Causal relationship from heart failure to kidney function and CKD: A bidirectional two-sample mendelian randomization study

by Junyu Zhang, Zhixi Hu, Yuquan Tan, Jiahao Ye

Background

Heart Failure (HF) is a widespread condition that affects millions of people, and it is caused by issues with the heart and blood vessels. Even though we know hypertension, coronary artery disease, obesity, diabetes, and genetics can increase the risk of HF and Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD), the exact cause of these conditions remains a mystery. To bridge this gap, we adopted Mendelian Randomization (MR), which relies on genetic variants as proxies.

Methods

We used data from European populations for our Bidirectional Two-Sample MR Study, which included 930,014 controls and 47,309 cases of HF from the HERMES consortium, as well as 736,396 controls and 51,256 cases of CKD. We also employed several MR variations, including MR-Egger, Inverse Variance Weighted (IVW), and Weighted Median Estimator (WME), to guarantee the results were accurate and comprehensive.).

Results

In this study, the MR analysis found that individuals with a genetic predisposition for HF have an elevated risk of CKD. Our study revealed a significant association between the genetic prediction of HF and the risk of CKD, as evidenced by the IVW method [with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.12 (95% CI, 1.03–1.21), p = 0.009] and the WME [with an OR of 1.14 (95% CI, 1.03–1.26), p = 0.008]. This causal relationship remained robust even after conducting MR analysis while adjusting for the effects of diabetes and hypertension, yielding ORs of 1.13 (IVW:95% CI, 1.03–1.23), 1.12 (MR-Egger: 95% CI, 0.85–1.48), and 1.15 (WME:95% CI, 1.04–1.27) (p = 0.008). However, in the reverse analysis aiming to explore CKD and renal function as exposures and HF as the outcome, we did not observe a statistically significant causal link between CKD and HF.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates the significance of HF in CKD progression, thus having meaningful implications for treatment and the potential for discovering new therapies. To better understand the relationship between HF and CKD, we need to conduct research in a variety of populations.

Effect of wound infiltration of dexmedetomidine in lumbar spine surgery on postoperative wound pain: A meta‐analysis

Abstract

In a meta-study, we evaluated the effectiveness and security of the combination of topical anaesthetic and dexmedetomidine in the treatment of postoperative pain in patients with lumbar disease. Four databases were systematically searched for possible related articles. Only English-language research was taken into account on the Internet. Furthermore, we only took into account the studies that were published prior to 2023. Only those that fulfilled the eligibility criteria were considered: (1) in adults who were about to undergo spine operation, (2) dexmedetomidine combined with local anaesthesia, (3) Visual Analog Scale scores at 4 and 24 h after the event and (4) this was a randomized or nonrandomized, controlled study. The meta-analysis was carried out with Revman 5.3 software. A ROBINS-I-based instrument was used to evaluate controlled studies. All trials were synthesized by computing the end results with either a fixed or a random effect model, which was dependent on statistical diversity. Five trials showed a marked reduction in wound pain at 4 h after the operation in patients who were treated with dexmedetomidine for lumbar spinal surgery (MD, −0.81; 95% CI, −1.24, −0.35; p = 0.0005). In the case of lumbar spinal operations, the addition of dexmedetomidine to the postoperative treatment resulted in a marked reduction in the pain at 24 h post-operation (MD, −0.64; 95% CI, −0.79, −0.48; p < 0.0001). The quality of the data we evaluated was ‘moderate’ to ‘good’; thus, we have limited confidence in the impact estimation, and the actual impact might be significantly different from what we had expected. Additional studies should concentrate on practices that are well known to cause severe postoperative pain, especially for cases where the improvement of pain management may lead to substantial clinical benefits in terms of reduction of morbidity or cost-effectiveness in terms of quicker healing and release.