4.5 Article

Acid retention in chronic kidney disease is inversely related to GFR

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-RENAL PHYSIOLOGY
卷 314, 期 5, 页码 F985-F991

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajprenal.00463.2017

关键词

acidosis; bicarbonate; chronic kidney disease; diet; GFR

资金

  1. Larry and Jane Woirhaye Memorial Endowment in Renal Research at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center
  2. Statistics Department of Texas AM University
  3. Academic Operations Division of Baylor Scott White Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Greater H+ retention in animal models of chronic kidney disease (CKD) mediates faster glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decline and dietary H+ reduction slows (GFR) decline in CKD patients with reduced eGFR and H+ retention due to the high acid (H+) diets of developed societies. We examined if H+ retention in CKD is inversely associated with estimated GFR (eGFR) using cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of individuals with CKD stage 1 (>90 ml.min(-1).1.73 m(-2)), CKD stage 2 (60-89 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)), and CKD stage 3 (30-59 ml.min(-1).1.73 m(-2)) eGFR. H+ retention was assessed using the difference between observed and expected plasma total CO2 2 h after 0.5 meq/kg body wt oral NaHCO3. H+ retention was higher in CKD 2 vs. CKD 1 (P < 0.01) and in CKD 3 vs. CKD 2 (P < 0.02) at baseline and 5 yr. and was higher in CKD 2 vs. CKD 1 (P < 0.01) at 10 yr. All groups had lower eGFR at subsequent time points (P < 0.01) but H+ retention was not different among the three time points for CKD 1. By contrast, eGFR decrease was associated with higher H+ retention in CKD 2 at 5 yr (P = 0.04) and 10 yr (P < 0.01) and with higher H+ retention in CKD 3 at 5 yr (P < 0.01). Yearly eGFR decline rate was faster in CKD 2 vs. CKD 1 (P < 0.01) and in CKD 3 vs. CKD 2 (P < 0.01). The data show that H+ retention is inversely associated with eGFR, with faster eGFR decline, and support the need for greater dietary H+ reduction therapy for CKD individuals with lower eGFR.

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

4.5
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