4.7 Article

Renal Hyperfiltration as a Novel Marker of All-Cause Mortality

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY
卷 26, 期 6, 页码 1426-1433

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2014010115

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea - Korean Government (Ministry of Education and Science Technology) [2010-0028631]
  2. Seoul National University Hospital [04-2013-0540]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although renal hyperfiltration (RHF) or an abnormal increase in GFR has been associated with many lifestyles and clinical conditions, including diabetes, its clinical consequence is not clear. RHF is frequently considered to be the result of overestimating true GFR in subjects with muscle wasting. To evaluate the association between RHF and mortality, 43,503 adult Koreans who underwent voluntary health screening at Seoul National University Hospital between March of 1995 and May of 2006 with baseline GFR >= 60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) were followed up for mortality until December 31, 2012. GFR was estimated with the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration creatinine equation, and RHF was defined as GFR>95th percentile after adjustment for age, sex, muscle mass; and history of diabetes and/or hypertension medication. Muscle mass was measured with bioimpedance analysis at baseline. During the median follow-up of 12.4 years, 1743 deaths occurred. The odds ratio of RHF in participants with the highest quartile of muscle mass was 1.31(95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.11 to 1.54) compared with the lowest quartile after adjusting for confounding factors, including body mass index. The hazard ratio of all-cause mortality for RHF was 1.37(95% CI, 1.11 to 1.70) by Cox proportional hazards model with adjustment for known risk factors, including smoking. These data suggest RHF may be associated with increased all-cause mortality in an apparently healthy population. The possibility of RHF as a novel marker of all.-cause mortality should be confirmed.

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

4.7
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