中国全科医学
中國全科醫學
중국전과의학
CHINESE GENERAL PRACTICE
2014年
25期
2952-2956
,共5页
糖尿病%肾小球滤过率%胱抑素C%一致性评价%评估公式
糖尿病%腎小毬濾過率%胱抑素C%一緻性評價%評估公式
당뇨병%신소구려과솔%광억소C%일치성평개%평고공식
Diabetesmellitus%Flomerularfiltrationrate%CystatinC%Consistencyevaluation%Estimationequation
目的:探讨胱抑素C(Cys-C)评估的肾小球滤过率(FFR)与其他3种方法估测FFR(eFFR)的一致性。方法选择2O13年2-11月在中国人民解放军成都军区总医院内分泌科住院的81例成年2型糖尿病患者作为研究对象。通过测定Cys-C、血肌酐和24 h尿肌酐、Cockcroft-Fault方程及MDRD方程4种方法eFFR,分别记为eFFR1、eFFR2、eFFR3和eFFR4。采用配对t检验、线性相关及回归分析及Bland-Altman作图法统计方法对eFFR2、eFFR3和eFFR4与eFFR1的一致性进行分析。结果(1)eFFR2和eFFR1的配对差均值为-13.45(P<O. O5),相关系数为O.443,95%一致性界限为(-1O1.2 ml·min-1·1.73 m-2,71.8 ml·min-1·1.73 m-2)。(2)eFFR3和eFFR1的配对差均值为O.86(P>O. O5),相关系数为O.588,95%一致性界限为(-71. O ml·min-1·1.73 m-2,73. O ml·min-1·1.73m-2)。(3)eFFR4和eFFR1的配对差均值为-6.79(P>O. O5),相关系数为O.65O,95%一致性界限为(-68.1 ml·min-1·1.73 m-2,5O.3 ml·min-1·1.73 m-2)。(4) eFFR2、eFFR3和eFFR4落在eFFR1±15%的比例分别为27.2%、34.6%和42. O%;落在eFFR1±3O%的比例分别为54.3%、71.6%和75.3%;落在eFFR1±5O%的比例分别为74.1%、91.4%和88.9%。结论在2型糖尿病患者中,Cys-C估测的eFFR与24 h尿肌酐估测的eFFR一致性较差,与Cockcroft-Fault方程估测的eFFR固定误差较小,与MDRD方程估测的eFFR准确度最高。
目的:探討胱抑素C(Cys-C)評估的腎小毬濾過率(FFR)與其他3種方法估測FFR(eFFR)的一緻性。方法選擇2O13年2-11月在中國人民解放軍成都軍區總醫院內分泌科住院的81例成年2型糖尿病患者作為研究對象。通過測定Cys-C、血肌酐和24 h尿肌酐、Cockcroft-Fault方程及MDRD方程4種方法eFFR,分彆記為eFFR1、eFFR2、eFFR3和eFFR4。採用配對t檢驗、線性相關及迴歸分析及Bland-Altman作圖法統計方法對eFFR2、eFFR3和eFFR4與eFFR1的一緻性進行分析。結果(1)eFFR2和eFFR1的配對差均值為-13.45(P<O. O5),相關繫數為O.443,95%一緻性界限為(-1O1.2 ml·min-1·1.73 m-2,71.8 ml·min-1·1.73 m-2)。(2)eFFR3和eFFR1的配對差均值為O.86(P>O. O5),相關繫數為O.588,95%一緻性界限為(-71. O ml·min-1·1.73 m-2,73. O ml·min-1·1.73m-2)。(3)eFFR4和eFFR1的配對差均值為-6.79(P>O. O5),相關繫數為O.65O,95%一緻性界限為(-68.1 ml·min-1·1.73 m-2,5O.3 ml·min-1·1.73 m-2)。(4) eFFR2、eFFR3和eFFR4落在eFFR1±15%的比例分彆為27.2%、34.6%和42. O%;落在eFFR1±3O%的比例分彆為54.3%、71.6%和75.3%;落在eFFR1±5O%的比例分彆為74.1%、91.4%和88.9%。結論在2型糖尿病患者中,Cys-C估測的eFFR與24 h尿肌酐估測的eFFR一緻性較差,與Cockcroft-Fault方程估測的eFFR固定誤差較小,與MDRD方程估測的eFFR準確度最高。
목적:탐토광억소C(Cys-C)평고적신소구려과솔(FFR)여기타3충방법고측FFR(eFFR)적일치성。방법선택2O13년2-11월재중국인민해방군성도군구총의원내분비과주원적81례성년2형당뇨병환자작위연구대상。통과측정Cys-C、혈기항화24 h뇨기항、Cockcroft-Fault방정급MDRD방정4충방법eFFR,분별기위eFFR1、eFFR2、eFFR3화eFFR4。채용배대t검험、선성상관급회귀분석급Bland-Altman작도법통계방법대eFFR2、eFFR3화eFFR4여eFFR1적일치성진행분석。결과(1)eFFR2화eFFR1적배대차균치위-13.45(P<O. O5),상관계수위O.443,95%일치성계한위(-1O1.2 ml·min-1·1.73 m-2,71.8 ml·min-1·1.73 m-2)。(2)eFFR3화eFFR1적배대차균치위O.86(P>O. O5),상관계수위O.588,95%일치성계한위(-71. O ml·min-1·1.73 m-2,73. O ml·min-1·1.73m-2)。(3)eFFR4화eFFR1적배대차균치위-6.79(P>O. O5),상관계수위O.65O,95%일치성계한위(-68.1 ml·min-1·1.73 m-2,5O.3 ml·min-1·1.73 m-2)。(4) eFFR2、eFFR3화eFFR4락재eFFR1±15%적비례분별위27.2%、34.6%화42. O%;락재eFFR1±3O%적비례분별위54.3%、71.6%화75.3%;락재eFFR1±5O%적비례분별위74.1%、91.4%화88.9%。결론재2형당뇨병환자중,Cys-C고측적eFFR여24 h뇨기항고측적eFFR일치성교차,여Cockcroft-Fault방정고측적eFFR고정오차교소,여MDRD방정고측적eFFR준학도최고。
Objective Toevaluateconsistencyoffourestimationequationsforglomerularfiltrationrate(FFR)in type2diabetesmellitus.Methods 81adultsoftype2diabetesmellitus,whowerehospitalizedinourhospitalbetweenFebruary and November,2O13,were selected as the research subjects. FFR(eFFR)was estimated by measuring Cys-C,serum creati-nine and 24 hour urinary creatinine,Cockcroft-Fault equation and MDRD equation and was named eFFR1,eFFR2,eFFR3 and eFFR4 respectively. Pair t test,linear correlation and regression analysis,Bland-Altman analysis chart method were adopt-ed to evaluate consistency. Results ( 1 ) Paired difference average value between eFFR2 and eFFR1 was -13. 45 ( P <O. O5). Correlation index was O. 443. Limit of 95% consistency was - 1O1. 2 ml · min-1 · 1. 73 m-2 to 71. 8 ml·min-1·1. 73 m-2. (2)Paired difference average value between eFFR3 and eFFR1 was O. 86(P>O. O5). Correlation indexwasO.588.Limitof95% consistencywas -71.O ml·min-1·1.73 m-2 to73.O ml·min-1·1.73 m-2.(3)Paired difference average value between eFFR4 and eFFR1 was -6. 79(P>O. O5). Correlation index was O. 65O. Limit of 95% con-sistency was -68. 1 ml·min-1·1. 73 m-2 to 5O. 3 ml·min-1·1. 73 m-2. (4)Ratio of cases in eFFR1±15% of eFFR2, eFFR3 and eFFR4 was respectively 27. 2%,34. 6% and 42. O%. Ratio of cases in eFFR1 ±3O% was 54. 3%,71. 6% and 75.3%.RatioofcasesineFFR1±5O%was74.1%、91.4%and88.9%.Conclusion ThereislessconsistencybetweeneFFR estimated by cystatin C and eFFR estimated by 24 hours urinary creatinine. There is less bias between eFFR estimated by cystatin C and Cockcroft-Fault equation. The consistency between eFFR estimated by cystatin Cand MDRD equation is better.