4.2 Article

Evaluation of Lipoprotein-Associated Phospholipase A2 as a Prognostic Biomarker in Chronic Kidney Disease

期刊

CLINICAL LABORATORY
卷 67, 期 8, 页码 1841-1845

出版社

CLIN LAB PUBL
DOI: 10.7754/Clin.Lab.2021.201114

关键词

chronic kidney disease; carotid atherosclerosis; lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A(2); prognostic and diagnostic value

资金

  1. Wu Jie Ping Medical Foundation [320.6750.17528]
  2. Medical Scientific Research Foundation of Guangdong Province of China [A2018425]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study identified Lp-PLA(2) as a potential prognostic and diagnostic biomarker for CKD-CAS, which can be used as an assessment indicator for patient risk factors.
Background: The leading cause of death in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is atherosclerosis (AS). Lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A(2) (Lp-PLA(2)) is a biomarker of atherosclerotic plaque stability. The aim of our study was to analyze the association of Lp-PLA(2) with CKD complicated with carotid atherosclerotic stenosis (CAS). Methods: Serum specimens were collected from 77 CKD patients and 39 healthy controls. Laboratory examination results including glucose, total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and Lp-PLA(2) were measured. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) was drawn and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. Results: Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that age, gender, glucose, and Lp-PLA(2) were considered as risks for CKD-CAS with odds ratios (OR) of 1.111 (95% CI: 1.055, 1.170), 5.123 (95% CI: 1.482, 17.714), 1.679 (95% CI: 1.123, 2.512), and 1.023 (95% CI: 1.008, 1.037), respectively. The AUC for Lp-PLA(2) and glucose was 0.618 (p = 0.014) and 0.592 (p = 0.057), respectively. The best diagnostic value was archived by Lp-PLA(2) with the cutoff value of 201.06 ng/mL. Conclusions: Lp-PLA(2) is a potential prognostic and diagnostic biomarker for CKD-CAS.

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

4.2
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