4.6 Article

High prevalence of patients with a high risk for obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome after kidney transplantation - association with declining renal function

期刊

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
卷 22, 期 9, 页码 2686-2692

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfm246

关键词

chronic kidney disease; dialysis; kidney transplantation; obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome; waiting list for transplantation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome ( OSAS) is much more prevalent in patients on dialysis than in the general population. Our aim was to assess for the first time the prevalence of patients with a high risk for OSAS and its clinical correlates in a large sample of kidney transplanted patients. We also wanted to compare the prevalence of the disorder between waitlisted dialysis patients ( WL) and kidney transplanted patients ( Tx). Methods. One thousand sixty- seven kidney transplanted patients were asked to participate in a cross- sectional survey (`TransQoL-HU Study'). Socio- demographic data, history of renal disease, medication, comorbidity and laboratory parameters were collected at enrolment. Patients completed a battery of self- administered questionnaires including the Berlin Sleep Apnoea Questionnaire to assess risk status of OSAS. Results. The final analyses included 841 Tx and 175 WL patients. The prevalence of high risk for OSAS was similar in the transplanted group vs WL patients ( 27% vs 33%). In multivariate logistic regression analysis male gender, older age, lower educational status, worse kidney function, use of hypnotic drugs and comorbidity were independent predictors for high risk of OSAS in kidney transplanted patients. Conclusions. High risk for sleep apnoea is highly prevalent in the kidney transplanted population. In addition to the well- known risk factors of OSAS ( male gender, obesity, use of hypnotic drugs, comorbidity), impaired kidney function was also independently associated with high risk for OSAS.

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

4.6
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