中国医师进修杂志
中國醫師進脩雜誌
중국의사진수잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF POSTGRADUATES OF MEDICINE
2013年
10期
1-4
,共4页
贾育梅%赵永祯%徐援%姚志
賈育梅%趙永禎%徐援%姚誌
가육매%조영정%서원%요지
糖尿病,2型%糖尿病肾病%肾小球滤过率%尿微量白蛋白排泄率
糖尿病,2型%糖尿病腎病%腎小毬濾過率%尿微量白蛋白排洩率
당뇨병,2형%당뇨병신병%신소구려과솔%뇨미량백단백배설솔
Diabetes mellitus,type 2%Diabetic nephropathies%Glomerular filtration rate%Urinary albumin excretion rate
目的 探讨2型糖尿病患者肾小球滤过率与尿微量白蛋白作为肾功能评价指标的价值.方法 选取2010年8月1日至2012年6月31日住院的2型糖尿病患者1217例,根据目前推荐的简化肾脏病膳食改良试验(MDRD)公式计算出肾小球滤过率估计值(eGFR),依照K/DOQI指南对慢性肾脏疾病的分期将患者分为三组:A组[eGFR≥90 ml/ (min· 1.73 m2)]891例,B组[60ml/(min· 1.73 m2)≤eGFR＜ 90 ml/(min· 1.73 m2)]256例,C组[eGFR＜ 60 ml/(min· 1.73 m2)]70例,分别对比各组8h尿微量白蛋白排泄率(UAER),并进行组间比较；根据8 hUAER将患者分为三组:a组(8 h UAER＜ 20μg/min)946例,b组(20 μg/min≤8 h UAER ＜200 μg/min) 193例,c组(8 h UAER≥200μg/min)78例,计算出eGFR,并进行组间比较.结果 A组8h UAER为(32.71±79.62)μg/min,B组为(57.56±130.59)μg/min,C组为(107.50±222.64)μg/min,各组间比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).a组eGFR为(110.78±32.75) ml/(min· 1.73 m2),b组为(108.26±45.78) ml/(min· 1.73 m2),c组为(94.96±32.30) ml/(min·1.73 m2),a组与c组,b组与c组比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05),但a组与b组比较差异无统计学意义(P=0.364).结论 在2型糖尿病肾脏病变的程度方面应考虑肾小球滤过率及尿微量白蛋白两个指标,并进行综合评价.
目的 探討2型糖尿病患者腎小毬濾過率與尿微量白蛋白作為腎功能評價指標的價值.方法 選取2010年8月1日至2012年6月31日住院的2型糖尿病患者1217例,根據目前推薦的簡化腎髒病膳食改良試驗(MDRD)公式計算齣腎小毬濾過率估計值(eGFR),依照K/DOQI指南對慢性腎髒疾病的分期將患者分為三組:A組[eGFR≥90 ml/ (min· 1.73 m2)]891例,B組[60ml/(min· 1.73 m2)≤eGFR＜ 90 ml/(min· 1.73 m2)]256例,C組[eGFR＜ 60 ml/(min· 1.73 m2)]70例,分彆對比各組8h尿微量白蛋白排洩率(UAER),併進行組間比較；根據8 hUAER將患者分為三組:a組(8 h UAER＜ 20μg/min)946例,b組(20 μg/min≤8 h UAER ＜200 μg/min) 193例,c組(8 h UAER≥200μg/min)78例,計算齣eGFR,併進行組間比較.結果 A組8h UAER為(32.71±79.62)μg/min,B組為(57.56±130.59)μg/min,C組為(107.50±222.64)μg/min,各組間比較差異有統計學意義(P＜0.05).a組eGFR為(110.78±32.75) ml/(min· 1.73 m2),b組為(108.26±45.78) ml/(min· 1.73 m2),c組為(94.96±32.30) ml/(min·1.73 m2),a組與c組,b組與c組比較差異有統計學意義(P＜0.05),但a組與b組比較差異無統計學意義(P=0.364).結論 在2型糖尿病腎髒病變的程度方麵應攷慮腎小毬濾過率及尿微量白蛋白兩箇指標,併進行綜閤評價.
목적 탐토2형당뇨병환자신소구려과솔여뇨미량백단백작위신공능평개지표적개치.방법 선취2010년8월1일지2012년6월31일주원적2형당뇨병환자1217례,근거목전추천적간화신장병선식개량시험(MDRD)공식계산출신소구려과솔고계치(eGFR),의조K/DOQI지남대만성신장질병적분기장환자분위삼조:A조[eGFR≥90 ml/ (min· 1.73 m2)]891례,B조[60ml/(min· 1.73 m2)≤eGFR＜ 90 ml/(min· 1.73 m2)]256례,C조[eGFR＜ 60 ml/(min· 1.73 m2)]70례,분별대비각조8h뇨미량백단백배설솔(UAER),병진행조간비교；근거8 hUAER장환자분위삼조:a조(8 h UAER＜ 20μg/min)946례,b조(20 μg/min≤8 h UAER ＜200 μg/min) 193례,c조(8 h UAER≥200μg/min)78례,계산출eGFR,병진행조간비교.결과 A조8h UAER위(32.71±79.62)μg/min,B조위(57.56±130.59)μg/min,C조위(107.50±222.64)μg/min,각조간비교차이유통계학의의(P＜0.05).a조eGFR위(110.78±32.75) ml/(min· 1.73 m2),b조위(108.26±45.78) ml/(min· 1.73 m2),c조위(94.96±32.30) ml/(min·1.73 m2),a조여c조,b조여c조비교차이유통계학의의(P＜0.05),단a조여b조비교차이무통계학의의(P=0.364).결론 재2형당뇨병신장병변적정도방면응고필신소구려과솔급뇨미량백단백량개지표,병진행종합평개.
Objective To investigate the type 2 diabetic patients with glomerular filtration rate and urinary albumin value as renal finction evaluation.Methods A total of 1217 patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy from August 1,2010 to June 31,2012 were selected.Evaluated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was calculated according to the currently recommended simplified modification of diet in renal disease study (MDRD) formula.According to the K/DOQI guidelines for chronic kidney disease,patients were divided into three groups:group A [eGFR ≥90 ml/ (min ·1.73 m2)] of 891 cases,group B [60 ml/(min· 1.73 m2) ≤eGFR ＜ 90 ml/(min· 1.73 m2)] of 256 cases,group C[eGFR ＜ 60 ml/(min· 1.73 m2)]of 70 cases,respectively.Eight-hour urinary albumin excretion rate (UAER) was compared between and among the groups; according to 8-hour UAER,patients were divided into three groups:group a (8-hour UAER ＜20 μg/min) of 946 cases,group b (20 μg/min≤8-hour UAER ＜200 μg/min) of 193 cases,group c(8-hour UAER ≥ 200 μ g/min) of 78 cases.eGFR was calculated and compared between and among the groups.Results Eight-hour UAER was (32.71 + 79.62),(57.56 + 130.59),(107.50 + 222.64) μ g/min in group A,B,C,and the difference among three groups was statistically significant (P＜0.05).eGFR was (110.78 ±32.75),(108.26 ±45.78),(94.96 ±32.30) ml/ (min ·1.73 m2) in group a,b,c,and the difference between group a and group c,or between group b and group c was statistically significant (P ＜0.05),but the difference between group a and group b was not statistically significant (P ＞0.05).Conclusion When evaluating the function of type 2 diabetic nephropathy,two indicators should be considered:glomerular filtration rate and urinary albumin.
