4.6 Article

Renal hyperfiltration as a risk factor for chronic kidney disease: A health checkup cohort study

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 15, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238177

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction Renal hyperfiltration (RHF) has been found to be an independent predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcome. However, it remains uncertain whether it is precursor of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in a healthy population. Materials and methods To determine relative risks and identify the predictor of incident proteinuria and decline of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in subjects with RHF. A total of 55,992 subjects aged >= 20 years who underwent health check-up during 2004-2017 were included. Among them, 16,946 subjects who completed at least two health checkups were analyzed. Results A total of 949 (5.6%) subjects developed proteinuria and 98 (0.6%) subjects showed >= 30% of eGFR decline. The risk of incident proteinuria was significantly higher in those with RHF (RR: 1.644; 95% CI: 1.064-2.541). Those with RHF showed 8.720 fold (95% CI: 4.205-18.081) increased risk for >= 30% decline. ESR, CRP, and monocyte count showed reversed J shaped curve according to the increase of eGFR. The adjusted mean of monocyte count was significantly higher in participants with eGFR >= 90ml/min/1.73m(2)or < 60ml/min/1.73m(2)compared to that in patients with eGFR 75-89ml/min/1.73m(2). Compared to subjects with the lowest tertile of monocyte and no RHF, those with the highest tertile of monocyte count in the RHF group had 3.314-fold (95% CI: 1.893-5.802) higher risk of incident proteinuria and 3.822-fold (95% CI, 1.327-11.006) risk of 30% eGFR decline. Conclusions RHF had significantly increased risk of developing proteinuria and CKD in healthy subjects. Higher monocyte count might be used as a predictor of CKD in subjects with RHF.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available