AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We sought to characterise the effect of the age-related decline of GFR on hyperfiltration in type 2 diabetes and to identify clinical characteristics associated with hyperfiltration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: GFR was measured in 662 type 2 diabetic patients by plasma disappearance of 99 m-technetium-diethylene-triamine-penta-acetic acid. The prevalence of hyperfiltration was calculated using both an age-unadjusted GFR threshold of >130 ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2) and an age-adjusted threshold incorporating a decline of 1 ml min(-1) year(-1) after the age of 40. The hyperfiltering patients were compared with type 2 diabetic subjects who had a GFR between 90 and 130 ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2) and were matched for age, sex and disease duration to allow for identification of modifiable factors associated with hyperfiltration. RESULTS: The prevalence of hyperfiltration was 7.4% when age-unadjusted and 16.6% when age-adjusted definitions were used. The age-unadjusted vs -adjusted prevalence rates for hyperfiltration were 50 vs 50%, 12.9 vs 23.4% and 0.3 vs 9.0% for patients aged <40 years, 40 to 65 years and >65 years, respectively. Both the age-unadjusted and -adjusted hyperfiltration groups had lower mean diastolic blood pressure and lower serum creatinine levels than the control groups. Although the age-unadjusted hyperfiltration group had larger kidneys compared to the control group, this difference was no longer significant when the age-adjusted definition was used. There were no differences in HbA(1)c, mean arterial pressure, antihypertensive use, insulin therapy, dyslipidaemia, frequency of macro- or microvascular complications, BMI, urinary sodium, urea and albumin excretion between the groups. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Hyperfiltration was still more common among younger patients with type 2 diabetes even after adjusting for the expected age-related decline in GFR. Hyperfiltration was associated with a lower mean diastolic blood pressure independent of age.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We sought to characterise the effect of the age-related decline of GFR on hyperfiltration in type 2 diabetes and to identify clinical characteristics associated with hyperfiltration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: GFR was measured in 662 type 2 diabeticpatients by plasma disappearance of 99 m-technetium-diethylene-triamine-penta-acetic acid. The prevalence of hyperfiltration was calculated using both an age-unadjusted GFR threshold of >130 ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2) and an age-adjusted threshold incorporating a decline of 1 ml min(-1) year(-1) after the age of 40. The hyperfiltering patients were compared with type 2 diabetic subjects who had a GFR between 90 and 130 ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2) and were matched for age, sex and disease duration to allow for identification of modifiable factors associated with hyperfiltration. RESULTS: The prevalence of hyperfiltration was 7.4% when age-unadjusted and 16.6% when age-adjusted definitions were used. The age-unadjusted vs -adjusted prevalence rates for hyperfiltration were 50 vs 50%, 12.9 vs 23.4% and 0.3 vs 9.0% for patients aged <40 years, 40 to 65 years and >65 years, respectively. Both the age-unadjusted and -adjusted hyperfiltration groups had lower mean diastolic blood pressure and lower serum creatinine levels than the control groups. Although the age-unadjusted hyperfiltration group had larger kidneys compared to the control group, this difference was no longer significant when the age-adjusted definition was used. There were no differences in HbA(1)c, mean arterial pressure, antihypertensive use, insulin therapy, dyslipidaemia, frequency of macro- or microvascular complications, BMI, urinary sodium, urea and albumin excretion between the groups. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Hyperfiltration was still more common among younger patients with type 2 diabetes even after adjusting for the expected age-related decline in GFR. Hyperfiltration was associated with a lower mean diastolic blood pressure independent of age.
Authors: G Gragnoli; A M Signorini; I Tanganelli; C Fondelli; P Borgogni; L Borgogni; A Vattimo; F Ferrari; M Guercia Journal: Nephron Date: 1993 Impact factor: 2.847
Authors: R J Macisaac; C Tsalamandris; M C Thomas; E Premaratne; S Panagiotopoulos; T J Smith; A Poon; M A Jenkins; S I Ratnaike; D A Power; G Jerums Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2006-05-03 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Lennart Tonneijck; Marcel H A Muskiet; Mark M Smits; Erik J van Bommel; Hiddo J L Heerspink; Daniël H van Raalte; Jaap A Joles Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Harini A Chakkera; Aleksandar Denic; Walter K Kremers; Mark D Stegall; Joseph J Larson; Harish Ravipati; Sandra J Taler; John C Lieske; Lilach O Lerman; Joshua J Augustine; Andrew D Rule Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Daniela Catalano; Guglielmo M Trovato; Giuseppe Fabio Martines; Clara Pirri; Francesca M Trovato Journal: Hepatol Int Date: 2011-01-28 Impact factor: 6.047