ASN's Mission

To create a world without kidney diseases, the ASN Alliance for Kidney Health elevates care by educating and informing, driving breakthroughs and innovation, and advocating for policies that create transformative changes in kidney medicine throughout the world.

learn more

Contact ASN

1401 H St, NW, Ste 900, Washington, DC 20005

email@asn-online.org

202-640-4660

The Latest on X

Kidney Week

Abstract: TH-PO1025

Care Delivery Phenotypes in Cardiovascular Preventive Care Among Kidney Transplant Recipients

Session Information

Category: Transplantation

  • 2002 Transplantation: Clinical

Authors

  • Long, Qian, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
  • Aponte Becerra, Laura, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
  • Berry, Shivankshi, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
  • Wilson, Francis Perry, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
  • Mansour, Sherry, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
Background

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) with a functioning graft, yet preventive care is inconsistent. Whether gaps reflect insufficient access or failures within encounters, and which subgroups are most affected, is unclear.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort of 815 adult KTRs transplanted at a single academic center (2013 to 2020) with at least 1 year of follow-up. We constructed a composite CV preventive care delivery score (statin prescribing, LDL ≤100 mg/dL, HbA1c ≤7% in diabetics; proportion of applicable metrics achieved, range 0 to 1) and cross classified with KTRs by clinical visit frequency (transplant, primary care, nephrology, cardiology, endocrinology, other specialty) and delivery score, dichotomized at the cohort median (24 visits/yr; score 0.50).

Results

We identified 4 phenotypes within our cohort, which are Reference (high engagement, high care; N=204, 29%); Efficient (low engagement, high care; N=212, 30%); Access gap (low engagement, low care; N=136, 20%); Delivery gap (high engagement, low care; N=145, 21%). Despite similar comorbidity (median Elixhauser 3.0 in both), Delivery gap KTRs visited clinic over twice as often as Efficient (median 38 vs 14 visits/yr) yet achieved LDL ≤100 mg/dL in only 3% vs 63% and statin prescribing in 15% vs 86%. Females were 1.8 fold more likely than males to be in the Delivery gap phenotype (29% vs 16%, p<0.001). KTRs younger than 50 years were 1.7 fold more likely than older KTRs to be in Delivery gap (28% vs 17%, p<0.001). Delivery gap varied modestly by household income (25% in lowest tertile vs 19% in highest, p=0.02) but not by race or ethnicity.

Conclusion

Our findings identified a Delivery gap phenotype affecting 21% of KTRs, disproportionately affecting female and younger KTRs, with comorbidity equivalent to peers receiving effective care, receives more clinical contact than any other group yet experiences persistently inadequate care. These findings point to an intervention target where missed opportunities within encounters, not access alone, drive care failures.

Funding

  • NIDDK Support