4.6 Article

SDMA is an early marker of change in GFR after living-related kidney donation

期刊

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 324-328

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfq395

关键词

acute kidney injury; ADMA; renal function; transplantation

资金

  1. Else-Kroner-Fresenius Foundation [P63/06/EKMS 06/03]
  2. Medical School Hannover, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Early detection of changes in the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is crucial in detecting acute kidney injury. There is burgeoning evidence from preclinical and clinical studies that symmetrical dimethylarginine (SDMA) correlates well with different parameters of renal function. In some studies, SDMA even outperformed creatinine as a marker of GFR. It is however unknown how fast SDMA is increasing after reduction in GFR. The aim of our study was therefore to determine the temporal change of SDMA in comparison with cystatin C after a defined reduction in GFR. Methods. Blood samples from 24 healthy living-related kidney donors (19 F/5 M), mean age 55.2 +/- 8.3 years, were collected prior to donation of the kidney as well as 1, 6, 12, 24, 72 and 168 h after unilateral nephrectomy. SDMA levels were measured using a liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry-based method. Results. Within 6 h after unilateral nephrectomy, i.e. reduction of GFR by 50%, SDMA rose from 0.571 +/- 0.120 to 0.659 +/- 0.135 mu mol/L (P < 0.001). Baseline cystatin C levels increased from 0.87 +/- 0.16 to 1.07 +/- 0.15 mg/L (P < 0.001). Also, serum creatinine rose significantly within 6 h after removal of one kidney from 65.4 +/- 8.4 to 88.8 +/- 10.2 mu mol/L (P < 0.001). Discussion. SDMA might be a valuable and early marker of change in GFR in the clinical and experimental setting. Future studies will have to clarify whether sensitivity, specificity and temporal resolution of SDMA make it an attractive candidate for the assessment of renal function in both the experimental and clinical setting.

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