4.7 Article

Poor Glycemic Control Is a Major Factor in the Overestimation of Glomerular Filtration Rate in Diabetic Patients

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 37, 期 3, 页码 596-603

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc13-1899

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVESerum creatinine levels are lower in diabetic patients compared with their nondiabetic counterparts. Therefore, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is higher in the former than in the latter group. Factors associated with overestimation of renal function in diabetic patients were examined, and new formulae reflecting precise eGFR were created.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSEighty subjects (age 56.5 15.4 years; 35 males [43.8%]; 40 patients with diabetes and 40 nondiabetic subjects) were enrolled. GFR was evaluated by inulin clearance (C-in). eGFR values were calculated based on serum creatinine and/or serum cystatin C levels. The factors related to the dissociation between eGFR and C-in in diabetic patients and the agreement among each of three eGFR and C-in were compared.RESULTSAlthough C-in was not significantly different between the diabetic and nondiabetic subjects (P = 0.2866), each of three eGFR measures from the diabetic patients was significantly higher than that of the nondiabetic subjects (P < 0.01). There were significant and positive correlations between the ratio of each eGFR/C-in, hemoglobin A(1c), and glycated albumin. The intraclass correlation coefficients in diabetic patients were weaker than those in the nondiabetic subjects, and the intercepts of the regression lines between each eGFR measure and C-in in the diabetic patients were significantly higher than those of the nondiabetic subjects. New formulae for the calculation of eGFR corrected by the glycemic control indices were better than the original eGFR, particularly in diabetic patients.CONCLUSIONSeGFR overestimates C-in as glycemic controls worsen. eGFR corrected by hemoglobin A(1c) is considered to be clinically useful and feasible.

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