4.6 Article

Tubular proteinuria and enzymuria following open heart surgery

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 29, 期 8, 页码 1364-1367

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-003-1876-y

关键词

cardiopulmonary bypass; neutral endopeptidase; acute renal failure; proteinuria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: We investigated the effect of cardiac surgery on a marker of tubular damage, an enzyme called neutral endopeptidase (NEP), and on a marker of tubular function, retinol binding protein (RBP). Markers of tubular damage or function are useful in the early detection of acute renal failure and help identify the risk factors for this disease. We also examined if colloid interfered with NEP measurement. Design: A controlled prospective cohort study. Setting: A teaching cardio-thoracic unit in London, England. Patients and participants: Thirty-four patients underwent cardiac surgery. Eight patients waiting for cardiac surgery acted as controls. Interventions: Twenty-five patients had coronary artery bypass graft, four patients had valve replacements, one patient had a coronary artery bypass graft with a valve replacement and one patient had a left ventricular aneurysm repair. Measurements and Results: Neutral endopeptidase was measured in all the patients and controls. In separate subgroups RBP (n=5) and Gelofusine use (n=12) were recorded. Urine samples were collected pre-operatively, 3 h, I and 4 days post-operatively. NEP rose significantly (p<0.05) after cardiac surgery compared with the control population. RBP also rose significantly (p<0.05) after cardiac surgery. NEP correlated with RBP 3 h postoperatively (p<0.05, r(2)=0.97). There was no correlation between the amount of Gelofusine given and NEP excretion. Conclusion: Excretion of NEP and RBP were both increased after cardiac surgery. Colloid did not affect the excretion of NEP, although in other studies it has affected the excretion of RBP. This may make NEP excretion a better index of acute and impending renal damage following cardiac surgery.

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