首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Peritoneal Dialysis International : Journal of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis >Endogenous Markers for Estimation of Renal Function in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients
【2h】

Endogenous Markers for Estimation of Renal Function in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients

机译:评估腹膜透析患者肾功能的内源性标志物

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

♦ Objective: This method comparison study, conducted at the peritoneal dialysis (PD) outpatient clinic of the Department of Renal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, set out to evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of methods for estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR) based on endogenous markers in PD patients.♦ Patients: The 12 consecutive patients included in the study were examined twice while in a stable condition. All patients finished the study. Inclusion criteria were age 18 years or older, ability to collect 24-hour urine, and urine production greater than 300 mL in 24 hours.♦ Main Outcome Measures: The methods for estimating GFR using endogenous markers included the average of urinary clearances of creatinine and urea [U-Cl(crea-urea)] and two equations using the serum concentration of cystatin C [eGFR(CysC)]. The resulting GFR estimates were compared with those obtained using urinary and corrected plasma clearances of 51Cr-EDTA [U-Cl(EDTA) and cP-Cl(EDTA)], the corrected plasma clearance being plasma clearance minus dialysate clearance.♦ Results: Compared with the U-Cl(EDTA), the U-Cl(crea-urea) GFR estimate was 12% higher [95% confidence limits (CL): 3%, 21%]. Although significantly different (p = 0.01), the latter two methods showed the best agreement. The estimates obtained using the eGFR(CysC) methods were skewed from y = x compared with the estimates obtained using other methods, indicating strong bias, probably because of extrarenal elimination. The cP-Cl(EDTA) estimate was 34% (95% CL: 26%, 42%), higher than the U-Cl(EDTA) estimate (p < 0.001). The reproducibility (coefficients of variation) differed significantly between methods: cP-Cl(EDTA), 7%; U-Cl(EDTA), 14%; U-Cl(crea-urea), 18%; and both eGFR(CysC) methods, 3%.♦ Conclusions: In PD patients, GFR may be estimated as U-Cl(crea-urea) when complete urine collection is performed, taking into account an overestimation of approximately 12%. The available equations for eGFR(CysC) seem to be inaccurate; further development and validation is desirable. Omitting the eGFR(CysC) methods, cP-Cl(EDTA) was the most reproducible method and might be useful in certain situations.
机译:♦目的:这项方法比较研究是在丹麦奥尔胡斯大学医院肾内科腹膜透析(PD)门诊进行的,旨在评估基于估计的肾小球滤过率(GFR)的方法的准确性和可重复性。 ♦患者:研究中包括的12名连续患者在稳定状态下接受了两次检查。所有患者均完成研究。入选标准为18岁或以上,能够收集24小时尿液且24小时内尿液产量超过300 mL。◆主要观察指标:使用内源性标志物估算GFR的方法包括肌酐和尿液的尿清除率平均值。尿素[U-Cl(crea-urea)]和两个方程式,使用的是胱抑素C的血清浓度[eGFR(CysC)]。将所得的GFR估计值与使用 51 Cr-EDTA [U-Cl(EDTA)和cP-Cl(EDTA)]的尿液和校正后血浆清除率进行比较,校正后血浆清除率为血浆清除率♦结果:与U-Cl(EDTA)相比,U-Cl(crea-urea)GFR估算值高12%[95%置信限(CL):3%,21%]。尽管差异显着(p = 0.01),但后两种方法显示出最好的一致性。与使用其他方法获得的估计值相比,使用eGFR(CysC)方法获得的估计值从y = x偏斜,表明存在强烈的偏见,可能是由于肾外清除。 cP-Cl(EDTA)估计值为34%(95%CL:26%,42%),高于U-Cl(EDTA)估计值(p <0.001)。两种方法的重现性(变异系数)差异显着:cP-Cl(EDTA),7%; U-Cl(EDTA),14%; U-Cl(crea-urea),18%;和两种eGFR(CysC)方法均占3%。◆结论:考虑到高估了大约12%,在完全收集尿液后,PD患者的GFR可能被估计为U-Cl(crea-urea)。 eGFR(CysC)的可用公式似乎不准确;需要进一步的开发和验证。省略eGFR(CysC)方法,cP-Cl(EDTA)是最可重复的方法,在某些情况下可能有用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号