4.3 Article

Bone mineral density of extremities is associated with coronary calcification and biopsy-verified vascular calcification in living-donor renal transplant recipients

期刊

JOURNAL OF BONE AND MINERAL METABOLISM
卷 35, 期 5, 页码 536-543

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s00774-016-0788-1

关键词

Bone mineral density; Coronary artery calcium; Vascular calcification; Living-donor renal transplant recipients; End-stage renal disease

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council
  2. Swedish Medical Research Council (VR)
  3. Martin Rind Foundation
  4. Baxter Healthcare

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) mineral and bone disorders (CKD-MBD) may lead to low bone mineral density (BMD) and vascular calcification (VC), but links to the latter are unclear. Here we investigated associations between BMD, coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores, and histological signs of VC in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients undergoing living-donor kidney transplantation (LD-Rtx). In 66 ESRD patients (median age 45 years, 68% males), BMD (by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, DXA), CAC score (by computed tomography, CT; n = 54), and degree of VC score (graded by histological examination of epigastric artery specimens collected at LD-Rtx; n = 55) were assessed at the time of LD-Rtx. Of the patients, 26% had osteopenia and 7% had osteoporosis. Of those undergoing artery biopsy, 16% had extensive VC, and of those undergoing CT 28% had high CAC score (> 100 Agatston units). CAC scores correlated with BMD of legs and pelvis. BMDs of leg and pelvic sub-regions were significantly lower in patients with extensive VC. In multivariate regression analysis adjusted for age and gender, lower BMD of leg sub-region was associated with CAC score > 100 AUs and extensive VC, and patients with extensive VC had significantly higher CAC score. Both high CAC and extensive VC were independently predicted by low BMD of legs. Low BMD has the potential to identify ESRD patients at risk of vascular calcification.

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

4.3
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