4.7 Article

Urinary ammonia and long-term outcomes in chronic kidney disease

期刊

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
卷 88, 期 1, 页码 137-145

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2015.52

关键词

chronic kidney disease; metabolic acidosis; NephroTest study cohort; survival

资金

  1. French Ministry of Health [AOM 09114]
  2. Inserm [AO 8022LS, GIS-IReSP AO 8113LS TGIR]
  3. Agence de la Biomedecine [R0 8156LL]
  4. AURA
  5. Roche [2009-152-447G]
  6. F Hoffman-La Roche

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies suggest that alkalinizing treatments improve the course of chronic kidney disease (CKD), even in patients without overt metabolic acidosis. Here, we tested whether a decreased ability in excreting urinary acid rather than overt metabolic acidosis may be deleterious to the course of CKD. We studied the associations between baseline venous total CO2 concentration or urinary ammonia excretion and long-term CKD outcomes in 1065 patients of the NephroTest cohort with CKD stages 1-4. All patients had measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) by 51Cr-EDTA renal clearance. Median mGFR at baseline was 37.6 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). Urinary ammonia excretion decreased with GFR, whereas net endogenous acid production did not. After a median follow-up of 4.3 years, 201 patients reached end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and 114 died before ESRD. Twenty-six percent of the patients had mGFR decline rate greater than 10% per year. Compared with patients in the highest tertile of urinary ammonia excretion, those in the lowest tertile had a significantly increased hazard ratio for ESRD, 1.82 (95% CI, 1.06-3.13), and a higher odds ratio of fast mGFR decline, 1.84 (0.98-3.48), independent of mGFR and other confounders. Patients in the lowest tertile of venous total CO2 had significantly increased risk of fast mGFR decline but not of ESRD. None of these biomarkers was associated with mortality. Thus, these results suggest that the inability to excrete the daily acid load is deleterious to renal outcomes.

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

4.7
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