4.6 Article

Bone Biomarkers Help Grading Severity of Coronary Calcifications in Non Dialysis Chronic Kidney Disease Patients

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036175

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministere de la Sante [PHRC-UF 7853]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Osteoprotegerin (OPG) and fibroblast growth factor-23 (FGF23) are recognized as strong risk factors of vascular calcifications in non dialysis chronic kidney disease (ND-CKD) patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationships between FGF23, OPG, and coronary artery calcifications (CAC) in this population and to attempt identification of the most powerful biomarker of CAC: FGF23? OPG? Methodology/Principal Findings: 195 ND-CKD patients (112 males/83 females, 70.8 [27.4-94.6] years) were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. All underwent chest multidetector computed tomography for CAC scoring. Vascular risk markers including FGF23 and OPG were measured. Logistic regression analyses were used to study the potential relationships between CAC and these markers. The fully adjusted-univariate analysis clearly showed high OPG (>= 10.71 pmol/L) as the only variable significantly associated with moderate CAC ([100-400[) (OR = 2.73 [1.03; 7.26]; p = 0.04). Such association failed to persist for CAC scoring higher than 400. Indeed, severe CAC was only associated with high phosphate fractional excretion (FEPO4) (>= 38.71%) (OR = 5.47 [1.76; 17.0]; p = 0.003) and high FGF23 (>= 173.30 RU/mL) (OR = 5.40 [1.91; 15.3]; p = 0.002). In addition, the risk to present severe CAC when FGF23 level was high was not significantly different when OPG was normal or high. Conversely, the risk to present moderate CAC when OPG level was high was not significantly different when FGF23 was normal or high. Conclusions: Our results strongly suggest that OPG is associated to moderate CAC while FGF23 rather represents a biomarker of severe CAC in ND-CKD patients.

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