4.6 Article

Clinical implication of crescentic lesions in immunoglobulin A nephropathy

期刊

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 356-364

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gft398

关键词

crescents; immunoglobulin a nephropathy; outcome; Oxford classification

资金

  1. Yonsei University College of Medicine [6-2012-0033]
  2. Korea Healthcare Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea (A102065)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. To date, there has been much controversy about the role of crescentic lesion as a significant prognostic factor in immunoglobulin A nephropathy (IgAN). This study evaluated whether crescentic lesions predict adverse renal outcomes in IgAN patients. Methods. A total of 430 patients with biopsy-proven IgAN between January 2000 and December 2009 were included. Histological variables of the Oxford classification (Oxford-MEST) and the presence of crescents were assessed. The primary endpoint was a 50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate. Results. Of the 430 patients, 81 (18.8%) had a crescentic lesion. During a mean follow-up of 61 months, the primary outcome occurred in 19 (23.5%) patients with crescents compared with 40 (11.5%) patients without crescents (P = 0.01). A Kaplan-Meier plot showed that the 10-year renal survival rate was significantly lower in patients with crescents than patients without crescents (P = 0.01). However, in a multivariable Cox analysis which included clinical factors and the Oxford-MEST, crescents were not significantly associated with an increased risk of developing the primary outcome [hazard ratio: 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36-1.41, P = 0.33]. Furthermore, adding crescents to the Oxford-MEST did not improve the discriminative ability for the prediction of renal outcomes [c-statistic: 0.86 (0.81-0.91) vs. 0.86 (0.80-0.91), P = 0.21]. Conclusion. Crescentic lesion was not an independent prognostic factor, suggesting that crescents have limited value in predicting renal outcomes of IgAN.

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