4.6 Article

Urinary Expression of Kidney Injury Markers in Renal Transplant Recipients

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.01910310

关键词

-

资金

  1. Hong Kong Society
  2. The Chinese University of Hong Kong [6901031, 7101215]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectives: The outcome of renal transplantation after an episode of acute rejection is difficult to predict, even with an allograft biopsy. We examined whether urinary expression of specific biomarker mRNA could be used as a noninvasive prognostic marker in kidney transplant recipients. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: We studied 63 kidney transplant recipients who require graft biopsy because of progressive worsening of kidney function. The mRNA of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1), IL-18, surfactant protein-C, and S100 calcium-binding proteins A8 and A9 in urinary sediment were quantified. Results: Urinary expressions of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, KIM-1, and IL-18, but not other target genes, were significantly different between histologic groups (P < 0.0001 for all). After followed for an average of 39.7 +/- 21.1 months, the rate of renal function decline significantly correlated with urinary KIM-1 expression (r = -0.434, P = 0.0004) but not other target genes. At 48 months, the graft survival rate for the high and low KIM-1 groups were 46.2 and 78.6%, respectively. After adjusting for confounding variables, each log of higher urinary KIM-1 expression conferred an similar to 2.9-fold higher risk of developing graft failure (95% confidence interval, 1.3- to 6.2-fold; P = 0.006). The result remained similar when only patients with no acute cellular rejection were analyzed. Conclusions: In kidney allograft recipients, urinary KIM-1 expression provides prognostic information in relation to the rate of renal function decline, irrespective of the kidney pathology. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5: 2329-2337, 2010. doi: 10.2215/CJN.01910310

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