♦ Objectives: There is a lack of consensus on the risk factors for hernia formation, and the impact on peritoneal dialysis (PD) survival has seldom been studied.
Although oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) have been associated with immunomodulation in preclinical studies, little is still known about the association between the use of OADs and the risk of sepsis. Using a cohort of patients, extracted from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database, with type 2 diabetes who were newly diagnosed between 2010 and 2012 and treated with OADs, we conducted a nested case-control study involving 43,015 cases (patients who were first hospitalized for sepsis) and 43,015 matched controls. Compared with non-use, metformin use was associated with a decreased risk of developing sepsis (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77–0.83, P < 0.001), but meglitinide (adjusted OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.25–1.40, P < 0.001) use was associated with the increased risk of developing sepsis. The risk for development of sepsis was also lower among current (adjusted OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78–0.96) and recent (adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73–0.94) thiazolidinedione users. Current or recent sulfonylurea use and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor use were not significantly associated with the development of sepsis. Our results highlight the need to consider the potential pleiotropic effect of OADs against sepsis in addition to the lowering of blood glucose.
In long-term haemodialysis patients, circulating sclerostin but not Dkk-1 is inversely associated with AoCs and future cardiovascular events. Our findings suggest that sclerostin, as a bone-related protein, might act as a communicator between uraemic bone and vasculature.
BackgroundThe usage of urine protein/creatinine ratio to estimate daily urine protein excretion is prevalent, but relatively little attention has been paid to the influence of urine concentration and its impact on test accuracy. We took advantage of 24-hour urine collection to examine both urine protein/creatinine ratio (UPCR) and daily urine protein excretion, with the latter as the reference standard. Specific gravity from a concomitant urinalysis of the same urine sample was used to indicate the urine concentration.MethodsDuring 2010 to 2014, there were 540 adequately collected 24h urine samples with protein concentration, creatinine concentration, total volume, and a concomitant urinalysis of the same sample. Variables associated with an accurate UPCR estimation were determined by multivariate linear regression analysis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to determine the discriminant cut-off values of urine creatinine concentration for predicting an accurate UPCR estimation in either dilute or concentrated urine samples.ResultsOur findings indicated that for dilute urine, as indicated by a low urine specific gravity, UPCR is more likely to overestimate the actual daily urine protein excretion. On the contrary, UPCR of concentrated urine is more likely to result in an underestimation. By ROC curve analysis, the best cut-off value of urine creatinine concentration for predicting overestimation by UPCR of dilute urine (specific gravity ≦ 1.005) was ≦ 38.8 mg/dL, whereas the best cut-off values of urine creatinine for predicting underestimation by UPCR of thick urine were ≧ 63.6 mg/dL (specific gravity ≧ 1.015), ≧ 62.1 mg/dL (specific gravity ≧ 1.020), ≧ 61.5 mg/dL (specific gravity ≧ 1.025), respectively. We also compared distribution patterns of urine creatinine concentration of 24h urine cohort with a concurrent spot urine cohort and found that the underestimation might be more profound in single voided samples.ConclusionsThe UPCR in samples with low or high specific gravity is more likely to overestimate or underestimate actual daily urine protein amount, respectively, especially in a dilute urine sample with its creatinine below 38.8 mg/dL or a concentrated sample with its creatinine above 61.5 mg/dL. In particular, UPCR results should be interpreted with caution in cases that involve dilute urine samples because its overestimation may lead to an erroneous diagnosis of proteinuric renal disease or an incorrect staging of chronic kidney disease.
BackgroundThe blood pressure (BP) of a proportion of chronic hemodialysis (HD) patients rises after HD. We investigated the influence of postdialysis BP rise on long-term outcomes.MethodsA total of 115 prevalent HD patients were enrolled. Because of the fluctuating nature of predialysis and postdialysis BP, systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP before and after HD were recorded from 25 consecutive HD sessions during a 2-month period. Patients were followed for 4 years or until death or withdrawal.ResultsKaplan-Meier estimates revealed that patients with average postdialysis SBP rise of more than 5 mmHg were at the highest risk of both cardiovascular and all-cause mortality as compared to those with an average postdialysis SBP change between -5 to 5 mmHg and those with an average postdialysis SBP drop of more than 5 mmHg. Furthermore, multivariate Cox regression analysis indicated that both postdialysis SBP rise of more than 5 mmHg (HR, 3.925 [95% CI, 1.410-10.846], p = 0.008) and high cardiothoracic (CT) ratio of more than 50% (HR, 7.560 [95% CI, 2.048-27.912], p = 0.002) independently predicted all-cause mortality. We also found that patients with an average postdialysis SBP rise were associated with subclinical volume overload, as evidenced by the significantly higher CT ratio (p = 0.008).ConclusionsA postdialysis SBP rise in HD patients independently predicted 4-year cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Considering postdialysis SBP rise was associated with higher CT ratio, intensive evaluation of cardiac and volume status should be performed in patients with postdialysis SBP rise.
For uremic patients, in whom creatinine level is high and many of them suffered from diabetes mellitus, serum creatinine can be either under- or overestimated by Jaffe method. Enzymatic method is less affected and may be a better method.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.