4.4 Article

Protein energy wasting in children with chronic kidney disease

期刊

PEDIATRIC NEPHROLOGY
卷 29, 期 7, 页码 1231-1238

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00467-014-2768-9

关键词

Cachexia inflammation syndrome; Hospitalization; Chronic kidney disease; Malnutrition; Growth; Glomerular filtration rate

资金

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
  2. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  3. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [U01 DK82194, U01-DK-66143, U01-DK-66174, U01-DK-66116]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD), protein-energy wasting (PEW) is a risk factor for hospitalization and death. However, PEW in children with CKD is not well characterized or defined. Using data from the Chronic Kidney Disease in Children study, we assessed three alternate definitions of PEW using biochemical parameters, body and muscle mass measurements, and reported appetite as described in adults: (1) a minimal PEW definition (a parts per thousand yen2 of the four criteria); (2) a standard PEW definition (a parts per thousand yen3 of the four criteria); (3) a modified PEW definition (a parts per thousand yen3 of the four criteria plus a pediatric-focused criterion of short stature or poor growth). Of the 528 children analyzed in this study (median age 12 years, median glomerular filtration rate 45 mL/min/1.73 m(2), 39 % female, 18 % African American), 7-20 % met the spectrum of definitions for PEW. The unadjusted incidence rates for incident hospitalizations were 1.9-, 2.1-, and 2.2-fold higher for those children diagnosed with PEW using the minimal, standard, and modified definitions, respectively (P = 0.08, 0.09 and 0.03). Following adjustment, only the modified PEW definition, which added short stature or poor growth as a criterion, showed modest significance (P = 0.06). The inclusion of a criterion based on growth may augment the definition of PEW and improve risk discrimination in children with CKD.

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

4.4
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