...
首页> 外文期刊>Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation: official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association >Excellent agreement between C-reactive protein measurement methods in end-stage renal disease patients--no additional power for mortality prediction with high-sensitivity CRP.
【24h】

Excellent agreement between C-reactive protein measurement methods in end-stage renal disease patients--no additional power for mortality prediction with high-sensitivity CRP.

机译:终末期肾脏疾病患者中C反应蛋白测量方法之间的极佳一致性-使用高灵敏度CRP进行死亡率预测没有其他功能。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: The conventional method for C-reactive protein (CRP) measurement is an immunoturbidimetric assay (imCRP, detection limit > or =3 mg/l). However, high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP, detection limit >0.1 mg/l) has been advocated as preferable biomarker for cardiovascular risk assessment. The aim of this study was to determine agreement between imCRP and hsCRP in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, and to examine whether the association between CRP and mortality is comparable when using imCRP or hsCRP. METHODS: Patients from a prospective follow-up study among incident ESRD patients (NECOSAD) with serum CRP available at 3 months of follow-up were included [n = 840, 60% male, mean (SD) age 59 (15) years]. Agreement between imCRP and hsCRP was determined by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and by Cohen's kappa (kappa) for CRP dichotomized to the presence (CRP >10 mg/l) or absence of systemic inflammation. The association between CRP and mortality was determined by Cox regression analysis and c-statistic. RESULTS: ICC between imCRP and hsCRP was 0.78, which improved to 0.86 after correction for systematic differences between measurement methods. Systemic inflammation was present in 28.2% and absent in 67.6% of patients according to both methods (discordant in 4.2%), resulting in good agreement between the two methods (kappa = 0.90). Patients with systemic inflammation had a significantly increased mortality risk compared with patients without systemic inflammation [HR(im,adj) = 1.49 (95%CI 1.14-1.93) and HR(hs,adj) = 1.53 (1.18-2.0)]. Predictive capacity of mortality was similar for both CRP methods [c-statistic(adj) 0.83 (0.79-0.86)]. CONCLUSION: The agreement between imCRP and hsCRP in patients with ESRD is very good. Furthermore, the association between CRP and mortality in ESRD patients is similar when using imCRP and hsCRP. These data suggest that there is no need to use a high-sensitivity method for the determination of inflammatory status in ESRD patients.
机译:背景:常规的C反应蛋白(CRP)测量方法是免疫比浊法(imCRP,检测极限>或= 3 mg / l)。然而,已提倡高敏感性CRP(hsCRP,检出限> 0.1 mg / l)作为心血管风险评估的首选生物标志物。这项研究的目的是确定终末期肾病(ESRD)患者中imCRP和hsCRP之间的一致性,并检查使用imCRP或hsCRP时CRP和死亡率之间的相关性是否可比。方法:纳入一项前瞻性随访研究的患者,在随访的3个月内有血清CRP的ESRD突发事件(NECOSAD)入选[n = 840,男性60%,平均(SD)年龄59(15)岁] 。 imCRP和hsCRP之间的一致性由组内相关系数(ICC)和Cohen的kappa(kappa)(分为两类,即CRP> 10 mg / l)或不存在全身性炎症的CRP确定。 CRP和死亡率之间的关联通过Cox回归分析和c统计量确定。结果:imCRP和hsCRP之间的ICC为0.78,在校正了两种测量方法之间的系统差异后,ICC改善至0.86。根据这两种方法,全身炎症的发生率分别为28.2%和67.6%的患者不存在(差异为4.2%),这两种方法之间的一致性很好(kappa = 0.90)。与没有全身性炎症的患者相比,全身性炎症患者的死亡风险显着增加[HR(im,adj)= 1.49(95%CI 1.14-1.93)和HR(hs,adj)= 1.53(1.18-2.0)]。两种CRP方法的死亡率预测能力相似[c-statistic(adj)0.83(0.79-0.86)]。结论:ESRD患者中imCRP和hsCRP之间的一致性很好。此外,使用imCRP和hsCRP时,ESRD患者的CRP与死亡率之间的关联相似。这些数据表明,无需使用高灵敏度的方法来确定ESRD患者的炎症状态。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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