4.6 Article

Urine Biomarkers Predict Acute Kidney Injury in Newborns

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 161, 期 2, 页码 270-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.02.007

关键词

-

资金

  1. Normal Siegel Scholar Young Investigator Award from the American Society of Nephrology
  2. Kaul Pediatric Research Institute
  3. National Institutes of Health-sponsored O'Brien Center for Acute Kidney Injury research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To identify urine biomarkers predictive of acute kidney injury (AKI) in infants admitted to level 2 and 3 neonatal intensive care units with birth weight > 2000 g and 5-minute Apgar score <= 7. Study design A nested case-control study was performed comparing 8 candidate urine AKI biomarkers in infants with AKI (defined as a rise in serum creatinine of at least 0.3 mg/dL or a serum creatinine elevation >= 1.7 mg/dL persisting for 3 days) and 24 infants from the described cohort without AKI. Urine was analyzed for neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, osteopontin, cystatin C, albumin, beta(2) microglobulin, epithelial growth factor, uromodulin (UMOD), and kidney injury molecule 1. Results Compared with the infants without AKI, those with AKI had higher levels of urine cystatin C (1123 pg/mL [95% CI, 272-4635 pg/mL] vs 90 pg/mL [95% CI, 39-205 pg/mL]; P < .004; area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] = 0.82), lower levels of UMOD (11.0 pg/mL [95% CI, 5.7-21.4 pg/mL] vs 26.2 pg/mL [95% CI, 17.4-39.4 pg/mL]; P < .03; AUC = 0.77), and lower levels of epithelial growth factor (6.7 pg/mL [95% CI, 4.0-11.3 pg/mL] vs 17.4 pg/mL [95% CI, 12.7-23.8 pg/mL; P =.003; AUC = 0.82). Although the differences were not statistically significant, levels of urine neutrophil-associated gelatinase lipocalin, kidney injury molecule 1, and osteopontin trended higher in infants with AKI. Conclusion Urinary biomarkers can predict AKI in neonates admitted to level 2 and 3 neonatal intensive care units. (J Pediatr 2012;161:270-5).

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