3.8 Article

Low Potassium Intake: A Common Risk Factor for Nephrolithiasis in Patients with High Blood Pressure

期刊

出版社

ADIS INT LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s40292-023-00587-0

关键词

Urinary-potassium-excretion; Hypertension; Recurrent nephrolithiasis; Potassium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypertension is an important cause of cardiovascular and chronic kidney disease, and it is also an independent risk factor for nephrolithiasis. A diet rich in vegetables and fruits is beneficial for the prevention of both hypertension and nephrolithiasis, and monitoring 24-hour urinary potassium excretion can guide dietary intake. This study demonstrated that higher urinary potassium excretion is associated with a reduced risk of recurrent nephrolithiasis in hypertensive patients.
Hypertension (Htn) is a crucial cause of cardio-vascular and chronic kidney disease. Moreover, it is an independent risk factor for nephrolithiasis (NL). A diet rich in vegetables and fruits is indicated for both Htn and NL prevention, and the 24-h urinary potassium excretion can be used as a warning light for adherence. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the association between urinary potassium excretion and recurrent nephrolithiasis among patients affected by Htn. We have analyzed medical records of 119 patients affected by Htn and NL (SF-Hs) referring to Bone and Mineral Metabolism laboratory and 119 patients affected by Htn but without NL (nSF-Hs) referring to Hypertension and Organ Damage Hypertension related laboratory, both in Federico II University of Naples. The potassium 24-h urinary levels in SF-Hs were significantly lower compared to nSF-Hs. This difference was confirmed by the multivariable linear regression analysis in the unadjusted model and adjusted model for age, gender, metabolic syndrome, and body mass index. In conclusion, a higher potassium urinary excretion in 24-h is a protective factor against NL in patients affected by Htn and dietary interventions can be considered for kidney protection.

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

3.8
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