4.3 Article

Pancreatic steatosis is an independent risk factor for post-transplant diabetes mellitus in kidney transplant patients

期刊

CLINICAL TRANSPLANTATION
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ctr.15204

关键词

kidney transplantation; non-alcoholic fatty liver; pancreatic steatosis; post-transplant diabetes mellitus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that pancreatic steatosis is an independent predictive factor for post-transplant diabetes mellitus in kidney transplant patients.
Background and Aim: Post-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) is associated with an increased risk of post-transplant cardiovascular diseases, and several risk factors of PTDM have been shown in the literature. Yet, the relationship between hepatic and pancreatic steatosis with post-transplant diabetes mellitus remains vague. We aimed to evaluate pancreatic steatosis, a novel component of metabolic syndrome, and hepatic steatosis association with post-transplant diabetes mellitus in a single-center retrospective cohort study conducted on kidney transplant recipients.Method: We have performed a single-center retrospective cohort study involving all kidney transplant recipients. We have utilized pretransplant Fibrosis-4, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score, and abdominal computed tomography for the assessment of visceral steatosis status.Results: We have included 373 kidney transplant recipients with a mean follow-up period of 32 months in our final analysis. Post-transplant diabetes mellitus risk is associated with older age (p < .001), higher body-mass index (p < .001), nonalcoholic fatty liver disease-fibrosis score (p = .002), hepatic (p < .001) or pancreatic (p < .001) steatosis on imaging and higher pre-transplant serum triglyceride (p = .003) and glucose levels (p = .001) after multivariate analysis.Conclusion: Our study illustrates that recipients' pancreatic steatosis is an independent predictive factor for post-transplant diabetes mellitus including in kidney transplant 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

4.3
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