4.4 Article

Urinary excretion of pentraxin-3 correlates with the presence of renal scar following acute pyelonephritis in children

期刊

INTERNATIONAL UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY
卷 51, 期 4, 页码 571-577

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11255-019-02102-8

关键词

Children; Pentraxin 3; Renal scar; Vesicoureteral reflux

资金

  1. Pamukkale University Research Fund [2015HZL007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Acute pyelonephritis is associated with considerable morbidity and potential for renal scarring. Pentraxin3 (PTX3) is a recently discovered mediator of inflammation. The objective of this study was to investigate the changes in serum and urine PTX3 levels in children who had a history of pyelonephritis and were diagnosed with renal parenchymal scar (RPS) and/or vesicoureteral reflux (VUR). Methods The study included 88 children (31 males, 57 females) aged between 3months and 18years. The children included in the study were divided into four groups: VUR with RPS (Group 1), RPS without VUR (Group 2), VUR without RPS (Group 3), and healthy children without a history of hydronephrosis or UTI history (Group 4). After the initial evaluation, the participants were further divided into two more groups and re-evaluated: Children with RPS (Group 1+2), children without RPS (Group 3+4), children with VUR (Group 1+3), and children without VUR (Group 2+4). Results We found that urine pentraxin 3 (uPTX3) and uPTX3/Creatinine levels were significantly higher in the groups with renal scar with or without VUR than the ones without RPS [mean uPTX3, 3.5pg/ml (min-max 0.0022-12.3668) vs. 2.2pg/ml (min-max 0.0022-18.5868) and uPTX3/creatinine, 10.5pg/mg (min-max 0.0035-51.1) vs. 5.8pg/mg (min-max 0.0004-78.7), p<0.01]. uPTX3 levels were not different among the groups with and without VUR. In addition, serum PTX3 levels were not different among the groups. Conclusions We showed that urinary PTX3 increased only in patients with scarred kidneys. These results might be helpful to predict RPS due to past pyelonephritis.

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