4.5 Article

Urine Cystatin C as a Biomarker of Proximal Tubular Function Immediately after Kidney Transplantation

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEPHROLOGY
卷 33, 期 5, 页码 407-413

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000326753

关键词

Transplantation; Biomarkers; Ischemia/reperfusion; Outcomes

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [F32DK088395]
  2. NIH [K23DK81616, UL1RR024139]
  3. Donaghue Foundation
  4. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [UL1RR024139] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [K23DK081616, T32DK007276, F32DK088395] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aims: Clinical methods to predict allograft function soon after kidney transplantation are ineffective. Methods: We analyzed urine cystatin C (CyC) in a prospective multicenter observational cohort study of deceased-donor kidney transplants to determine its peritransplant excretion pattern, utility for predicting delayed graft function (DGF) and association with 3-month graft function. Serial urine samples were collected for 2 days following transplant and analyzed blindly for CyC. We defined DGF as any hemodialysis in the first week after transplant, slow graft function (SGF) as a serum creatinine reduction <70% by the first week and immediate graft function (IGF) as a reduction >= 70%. Results: Of 91 recipients, 33 had DGF, 34 had SGF and 24 had IGF. Urine CyC/urine creatinine was highest in DGF for all time-points. The area under the curve (95% Cl) for predicting DGF at 6 h was 0.69 (0.57-0.81) for urine CyC, 0.74 (0.62-0.86) for urine CyC/urine creatinine and 0.60 (0.45-0.75) for percent change in urine CyC. On the first postoperative day, urine CyC/urine creatinine and percent change in urine CyC were associated with 3-month graft function. Conclusion: Urine CyC on the day after transplant differs between degrees of perioperative graft function and modestly corresponds with 3-month function. Copyright (C) 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel

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