@article{DannewitzSommererStoelzeletal.2020,
  author    = {Dannewitz, Bettina and Sommerer, Claudia and St{\"o}lzel, Peggy and Baid-Agrawal, Seema and Nadal, Jennifer and B{\"a}rthlein, Barbara and Wanner, Christoph and Eckardt, Kai-Uwe and Zeier, Martin and Schlagenhauf, Ulrich and Krane, Vera and Jockel-Schneider, Yvonne},
  title     = {Status of periodontal health in German patients suffering from chronic kidney disease—Data from the GCKD study},
  series = {Journal of Clinical Periodontology},
  volume    = {47},
  journal   = {Journal of Clinical Periodontology},
  number    = {1},
  doi       = {10.1111/jcpe.13208},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-217821},
  pages     = {19 -- 29},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Aim To assess the prevalence and severity of periodontitis in patients with moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD) and comparing the results with the self-reported periodontitis awareness of the study subjects. Material and methods The periodontal status of 270 patients with moderate CKD randomly selected from a cohort of 5,217 subjects participating in the prospective observational German Chronic Kidney Disease (GCKD) project was analysed by recording bleeding on probing (BOP), probing pocket depth (PPD) and clinical attachment level (CAL). Furthermore, the awareness of the study subjects of their periodontal conditions was evaluated by a self-reported questionnaire. Results 24.4\% of the CKD study patients showed no or only mild signs of periodontal disease, 47.6\% displayed moderate and 27\% severe periodontitis. Questionnaire data revealed that 62.3\% of the study subjects with severe periodontitis were not aware of the presence of the disease, 44.4\% denied having received any systematic periodontal therapy so far, although 50\% of them indicated to visit their dentist regularly for professional tooth cleanings. Conclusion While the clinical study data confirm an increased prevalence of periodontitis in CKD patients, their self-reported awareness of periodontitis was low.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GrebeMalzahnDonhauseretal.2020,
  author    = {Grebe, S{\"o}ren Jendrik and Malzahn, Uwe and Donhauser, Julian and Liu, Dan and Wanner, Christoph and Krane, Vera and Hammer, Fabian},
  title     = {Quantification of left ventricular mass by echocardiography compared to cardiac magnet resonance imaging in hemodialysis patients},
  series = {Cardiovascular Ultrasound},
  volume    = {18},
  journal   = {Cardiovascular Ultrasound},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12947-020-00217-y},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-229282},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Background: Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), defined by the left ventricular mass index (LVMI), is highly prevalent in hemodialysis patients and a strong independent predictor of cardiovascular events. Compared to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR), echocardiography tends to overestimate the LVMI. Here, we evaluate the diagnostic performance of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) compared to CMR regarding the assessment of LVMI in hemodialysis patients. Methods: TTR and CMR data for 95 hemodialysis patients who participated in the MiREnDa trial were analyzed. The LVMI was calculated by two-dimensional (2D) TTE-guided M-mode measurements employing the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) and Teichholz (Th) formulas, which were compared to the reference method, CMR. Results: LVH was present in 44\% of patients based on LVMI measured by CMR. LVMI measured by echocardiography correlated moderately with CMR, ASE: r = 0.44 (0.34-0.62); Th: r = 0.44 (0.32-0.62). Compared to CMR, both echocardiographic formulas overestimated LVMI (mean increment LVMI (ASE-CMR): 19.5 +/- 19.48 g/m(2),p < 0.001; mean increment LVMI (Th-CMR): 15.9 +/- 15.89 g/m(2),p < 0.001). We found greater LVMI overestimation in patients with LVH using the ASE formula compared to the Th formula. Stratification of patients into CMR LVMI quartiles showed a continuous decrease in increment LVMI with increasing CMR LVMI quartiles for the Th formula (p < 0.001) but not for the ASE formula (p = 0.772). Bland-Altman analysis showed that the Th formula had a constant bias independent of LVMI. Both methods had good discrimination ability for the detection of LVH (ROC-AUC: 0.819 (0.737-0.901) and 0.808 (0.723-0.892) for Th and ASE, respectively). Conclusions: The ASE and Th formulas overestimate LVMI in hemodialysis patients. However, the overestimation is less with the Th formula, particularly with increasing LVMI. The results suggest that the Th formula should be preferred for measurement of LVMI in chronic hemodialysis patients.},
  language  = {en}
}