4.7 Article

Higher serum bicarbonate levels within the normal range are associated with better survival and renal outcomes in African Americans

期刊

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
卷 79, 期 3, 页码 356-362

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2010.388

关键词

AASK (African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension); acidosis; chronic kidney disease; survival

资金

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) [RO1-DK077298, RO1-DK078112]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies suggest that correcting low serum bicarbonate levels may reduce the progression of kidney disease; however, few patients with chronic kidney disease have low serum bicarbonate. Therefore, we examined whether higher levels of serum bicarbonate within the normal range (20-30mmol/l) were associated with better kidney outcomes in the African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK) trial. At baseline and during follow-up of 1094 patients, the glomerular filtration rates (GFR) were measured by iothalamate clearances and events were adjudicated by the outcomes committee. Mean baseline serum bicarbonate, measured GFR, and proteinuria were 25.1 mmol/l, 46ml/min per 1.73m(2), and 326 mg/g of creatinine, respectively. Each 1 mmol/l increase in serum bicarbonate within the normal range was associated with reduced risk of death, dialysis, or GFR event and with dialysis or GFR event (hazard ratios of 0.942 and 0.932, respectively) in separate multivariable Cox regression models that included errors-in-variables calibration. Cubic spline regression showed that the lowest risk of GFR event or dialysis was found at serum bicarbonate levels near 28-30 mmol/l. Thus, our study suggests that serum bicarbonate is an independent predictor of CKD progression. Whether increasing serum bicarbonate into the high-normal range will improve kidney outcomes during interventional studies will need to be considered. Kidney International (2011) 79, 356-362; doi:10.1038/ki.2010.388; published online 20 October 2010

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