School of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Health, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Eur Stroke J. 2023 Sep;8(3):756-768. doi: 10.1177/23969873231173282. Epub 2023 May 12.
We sought to explore whether adding kidney function biomarkers based on creatinine (eGFR), cystatin C (eGFR) or a combination of the two (eGFR) could improve risk stratification for stroke and major bleeding, and whether there were sex differences in any additive value of kidney function biomarkers.
We included participants from the UK Biobank who had not had a previous ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke or major bleeding episode, and who had kidney function measures available at baseline. Cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models tested associations between eGFR, eGFR and eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m) with ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke, major bleeding (gastrointestinal or intracranial, including haemorrhagic stroke) and all-cause mortality.
Among 452,879 eligible participants, 246,244 (54.4%) were women. Over 11.5 (IQR 10.8-12.2) years, there were 3706 ischaemic strokes, 795 haemorrhagic strokes, 26,025 major bleeding events and 28,851 deaths. eGFR was more strongly associated with ischaemic stroke than eGFR: an effect that was more pronounced in women (men - HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.12-1.19; female to male comparison - HR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.05-1.16, per 10 mL/min/1.73 m decline in eGFR). This interaction effect was also demonstrated for eGFR, but not eGFR. eGFR and eGFR were more strongly associated with major bleeding and all-cause mortality than eGFR in both men and women. Event numbers were small for haemorrhagic stroke.
To a greater degree than is seen in men, eGFR underestimates risk of ischaemic stroke and major bleeding in women compared to eGFR. The difference between measures is likely explained by non-GFR biology of creatinine and cystatin C.
Enhanced measurement of cystatin C may improve risk stratification for ischaemic stroke and major bleeding and clinical treatment decisions in a general population setting, particularly for women.
我们试图探讨在基于肌酐(eGFR)、胱抑素 C(eGFR)或两者组合(eGFR)的基础上添加肾功能生物标志物是否可以改善对中风和大出血的风险分层,以及肾功能生物标志物的任何附加价值是否存在性别差异。
我们纳入了英国生物库中未发生过缺血性或出血性中风或大出血事件且基线时可测量肾功能的参与者。特定病因的 Cox 比例风险模型检验了 eGFR、eGFR 和 eGFR(mL/min/1.73 m)与缺血性和出血性中风、大出血(胃肠道或颅内,包括出血性中风)和全因死亡率之间的关系。
在 452879 名符合条件的参与者中,246244 名(54.4%)为女性。在 11.5 年(IQR 10.8-12.2)期间,有 3706 例缺血性中风、795 例出血性中风、26025 例大出血事件和 28851 例死亡。eGFR 与缺血性中风的相关性强于 eGFR:这种相关性在女性中更为明显(男性-HR:1.16,95%CI:1.12-1.19;女性与男性比较-HR:1.11,95%CI:1.05-1.16,每 10 mL/min/1.73 m eGFR 下降)。这种交互作用在 eGFR 中也有体现,但在 eGFR 中没有体现。在男性和女性中,eGFR 和 eGFR 与大出血和全因死亡率的相关性均强于 eGFR。出血性中风的事件数量较少。
与男性相比,在女性中,eGFR 比 eGFR 更能低估缺血性中风和大出血的风险。肌酐和胱抑素 C 的非 GFR 生物学可能解释了这些测量之间的差异。
在一般人群中,增强对胱抑素 C 的测量可能会改善对缺血性中风和大出血的风险分层以及临床治疗决策,尤其是对女性。