4.7 Article

Lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and higher albuminuria are associated with mortality and end-stage renal disease. A collaborative meta-analysis of kidney disease population cohorts

期刊

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
卷 79, 期 12, 页码 1331-1340

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2010.550

关键词

albuminuria; chronic kidney disease; epidemiology; outcomes

资金

  1. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO)
  2. US National Kidney Foundation
  3. Dutch Kidney Foundation
  4. Chief Scientist Office [CZH/4/656] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We studied here the independent associations of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and albuminuria with mortality and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We performed a collaborative meta-analysis of 13 studies totaling 21,688 patients selected for CKD of diverse etiology. After adjustment for potential confounders and albuminuria, we found that a 15 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) lower eGFR below a threshold of 45 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) was significantly associated with mortality and ESRD (pooled hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.47 and 6.24, respectively). There was significant heterogeneity between studies for both HR estimates. After adjustment for risk factors and eGFR, an eightfold higher albumin-or protein-to-creatinine ratio was significantly associated with mortality (pooled HR 1.40) without evidence of significant heterogeneity and with ESRD (pooled HR 3.04), with significant heterogeneity between HR estimates. Lower eGFR and more severe albuminuria independently predict mortality and ESRD among individuals selected for CKD, with the associations stronger for ESRD than for mortality. Thus, these relationships are consistent with CKD stage classifications based on eGFR and suggest that albuminuria provides additional prognostic information among individuals with CKD. Kidney International (2011) 79, 1331-1340; doi:10.1038/ki.2010.550; published online 2 February 2011

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