Retrospective analysis investigates associations of urine biomarkers and bleeding risk in AF patients with CKD stages 3-4, suggesting clinical implications.
Methods:The study included 266 patients aged 65 to 97 years: 140 patients with AF in combination with CKD C3a (102 women -102 (71.8%)) and 126 patients with AF in combination with CKD C3b and 4 (90 women (71%)).Patients took rivaroxaban at a dosage of 15 mg or 20 mg once a day, depending on the glomerular filtration rate.All patients underwent a retrospective assessment of the presence of bleeding according to the HAS-BLED scale, analysis of the excretion of markers of renal injury (albumin; nephrin; neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL); kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1)) with urine.Additionally, an analysis of the level of markers of renal damage in the urine of 90 healthy volunteers was performed.Results: According to the risk of bleeding, patients were divided into 2 groups: Group 1 included patients with $1 point (92 patients (34.8%), average age 80.7 years).Group 2 included patients with 0 points: 174 patients (65.2%), average age 78.2 years.Of the bleeding, bruises were common in 52 patients (19%), nosebleeds were found in 22 patients (8.3%), bleeding from minor wounds was noted in 12 patients (4.3%), muscle hematomas were found in 6 patients (2.2%), bleeding from the oral cavity was found in 6 patients (2.2%), and hemorrhoidal bleeding was diagnosed in 2 patients (0.75%).The levels of NGAL and KIM-1 in urine in patients with AF and CKD in group 1 (5.6 ng/ml and 0.69 ng/ ml, respectively) were statistically significantly higher compared to patients in group 2 (4.2 ng/ml (p=0.039) and 0.39 ng/ml (p=0.019).Conclusion: Our study results indicate the presence of a statistically significant association between the presence of bleeding in patients with AF and CKD stages 3-4 receiving rivaroxaban with the level of tubular damage markers KIM-1 and NGAL in urine.I have no potential conflict of interest to disclose.I did not use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yanagita et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: