4.5 Article

Serum neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin as a marker of renal function in non-diabetic patients with stage 2-4 chronic kidney disease

期刊

RENAL FAILURE
卷 30, 期 6, 页码 625-628

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/08860220802134607

关键词

NGAL; cystatin C; GFR; kidney function; chronic kidney disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (K/DOQI) guidelines advocate creatinine-based equations for estimating GFR to identify patients with potential kidney disease and classify them into different stages due to the fact that serum creatinine is very insensitive to changes in the glomerular filtration rate. Very few biomarkers exist for monitoring chronic kidney disease. The aim of the study was to assess whether NGAL could represent a novel, sensitive marker of kidney function in adult patients with CKD. The study was performed on 92 nondiabetic patients with CKD stages 2 -4. Serum and urinary NGAL as well as serum cystatin C were measured using commercially available kits. Serum NGAL was related, in univariate analysis, to serum creatinine, urinary NGAL, hemoglobin, hematocrit, leukocyte count, eGFR, and cystatin C. Urinary NGAL correlated with age, hemoglobin, hematocrit, serum creatinine, and eGFR. In multiple regression analysis, predictors of serum NGAL were creatinine (beta value = 0.97, p = 0.005), cystatin C (beta = 0.34, p = 0.01), and eGFR (beta value = 1.77, p = 0.001). In the healthy volunteers, serum NGAL correlated with age, serum creatinine, eGFR, leukocyte count, and cystatin C. Taking into consideration the fact that the recent DOQI (Dialysis Outcomes Quality Initiative) states that individuals with reduced GRF (glomerular filtration rate) are at greater risk for CVD and cardiac deaths, precise evaluation of renal function is important in order to select the appropriate strategy to reduce the cardiovascular risk. NGAL should be investigated as a potential early and sensitive marker of kidney impairment/injury.

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

4.5
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