23 September 2025 : Original article
Effect of Kidney Transplant Type on Coronary Endothelial Function in Individuals with Chronic Kidney Disease
Göksel Guz
ABCDEFG 1, Rasim Onur Karaoğlu ABDEF 2*, Sezen Kumaş Solak ABDF 2, Ebru Burcu Demirgan ACDEF 3, Serdar Demirgan ABCDEFG 2
DOI: 10.12659/AOT.949664
Ann Transplant 2025; 30:e949664
Table 3 Comparison of coronary flow velocity reserve values.
| Group HC (n=25) | Group LDT (n=50) | Group CDT (n=25) | P | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CFVR-1 | Min–max (median) | 2.22–2.75 (2.41) | 1.92–2.52 (2.15) | 1.74–2.52 (2.07) | |
| Mean±SD | 2.43±0.13 | 2.17±0.15 | 2.11±0.19 | ||
| CFVR-2 | Min–max (median) | NA | 1.92–2.66 (2.25) | 2.10–2.66 (2.31) | 0.6727 |
| Mean±SD | 2.28±0.17 | 2.30±0.14 | |||
| Increase in CFVR (CFVR-2 >CFVR-1) | Mean±SD | NA | 0.11±0.13 | 0.19±0.13 | |
| CFVR-1 <2 | n (%) | NA | 5 (10) | 7 (28) | |
| CFVR-2 <2 | n (%) | NA | 2 (4) | 0 (0) | 0.3108 |
| Numerical data were summarized as mean±standard deviation along with median (minimum–maximum), whereas frequency and percentage, n (%), were used for categorical data. values were obtained by one-way ANOVA test (a), Mann-Whitney U test (b), Student’s t test (c), chi-square test (d). (CFVR-1 for all): Group HC vs Group LDT: CFVR-1-Group HC vs CFVR-2-Group LDT: 0.0002; CFVR-1-Group HC vs CFVR-2-Group CDT: 0.0051 Group HC, healthy control group; Group LDT, living donor transplantation group; Group CDT, cadaver transplantation group. CFVR – coronary flow velocity reserve. | |||||