RESUMO
AIMS: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of the choroidal vascularity index (CVI) and diabetic retinopathy (DR) in the diagnosis of diabetic nephropathy (DN). METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of 117 patients with proteinuria and diabetes mellitus (DM) in which 45 patients were diagnosed with DN by renal pathology. Demographic information, clinical features, and laboratory data were collected. A total of 234 eyes underwent evaluation of DR and the CVI using enhanced depth imaging-optical coherence tomography scans. We analyzed the association between the CVI and DN and compared the CVI and DR for diagnosing DN using area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs). RESULTS: The severe nonproliferative DR and proliferative DR groups showed a lower CVI than the no DR and mild/moderate nonproliferative DR groups (P < 0.01 or P < 0.001). There was a significantly lower CVI in patients with DN stage III (63.01% ± 1.47%) compared with those in DN stages IIa (62.1% ± 1.41%, P < 0.001) and IIb (59.85% ± 1.98%, P < 0.01). The sensitivity and specificity of the CVI for diagnosing DN were 84% (71%-94%) and 95% (88%-99%), respectively, which were preferable to those of DR. The AUROCs for the CVI and DR for diagnosing DN were 0.932 and 0.831, respectively. The CVI outperformed DR for diagnosing DN (P < 0.05). The cutoff value of the CVI was 63.13%. CONCLUSION: The CVI might be a reliable noninvasive technique for predicting the pathological stage of DN and is superior to DR in diagnosing DN.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) underestimate the actual glycemic control levels in maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients, because of anemia and the using of erythropoietin (EPO); it was recommended that glycated albumin (GA) should be an alternative marker. Therefore, the assessment performances of glycemic control were compared between GA and HbA1c in this research by referring to mean plasma glucose (MPG) in diabetes mellitus (DM) patients undergoing MHD or not. METHODS: MPG was calculated according to the data registered at enrollment and follow-up 2 months later and corresponding HbA1c, albumin (ALB), GA, etc. were measured in 280 cases. A case-control study for comparing GA and HbA1c was done among the groups of MHD patients with DM (n=88) and without DM (NDM; n=90), and non-MHD ones with DM (n=102) using MPG for an actual glycemic control standard. RESULTS: In these 3 groups, only for DM patients' (whether undergoing MHD or not), GA and HbA1c correlated with MPG significantly (P < 0.01). Through linear regression analysis, it could be found that the regression curves of GA almost coincided in MHD and non-MHD patients with DM, because the intercepts (2.418 vs. 2.329) and slopes (0.053 vs. 0.057) were very close to each other. On the contrary, regression curves of HbA1c did not coincide in the two groups, because variance of the slopes (0.036 vs. 0.052) were relatively large. Through comparing receiver operating characteristic (ROC) areas under the curve (AUC), it could be understood that the assessment performances of GA and HbA1c in MHD patients were lower than those in non-MHD ones, and assessment performance of HbA1c in MHD patients was better than GA (P < 0.05). In addition, the effects of Hb and EPO dose on HbA1c, or that of ALB on GA were unobvious in our study. CONCLUSIONS: Actual glycemic control level in MHD patients with DM may be underestimated by HbA1c, and it could be avoided by GA; however, glycemic evaluating performance of HbA1c may be still better than that of GA. Therefore, HbA1c should not be replaced completely although GA can be used as a choice to monitor glycemic level.