4.6 Article

The nature and discriminatory value of urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin in critically ill patients at risk of acute kidney injury

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 39, 期 10, 页码 1714-1724

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-013-3040-7

关键词

Acute kidney injury; Oliguria; Critical illness; Intensive care; Biomarker; Systemic inflammatory response syndrome

资金

  1. Austin Hospital Intensive Care Trust Fund
  2. Swedish Medical Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Different molecular forms of urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) have recently been discovered. We aimed to explore the nature, source and discriminatory value of urinary NGAL in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. We simultaneously measured plasma NGAL (pNGAL), urinary NGAL (uNGAL), and estimated monomeric and homodimeric uNGAL contribution using Western blotting-validated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays [uNGAL(E1) and uNGAL(E2)] and their calculated ratio in 102 patients with the systemic inflammatory response syndrome and oliguria, and/or a creatinine rise of > 25 mu mol/L. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated that, despite correlating well (r = 0.988), uNGAL and uNGAL(E1) were clinically distinct, lacking both accuracy and precision (bias: 266.23; 95 % CI 82.03-450.44 ng/mg creatinine; limits of agreement: -1,573.86 to 2,106.32 ng/mg creatinine). At best, urinary forms of NGAL are fair (area under the receiver operating characteristic [AUROC] a parts per thousand currency sign0.799) predictors of renal or patient outcome; most perform significantly worse. The 44 patients with a primarily monomeric source of uNGAL had higher pNGAL (118.5 ng/ml vs. 72.5 ng/ml; p < 0.001), remaining significant following Bonferroni correction. uNGAL is not a useful predictor of outcome in this ICU population. uNGAL patterns may predict distinct clinical phenotypes. The nature and source of uNGAL are complex and challenge the utility of NGAL as a uniform biomarker.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据