery disease testing was not associated with a reduction in early post-transplant death or acute myocardial infarction,10 suggesting that many transplant candidates may safely avoid unnecessary cardiac testing. Cardiac stress testing often leads to additional downstream testing and procedures, such as revascularisation with stenting or coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG), which may cause a delay in organ transplantation.6 Whether cardiac testing leads to lengthened pretransplant evaluation and prolonged wait times has not been well studied. The goal of this study is to describe the pattern of cardiac testing in a cohort of kidney transplant patients and to evaluate the association between cardiac testing and transplant wait time.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records from Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) to identify adults referred for kidney transplant evaluation. This study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting guideline.11 Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

Data source

KPSC is an integrated healthcare delivery system that provides care to more than 4.8 million members in Southern California, USA. Members enrol through the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan for comprehensive health insurance, including prescription drug benefits. The membership is ethnically and socioeconomically diverse and is representative of the general population of California.12 Comprehensive medical information, which includes demographics, administrative, pharmacy, laboratory and healthcare utilisation data from ambulatory and inpatient encounters, is prospectively captured electronically through clinical and administrative databases and from the electronic health record.

Study cohort

Adults ages 18 and above referred for kidney transplant evaluation between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2022, were identified using an internal registry. Patients who received renal replacement therapy during this period were identified from electronic medical records and claims data using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes and from a KPSC internal dialysis registry. The date of kidney transplant referral was used as the index date. For patients on renal replacement therapy, the first dialysis date was used as the index date. Patients who were not KPSC members or had less than 1 year of membership were excluded. Patients listed for dual organ heart-kidney or liver-kidney transplant were excluded. Patients were categorised into three groups: (1) ‘transplanted’: patients who have undergone kidney transplantation; (2) ‘evaluation’: patients referred for kidney transplant evaluation but have not received kidney transplantation either because they were declined, died while waiting or still undergoing evaluation during the study period; and (3) ‘dialysis’: patients on renal replacement therapy but has not been referred for kidney transplantation.

Patient demographic characteristics, including age, sex, race and ethnicity, were collected from the electronic health record. Race and ethnicity were self-reported and categorised into mutually exclusive groups, including Hispanic regardless of race and the following non-Hispanic groups: Asian or Pacific Islander, black, white and other (defined as Native American or Alaska Native and multiple or other races and ethnicities). Medical comorbidities were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision or International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes. Household income was estimated using the provided home address and the corresponding neighbourhood information. Patients were followed until they reached the study endpoint (all-cause death or kidney transplantation) or the end of the study period (31 August 2023).

Exposures and outcomes

Cardiac procedures were identified using CPT codes. These included transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE), stress echocardiogram (SE), stress nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging with single-photon emission CT (MPI), cardiac catheterisation (LHC), percutaneous coronary intervention and CABG. Cardiac stress testing included MPI or SE. The number of cardiac procedures completed during the evaluation period was tallied. For the transplanted group, the evaluation period was defined as the interval between the transplant referral date and the transplant surgery date. For the evaluation group, the evaluation period was defined as the transplant referral date to the date of death, date when their candidacy was declined by the transplant centre, termination of KPSC health plan enrolment or the end of study, whichever came first. For the dialysis group, the evaluation period was defined as the dialysis start date to termination of KPSC health plan enrolment, date of death or the end of study, whichever came first.

The primary outcome was transplant wait time, which was defined as the time of referral for transplant evaluation to transplantation surgery. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and rates of cardiac testing. Mortality data was extracted from a mortality data file that included integrated death information from multiple sources, including insurance plan administrative records, Social Security Administrative death master files and hospital death records.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to examine covariate distribution. Continuous variables were summarised and reported in medians with IQRs or means with SD. Categorical variables were reported as counts and percentages. Differences in categorical data between groups (transplanted, evaluation and dialysis) were compared by the χ2 tests. Differences in continuous data were compared using the Student’s t-test or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

Rates of cardiac testing and the corresponding 95% CIs were calculated per 100 patient-years, for each patient group (transplanted, evaluation and dialysis), and for each test type. Rate ratios (RRs) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using Poisson regression models. A box plot was used to compare wait time between groups; the IQRs are shown for all data. Cumulative incidence curves for the groups with or without stress testing were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between stress testing and the likelihood of kidney transplantation during the transplant evaluation period. The proportional hazard assumption was assessed using Schoenfeld residuals. Adjusted HRs (aHRs), corresponding 95% CIs and p values were reported. To evaluate the association between pretransplant cardiac testing and post-transplant mortality, multivariable logistic regression modelling was constructed. Multivariable regression models were adjusted for the following variables: age, sex, race/ethnicity, hypertension, heart failure, diabetes, dyslipidaemia, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, pacemaker, chronic lung disease and liver disease. All p values were two-sided. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Analyses were conducted using Stata V.17/MP V.17.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX) or SAS V.9.4 (SAS Institute).

Results

Study population

The study cohort comprised 22 687 patients divided into three groups: (1) 1573 (6.9%) who underwent kidney transplantation; (2) 4753 (21.0%) referred for evaluation but had not undergone transplant either because they were declined, died while waiting, or were still undergoing evaluation during the study period; and (3) 16 361 (72.1%) on renal replacement therapy and had not been referred for transplant evaluation. Median (IQR) age was 66 (55, 75) years, 9328 (41.1%) were women, 6168 (27.2%) self-identified as non-Hispanic white, 4520 (19.9%) non-Hispanic black, 8669 (38.2%) Hispanic and 3093 (13.6%) Asian. Table 1 shows their baseline characteristics. Compared with dialysis patients, patients evaluated for or who underwent transplant were younger and had a lower prevalence of comorbidities, including diabetes, heart failure, coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation.

Table 1 Baseline characteristics

	Dialysis patients not referred for transplant evaluation(n=16 361)	Referred for evaluation but not transplanted or still undergoing evaluation(n=4753)	Transplanted(n=1573)	Total(n=22 687)	P value*	
Age, years	70 (60, 77)	58 (49, 64)	52 (41, 60)	66 (55, 75)	<0.001	
 18–49	1736 (10.6)	1328 (27.9)	731 (46.5)	3795 (16.7)	<0.001	
 50–64	4105 (25.1)	2326 (48.9)	667 (42.4)	7098 (31.3)		
 65–79	7515 (45.9)	1093 (23.0)	175 (11.1)	8783 (38.7)		
 80 and above	3005 (18.4)	6 (0.1)	0 (0)	3011 (13.3)		
Sex						
 Male	9419 (57.6)	3055 (64.3)	885 (56.3)	13 359 (58.9)	<0.001	
 Female	6942 (42.4)	1698 (35.7)	688 (43.7)	9328 (41.1)		
Race/ethnicity						
 White	5026 (30.7)	806 (17.0)	336 (21.4)	6168 (27.2)	<0.001	
 Black	3391 (20.7)	888 (18.7)	241 (15.3)	4520 (19.9)		
 Hispanic	5713 (34.9)	2266 (47.7)	690 (43.9)	8669 (38.2)		
 Asian	2052 (12.5)	746 (15.7)	295 (18.8)	3093 (13.6)		
 Other	179 (1.1)	47 (1.0)	11 (0.7)	237 (1.0)		
Income						
 80K and above	4516 (27.6)	1444 (30.4)	425 (27.0)	6385 (28.1)	<0.001	
 45K–80K	7839 (47.9)	2299 (48.4)	786 (50.0)	10 924 (48.2)		
 <45K	3955 (24.2)	1004 (21.1)	361 (22.9)	5320 (23.5)		
 Missing	51 (0.3)	6 (0.1)	1 (0.1)	58 (0.3)		
Comorbidities						
 Hypertension	15 482 (94.6)	4636 (97.5)	1506 (95.7)	21 624 (95.3)	<0.001	
 Hyperlipidaemia	13 925 (85.1)	3959 (83.3)	1184 (75.3)	19 068 (84.1)	<0.001	
 Obesity	7370 (45.1)	2206 (46.4)	561 (35.7)	10 137 (44.8)	<0.001	
 Diabetes	11 721 (71.6)	3464 (72.9)	759 (48.3)	15 944 (70.3)	<0.001	
 Heart failure	8016 (49.1)	1368 (28.8)	193 (12.3)	9577 (42.3)	<0.001	
 History of MI	1915 (11.7)	217 (4.6)	27 (1.7)	2159 (9.5)	<0.001	
 Atrial fibrillation	3723 (22.8)	392 (8.3)	73 (4.6)	4188 (18.5)	<0.001	
 Pacemaker	760 (4.7)	41 (0.9)	7 (0.5)	808 (3.6)	<0.001	
 COPD/asthma	5569 (34.1)	1052 (22.1)	299 (19.0)	6920 (30.6)	<0.001	
 Liver disease	1548 (9.5)	524 (11.0)	122 (7.8)	2194 (9.7)	<0.001	
 Rheumatological disease	1145 (7.0)	314 (6.6)	134 (8.5)	1593 (7.0)	<0.001	
 Hypothyroidism	2672 (16.4)	512 (10.8)	156 (9.9)	3340 (14.7)	<0.001	
 Depression	4667 (28.6)	1032 (21.7)	285 (18.1)	5984 (26.4)	<0.001	
* Comparisons between the three patient groups.

COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseK, ‘000; MI, myocardial infarction

Cardiac testing patterns

Cardiac testing counts during the observation period are shown in online supplemental table 1. Cardiac testing included TTE, SPECT-MPI, SE and cardiac catheterisation (online supplemental table 1). Some patients in the transplanted group underwent multiple testing during the transplant evaluation period: 28.6% had two SPECT-MPIs, 12.1% had three SPECT-MPIs and 7.9% had four or more SPECT-MPIs. A few transplanted patients had more than six TTEs, SPECT-MPIs or SEs during the transplant evaluation period (online supplemental figure 1).

Cardiac testing rates and RRs are shown in table 2. Patients who underwent kidney transplant evaluation, regardless of whether they eventually underwent transplantation, had significantly higher rates of non-invasive cardiac testing and invasive cardiac catheterisation. Compared with dialysis patients not referred for transplant evaluation, patients who underwent transplant had a 5.6 times higher rate of SPECT-MPI (RR 5.64, 95% CI 5.37 to 5.92) and a 6.5 times higher rate of SE (RR 6.51, 95% CI 5.65 to 7.51). Rate of cardiac catheterisation was 16% higher (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.27). In contrast, the rate of revascularisation was significantly lower in patients who had kidney transplants (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.58).

Table 2 Cardiac testing rates per 100 person-years of observation time and rate ratios

	Dialysis patients not referred for transplant evaluation	Referred for evaluation but not transplanted or still undergoing evaluation	Transplanted	
Count	Rate per 100 patient-year (95% CI)	Rate ratio	Count	Rate per 100 patient-year (95% CI)	Rate ratio*	Count	Rate per 100 patient-year (95% CI)	Rate ratio*	
TTE	13 529	26.4 (26.0 to 26.8)	Reference	5220	34.3 (33.6 to 35.1)	1.30 (1.26 to 1.34)	2012	34.0 (32.8 to 35.2)	1.29 (1.23 to 1.35)	
MPI	4003	7.8 (7.6 to 8.0)	Reference	5047	33.2 (32.5 to 34.0)	4.26 (4.08 to 4.44)	2603	44.0 (42.7 to 45.3)	5.64 (5.37 to 5.92)	
Stress Echo	442	0.9 (0.8 to 0.9)	Reference	331	2.2 (1.9 to 2.4)	2.53 (2.19 to 2.91)	332	5.6 (5.1 to 6.2)	6.51 (5.65 to 7.51)	
Cardiac Cath	3854	7.5 (7.2 to 7.7)	Reference	1660	10.9 (10.4 to 11.4)	1.45 (1.37 to 1.54)	517	8.7 (8.0 to 9.5)	1.16 (1.06 to 1.27)	
Revascularisation (PCI or CABG)	1325	2.6 (2.4 to 2.7)	Reference	464	3.1 (2.8 to 3.3)	1.18 (1.06 to 1.31)	70	1.2 (0.9 to 1.5)	0.46 (0.36 to 0.58)	
* Compared to the dialysis group.

CABG, coronary artery bypass surgeryCath, catheterisation; Echo, stress echocardiograph; MPI, stress nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging with single-photon emission CT; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; TTE, transthoracic echocardiogram

Time from referral to transplantation

Among patients who underwent kidney transplants, the time from referral for transplant evaluation to eventual transplantation was calculated for patients who underwent different types of cardiac testing. The median time from referral to transplant was 474 days for patients who did not undergo any stress testing and 1053 days for those who had either an SE or SPECT-MPI (table 3). Patients who underwent cardiac catheterisation had a longer wait time of 1687 days. Revascularisation with percutaneous cardiac intervention or CABG further prolongs the wait time to 1796 days and 2164 days, respectively (figure 1). Patients who underwent transplant from a living donor had a shorter wait time compared with deceased donor transplant. However, even among living donor transplants, the wait time was higher in those who underwent stress testing (412 days without testing, compared with 574 days with testing) (table 3).

Table 3 Wait time in days among patients who underwent transplantation

	No stress test	Stress test* but no cath	Cath but no revasc	PCI	CABG	P value†	
All patients, days‡	474 (290, 880)	1053 (586, 1896)	1687 (911, 2443)	1796 (990, 3357)	2164 (1387, 2752)	<0.001	
Deceased donor, days	483 (301, 978)	1146 (630, 1995)	1761 (996, 2464)	1841 (1001, 3425)	2226 (1563, 2775)	<0.001	
Living donor, days	412 (264, 593)	574 (382, 842)	697 (602, 921)	1039 (978, 1099)	632 (596, 667)	<0.001	
* Stress tests included stress echocardiogram and stress nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging. Comparison between the five groups. Median with interquartile ranges.

† Comparison between the five groups.

‡ Median with IQRs.

CABG, coronary artery bypass surgeryCath, catheterisation; PCI, percutaneous coronary interventionrevascrevascularisation

Figure 1 Time from referral to transplantation. Each box represents the distribution of wait time (in days) from referral to transplantation for transplanted patients stratified by cardiac procedures received. Horizontal lines within the boxes indicate median wait time. The bottom and top of each box represent the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively. The lower whisker indicates the smallest value within 1.5 times below the 25th percentile and the upper whisker indicates the largest value within 1.5 times the IQR above the 75th percentile. Values outside of these thresholds were not displayed. (A) All patients who underwent kidney transplantation. (B) Stratified by deceased donor and living donor. CABG, coronary artery bypass surgery; Cath, catheterisation; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; revasc, revascularisation.

The cumulative incidence curve showed the probability of transplantation from the time to referral to transplantation, stratified by stress testing (figure 2). Stress testing was associated with a lower probability of transplantation at all timepoints. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the association between cardiac testing and the likelihood of kidney transplant during the transplant evaluation period. Compared with no testing, stress testing was associated with a lower likelihood of transplant at any given time (aHR 0.31, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.48) (online supplemental table 2). Cardiac catheterisation, even without revascularisation, was also associated with a lower likelihood of transplant at any given time (aHR 0.25, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.31). Similar findings were observed for revascularisation including percutaneous revascularisation (aHR 0.16, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.25) and coronary bypass surgery (aHR 0.18, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.25) (online supplemental table 2).

Figure 2 Cumulative incidence curve showing the probability of transplantation from the time of referral to transplant, stratified by stress testing.

Pretransplant cardiac testing and early post-kidney transplant outcomes

The rate of mortality was low in patients who underwent kidney transplants. No significant association was detected between pretransplant stress testing and 1-year mortality post-transplant (adjusted OR 1.99, 95% CI 0.46 to 8.56) (online supplemental table 3).

Discussion

In this cohort study of 22 687 patients with end-stage renal disease on dialysis, 6.9% underwent kidney transplantation. Compared with dialysis patients not referred for transplant evaluation, patients who underwent transplant had a 5.6 times higher rate of SPECT-MPI, a 6.5 times higher rate of SE and a 16% higher rate of cardiac catheterisation. Yet, the rate of significant obstructive coronary artery disease requiring revascularisation was 54% lower in transplant patients. Cardiac stress testing was associated with a significantly longer transplant wait time. Patients who underwent cardiac stress testing waited 579 days longer for transplantation than those who did not.

Kidney transplantation is the preferred treatment option for patients with end-stage renal disease, with transplantation leading to longer life expectancy, improved health-related quality of life and reduced healthcare costs.11315 Patients referred for transplant evaluation undergo extensive pretransplant evaluation, a process that may take many months to complete.16 With cardiovascular disease being the leading cause of morbidity and mortality after kidney transplantation, assessment for cardiac disease is an important component of pretransplant evaluation.1 16

Whether the benefits of screening for coronary artery disease in asymptomatic kidney transplant candidates outweigh the potential risks remains controversial.9 A study using the US Renal Data System showed no association between pretransplant cardiac testing with a reduction in post-transplant death or acute myocardial infarction.10 Cardiac catheterisation of kidney transplant candidates with moderate or severe ischaemia on stress testing did not improve outcomes compared with conservative medical management.5 Yet, pretransplant cardiac testing remains common, with some centres requiring testing in 96% of patients.8 Potential risks associated with testing should be considered. This study showed that compared with no testing, patients who had cardiac stress tests experienced significantly longer transplant wait times. Wait times for those who had cardiac catheterisation or coronary revascularisation were even longer. The longer wait time may be of particular importance in living donor kidney transplants, where cardiac testing may be one of the major barriers to proceeding with transplantation surgery.

Another potential harm of testing is radiation exposure.17 We observed that rates of SPECT-MPI were 5.6 times higher in transplanted patients compared with those on dialysis despite being younger and having fewer cardiovascular risk factors. A substantial proportion of these patients had multiple SPECT-MPI during the transplant evaluation period. Yet, the rate of significant obstructive coronary artery disease requiring revascularisation was very low, suggesting that the vast majority of patients who underwent testing may not have needed the test.

Non-invasive cardiac testing procedures may trigger a cascade of downstream testing procedures that are invasive and associated with potential complications.1820 Other potential harm includes treatment burden associated with multiple tests, financial consequences to patients and anxiety from waiting for test results.21 Some physicians characterise the transplant evaluation process as ‘rigid, demanding, and opaque’ over which they have little control.22

Reducing unnecessary cardiac testing may help move the system one step closer to a more streamlined evaluation process. For example, in kidney transplant candidates without known heart disease who report no cardiac symptoms and are deemed low risk based on their cardiac risk factors, deferring cardiac testing may be the preferred approach and may significantly reduce their wait time. For patients who have previously had a normal cardiac stress test, it may be advisable to avoid regular repeat testing unless new symptoms emerge. In patients with known coronary artery disease who are asymptomatic, it may be reasonable to focus on optimising medical therapy instead of immediately opting for coronary revascularisation. The current system could benefit from a reevaluation, followed by a comprehensive overhaul and adoption of standardised processes.

Limitations

Several limitations to this study should be acknowledged. First, we did not have clinical details, such as patient symptoms and physical examination findings, to determine the intentions behind cardiac testing and whether the tests were clinically appropriate. However, the lower rate of revascularisation and higher rate of testing despite having fewer cardiac risk factors in the transplant group suggest overutilisation. Second, the low rate of post-transplant mortality limits the power to detect a difference in post-transplant outcomes related to cardiac testing. Third, the observational nature of this study precludes interpreting the association between stress testing with longer wait time as causation, given possible confounding by indication. Fourth, all patients in this study were insured and had access to care from an integrated healthcare system in the USA, so findings may not be generalisable to uninsured populations and populations outside of the USA.

Fifth, in rare instances, a patient may require urgent transplantation due to the inability to maintain dialysis access. In such cases, the short wait time was driven by factors unrelated to cardiac testing. Within our study cohort, urgent status would only be assigned in life-threatening situations where all possible options for vascular and peritoneal access, including permcath placement, had been exhausted and no further access was attainable. Given the extreme rarity of these situations, we do not expect them to affect the main findings of our study.

Conclusions

The rate of cardiac testing was significantly higher in patients with end-stage renal disease evaluated for transplantation. Testing was associated with a significantly longer waiting time to transplant, with no difference in post-transplant outcomes. These results suggest the need to develop a more evidence-based, individualised, streamlined and efficient approach to pretransplant cardiac testing.

supplementary material

10.1136/openhrt-2024-002738 online supplemental file 1

Data availability statement

Data may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available.

Funding: This research was supported by a grant from the Regional Research Committee of Kaiser Permanente Southern California, RRC grant number: KP-RRC-20230401.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Patient consent for publication: Not applicable.

Data availability free text: The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to their being the property of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, but are available to interested collaborators in the context of a formal collaboration approved by the Kaiser Permanente Southern California Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects.

Ethics approval: Ethics approval was obtained from the Kaiser Permanente Southern California Institutional Review Board (protocol number 13594) with a waiver of informed consent based on 45 CFR §46.
==== Refs
References

1 Cheng XS VanWagner LB Costa SP et al Emerging Evidence on Coronary Heart Disease Screening in Kidney and Liver Transplantation Candidates: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association: Endorsed by the American Society of Transplantation Circulation 2022 146 e299 324 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001104 36252095
2 Young LH Wackers FJT Chyun DA et al Cardiac outcomes after screening for asymptomatic coronary artery disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: the DIAD study: a randomized controlled trial JAMA 2009 301 1547 55 10.1001/jama.2009.476 19366774
3 Bauters C Lemesle G Screening for asymptomatic coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2016 16 90 10.1186/s12872-016-0256-9 27165687
4 Bangalore S Maron DJ O’Brien SM et al Management of Coronary Disease in Patients with Advanced Kidney Disease N Engl J Med 2020 382 1608 18 10.1056/NEJMoa1915925 32227756
5 Herzog CA Simegn MA Xu Y et al Kidney Transplant List Status and Outcomes in the ISCHEMIA-CKD Trial J Am Coll Cardiol 2021 78 348 61 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.05.001 33989711
6 Ying T Tran A Webster AC et al Screening for Asymptomatic Coronary Artery Disease in Waitlisted Kidney Transplant Candidates: A Cost-Utility Analysis Am J Kidney Dis 2020 75 693 704 10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.10.001 31810731
7 Barman PM Chadha RM VanWagner LB Cardiac Risk Assessment in Liver Transplant Candidates: A Survey of National Practice Patterns Liver Transpl 2022 28 501 4 10.1002/lt.26307 34536331
8 Shpigel AA Saeed MJ Novak E et al Center-Related Variation in Cardiac Stress Testing in the 18 Months Prior to Renal Transplantation JAMA Intern Med 2019 179 1135 6 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0423 31081860
9 Sharif A The Argument for Abolishing Cardiac Screening of Asymptomatic Kidney Transplant Candidates Am J Kidney Dis 2020 75 946 54 10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.05.033 31492488
10 Cheng XS Liu S Han J et al Association of Pretransplant Coronary Heart Disease Testing With Early Kidney Transplant Outcomes JAMA Intern Med 2023 183 134 10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.6069 36595271
11 von Elm E Altman DG Egger M et al The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies PLoS Med 2007 4 e296 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 17941714
12 Derose SF Contreras R Coleman KJ et al Race and ethnicity data quality and imputation using U.S. Census data in an integrated health system: the Kaiser Permanente Southern California experience Med Care Res Rev 2013 70 330 45 10.1177/1077558712466293 23169896
13 Wolfe RA Ashby VB Milford EL et al Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant N Engl J Med 1999 341 1725 30 10.1056/NEJM199912023412303 10580071
14 Port FK Wolfe RA Mauger EA et al Comparison of survival probabilities for dialysis patients vs cadaveric renal transplant recipients JAMA 1993 270 1339 43 8360969
15 Axelrod DA Schnitzler MA Xiao H et al An economic assessment of contemporary kidney transplant practice Am J Transplant 2018 18 1168 76 10.1111/ajt.14702 29451350
16 Chadban SJ Ahn C Axelrod DA et al KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Candidates for Kidney Transplantation Transplantation 2020 104 S11 103 10.1097/TP.0000000000003136 32301874
17 Mercuri M Pascual TN Mahmarian JJ et al Comparison of Radiation Doses and Best-Practice Use for Myocardial Perfusion Imaging in US and Non-US Laboratories: Findings From the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) Nuclear Cardiology Protocols Study JAMA Intern Med 2016 176 266 9 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.7102 26720424
18 Mudrick DW Cowper PA Shah BR et al Downstream procedures and outcomes after stress testing for chest pain without known coronary artery disease in the United States Am Heart J 2012 163 454 61 10.1016/j.ahj.2011.11.022 22424017
19 Ganguli I Lupo C Mainor AJ et al Prevalence and Cost of Care Cascades After Low-Value Preoperative Electrocardiogram for Cataract Surgery in Fee-for-Service Medicare Beneficiaries JAMA Intern Med 2019 179 1211 9 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.1739 31158270
20 Dehmer GJ Weaver D Roe MT et al A contemporary view of diagnostic cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States: a report from the CathPCI Registry of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, 2010 through June 2011 J Am Coll Cardiol 2012 60 2017 31 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.08.966 23083784
21 Korenstein D Chimonas S Barrow B et al Development of a Conceptual Map of Negative Consequences for Patients of Overuse of Medical Tests and Treatments JAMA Intern Med 2018 178 1401 7 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3573 30105371
22 Butler CR Wightman A Richards CA et al Thematic Analysis of the Health Records of a National Sample of US Veterans With Advanced Kidney Disease Evaluated for Transplant JAMA Intern Med 2021 181 212 9 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.6388 33226419
