4.5 Article

Serum Uric Acid and Endothelial Dysfunction in Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis Patients

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEPHROLOGY
卷 29, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000168484

关键词

Uric acid; Endothelial function; Flow-mediated dilatation; Peritoneal dialysis

资金

  1. Ministry of Education
  2. People's Republic of China [36-1, BSD-06-5-24]
  3. Peking University EBM group [38-18]
  4. Doctorial Degree Fund
  5. Peking University Third Hospital [YLZD 06-5-27]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Endothelial dysfunction is an early predictor of cardiovascular events. Hyperuricemia has been shown to be associated with increased cardiovascular mortality. It remains unclear if serum uric acid (UA) is associated with endothelial dysfunction in peritoneal dialysis patients. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, the relationship of UA and endothelial dysfunction was investigated in 189 stable peritoneal dialysis patients. The clinical and laboratory data were collected. Endothelial function was estimated by flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) of the brachial artery and expressed as percentage change relative to baseline diameter. Results: UA levels did not differ between 93 male and 96 female patients (416.31 +/- 86.93 vs. 395.52 +/- 87.47 mu mol/l, p > 0.05). Patients were grouped into three tertiles on the basis of their serum UA levels. Systolic blood pressure (p = 0.007), serum phosphate (p = 0.005), high-sensitive C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) (p < 0.001), and FMD (p = 0.016) were all different among UA tertiles. FMD was found to be related with UA (p = 0.002) and hs-CRP (p = 0.006) in a Pearson's correlation analysis. Multivariate regression analysis showed that only UA was an independent determinant of FMD (beta = -0.237, p = 0.036). Conclusion: There was an independent correlation between UA and FMD, and a higher UA level was related to worse endothelial function which may contribute to hypertension and cardiovascular morbidity. Copyright (c) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.5
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