4.4 Article

Von Willebrand factor, ADAMTS13 and mortality in dialysis patients

期刊

BMC NEPHROLOGY
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12882-021-02420-z

关键词

Dialysis; Von Willebrand Factor; ADAMTS13; Mortality; Epidemiology

资金

  1. Dutch Kidney Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In dialysis patients, high VWF levels and low ADAMTS13 activity are associated with increased mortality risks.
Background Von Willebrand Factor (VWF) multimers are cleaved into smaller and less coagulant forms by the metalloprotease ADAMTS13. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between VWF and ADAMTS13 and mortality in dialysis patients. Methods We prospectively followed 956 dialysis patients. VWF levels and ADAMTS13 activity were measured. Cox proportional hazard analyses were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) to investigate the association between quartiles of VWF levels and ADAMTS13 activity and all-cause mortality. HRs were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, cardiovascular disease, dialysis modality, primary kidney disease, use of antithrombotic medication, systolic blood pressure, albumin, C-reactive protein and residual GFR. Results Of the 956 dialysis patients, 288 dialysis patients died within three years (mortality rate 151 per 1000 person-years). The highest quartile of VWF as compared with lower levels of VWF was associated with a 1.4-fold (95 %CI 1.1-1.8) increased mortality risk after adjustment. The lowest quartile of ADAMTS13 activity as compared with other quartiles was associated with a 1.3-fold (95 %CI 1.0-1.7) increased mortality risk after adjustment. The combination of the highest VWF quartile and lowest ADAMTS13 quartile was associated with a 2.0-fold (95 %CI 1.3-3.0) increased mortality risk as compared with the combination of the lowest VWF quartile and highest ADAMTS13 quartile. Conclusions High VWF levels and low ADAMTS13 activity were associated with increased mortality risks in dialysis 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

4.4
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