4.5 Article

DASH dietary pattern and chronic kidney disease in elderly Korean adults

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 71, 期 6, 页码 755-761

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ejcn.2016.240

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Dietary patterns are linked to risk and outcomes in chronic kidney disease (CKD). Dietary intake varies by race, region and age. The relationship between a Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet and CKD in elderly Koreans is unclear. SUBJECTS/METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional analyses of 2408 community-dwelling elderly participants from the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2011-2012). DASH dietary patterns for six nutrients (protein, fiber, calcium, potassium, total fat and sodium) were collected by 24 h recall. DASH-US (based on the US recommendations) and DASH-KQ (Korean quartile) scores were generated by summing the scores for the six nutrients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to calculate odds ratio (OR) for the association between a DASH diet and CKD. RESULTS: Mean subject age was 72.4 +/- 5.1 years, 13.9% had CKD and 23.8% had diabetes. Protein, fiber, calcium and potassium intake was lower in CKD than non-CKD participants. In multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, comorbid conditions and other factors, a high DASH score was associated with a low odds for CKD based on DASH-US (OR = 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65-0.94, P = 0.009) and DASH-KQ (OR = 0.95, 95% CI, 0.91-0.99, P = 0.022). In six nutrients of DASH diet, high fiber intake showed a low odds for CKD in the DASH-KQ model (P for trend = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that higher adherence to a DASH diet and higher fiber intake are associated with lower odds of CKD in elderly Koreans. These results should be corroborated through longitudinal studies of the association between a DASH diet and high-fiber diet on the risk of developing 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

4.5
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