4.5 Article

Clinical characteristics of diabetic nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetic mellitus manifesting heavy proteinuria: A retrospective analysis of 220 cases

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2019.107874

关键词

Diabetic nephropathy; Non-diabetic renal disease; Type 2 diabetes mellitus; Clinical characteristics

资金

  1. Zhejiang Basic Public Welfare Research Project [LGF18H050002]
  2. Zhejiang Medical and Health Science and Technology Project [2016KYA172, 2017KYB639, 2017KY643]
  3. Huzhou Municipal Science and Technology Bureau Public Welfare Application Research Project [2014GZ09, 2016GY27]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To determine the predictability of diagnosing diabetic nephropathy (DN) versus non-diabetic renal disease (NDRD) from clinical and laboratory data in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) manifesting heavy proteinuria. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical and laboratory data of patients with T2DM manifesting heavy proteinuria who underwent renal biopsy from January 2014 to December 2017. Results: According to renal biopsy, 220 patients were finally enrolled, including 109 cases diagnosed with DN alone (49.55%), 94 with NDRD alone (42.73%) and 17 with DN plus superimposed NDRD (7.73%). Multivariate analysis showed the significant risk factors for DN alone were age, duration of diabetes, presence of retinopathy, 24-h proteinuria, serum albumin and SBP. Presence of retinopathy achieved the highest overall diagnostic efficiency with the area under the curve of 0.852, sensitivity of 78.9% and specificity of 91.5%. The combined diagnosis with four indicators (duration of diabetes, retinopathy, SBP, and serum albumin) showed the area under the curve of 0.938, sensitivity of 88.1% and specificity of 87.2%. Conclusions: The prevalence of DN is high in patients with T2DM manifesting heavy proteinuria. Renal biopsy should be performed in diabetics in the atypical clinical scenario. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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