Archives des maladies du coeur et des vaisseaux · 2006
[MICROALB study: screening for microalbuminuria in type 2 diabetic hypertensive patients by general practitioners in France].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sabouret P, Denolle T, Krempf M, Om S, Laville M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of microalbuminuria (MAU) detected by a specific urinary strip in type 2 diabetic hypertensive patients in metropolitan France.
METHOD: Screening for MAU with a semi-quantitative strip measuring the albumin/creatinine ratio was performed by general practitioners (GPs) in 6 type 2 diabetic hypertensive patients. This screening method was considered reliable if a preliminary search for proteinuria was performed with a usual strip and the quality of the MAU reading was good.
RESULTS: 3347 GPs screened 19,714 patients (60% M, average age 64 +/- 10 years): 43.3% had MAU. MAU screening was considered reliable for 6679 patients (61.8% M, average age 65 +/- 10 years): 48.5% had MAU (alb/creat ratio between 30 and 300 mg/g), and 10.7% had manifest MAU (alb/creat ratio >300 mg/g). In all cases, the prevalence of MAU increased with the severity of hypertension. In the population with a reliable MAU screen, the analysis of risk factors according to the level of MAU yielded the following results: [table: see text]. In the MAU+ group, the need for multiple antidiabetic (including insulin) and antihypertensive drugs was more frequent. In contrast to current guidelines, only a minority of patients received an antiplatelet agent (approximately 33%).
CONCLUSION: Despite recommendations, screening for proteinuria in type 2 diabetic hypertensive patients is seldom performed. However, the prevalence of MAU was high in this patient population. The prevalence of comorbidities and risk factors was significantly higher in the MAU+ group, with less frequent BP control despite a more aggressive antihypertensive treatment.
METHOD: Screening for MAU with a semi-quantitative strip measuring the albumin/creatinine ratio was performed by general practitioners (GPs) in 6 type 2 diabetic hypertensive patients. This screening method was considered reliable if a preliminary search for proteinuria was performed with a usual strip and the quality of the MAU reading was good.
RESULTS: 3347 GPs screened 19,714 patients (60% M, average age 64 +/- 10 years): 43.3% had MAU. MAU screening was considered reliable for 6679 patients (61.8% M, average age 65 +/- 10 years): 48.5% had MAU (alb/creat ratio between 30 and 300 mg/g), and 10.7% had manifest MAU (alb/creat ratio >300 mg/g). In all cases, the prevalence of MAU increased with the severity of hypertension. In the population with a reliable MAU screen, the analysis of risk factors according to the level of MAU yielded the following results: [table: see text]. In the MAU+ group, the need for multiple antidiabetic (including insulin) and antihypertensive drugs was more frequent. In contrast to current guidelines, only a minority of patients received an antiplatelet agent (approximately 33%).
CONCLUSION: Despite recommendations, screening for proteinuria in type 2 diabetic hypertensive patients is seldom performed. However, the prevalence of MAU was high in this patient population. The prevalence of comorbidities and risk factors was significantly higher in the MAU+ group, with less frequent BP control despite a more aggressive antihypertensive treatment.