Why the study?
Does the ambulatory arterial stiffness index correlate with target-organ damage and renal function in Chinese patients with chronic kidney disease?
Does the ambulatory arterial stiffness index correlate with target-organ damage and renal function in Chinese patients with chronic kidney disease?
In Chinese patients with chronic kidney disease, the ambulatory arterial stiffness index is independently correlated with renal function decline and cardiovascular target-organ damage such as increased left ventricular mass index.
AASI may signal concurrent renal decline and LV hypertrophy in CKD; hypothesis-generating for its prognostic value pending longitudinal studies.
BACKGROUND: The ambulatory arterial stiffness index (AASI) can be used to predict cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients. However, data on AASI in Chinese patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is not available. METHODS: This cross-sectional study enrolled 583 CKD patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate the relationship between AASI and renal function and parameters of cardiovascular injury. RESULTS: Patients with a higher AASI had a higher systolic blood pressure, a lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a higher serum cystatin C, a higher left ventricular mass index (LVMI) and carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT). Univariate analyses showed that AASI was positively correlated with serum cystatin C (r=0.296, P < 0.001), serum creatinine (r=0.182, P < 0.001), and LVMI (r = 0.205, P < 0.001) and negatively correlated with the eGFR (r = -0.200, P < 0.001). Multivariate analyses revealed that serum cystatin C, eGFR, serum creatinine and LVMI were independently correlated with AASI. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that AASI was closely correlated with renal function and parameters of cardiovascular injury in Chinese CKD patients. Good quality, long-term, large longitudinal trials to validate the role of AASI in clinical practice for Chinese CKD patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: