4.1 Article

Association of anthropometric indexes with chronic kidney disease in a Chinese population

Journal

CLINICAL NEPHROLOGY
Volume 80, Issue 5, Pages 361-369

Publisher

DUSTRI-VERLAG DR KARL FEISTLE
DOI: 10.5414/CN108002

Keywords

obesity; anthropometric indexes; chronic kidney disease

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Obesity is associated with an increased risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD), but the best anthropometric obesity measure remains controversial. This study aimed to examine the associations of anthropometric indexes with CKD risk and which anthropometric index is a better predictor of CKD. Methods: Data was drawn from a cross-sectional study in China. We used four anthropometric indexes: body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), waist-tohip ratio (WHR), and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR). CKD was defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2) or urinary albumin to creatinine ratio (ACR) >= 30 mg/g. Logistic regressions were used for the analyses. Results: 1,834 participants were included in the analyses. After adjusting for potential confounders, BMI, WC and WHtR were significantly associated with CKD in men and women. The respective odd ratios for BMI (every SD increment), WC (every SD increment), and WHtR (every SD increment) were 1.46, 1.40, and 1.45 in men as well as 1.21, 1.31, and 1.38 in women. After adjusting for potential confounders, WHR was associated with CKD in women but not men. In women, the associations of WC, WHIR and WHtR with CKD was independent of other MetS components. No difference in WHtR was observed between men and women. Conclusion: Anthropometric indexes are associated with CKD. The associations of anthropometric indexes with CKD are independent of other MetS components in women but not men. In women, central obesity indexes are better than BMI for predicting of CKD.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available