Skip to main content
. 2016 Jan 26;2016:8580475. doi: 10.1155/2016/8580475

Table 3.

Biochemical data of the groups.

Groups BUN Cr NGAL
Group I (nondiabetic sham)
(n = 7)
49.83 ± 21.80
44.20
31.90–95.60
0.46 ± 0.18
0.44
0.27–0.80
446.43 ± 179.17
386.00
314.00–839.00

Group II (diabetic sham)
(n = 6)
68.52 ± 15.07
72.20
39.30–83.50
0.43 ± 0.21
0.39
0.24–0.82
350.17 ± 35.62
352.5
295.00–395.00

Group III (diabetic IR)
(n = 6)
79.62 ± 14.93
78.20
62.10–101.70
0.62 ± 0.20
0.66
0.29–0.83
891.17 ± 1308.03
363.50
296.00–3560.00

Group IV (diabetic IR + LIPC)
(n = 6)
84.68 ± 16.79
89.75
52.00–96.80
0.81 ± 0.80
0.81
0.69–0.91
1107.40 ± 1294.21
412
397.00–3385.00

p  values
p 12 0.086 0.567 0.153
p 13 0.022 0.153 0.568
p 14 0.032 0.010 0.167
p 23 0.423 0.128 0.423
p 24 0.037 0.016 0.006
p 34 0.423 0.065 0.201

Group I: nondiabetic sham, Group II: diabetic sham, Group III (diabetic IR): renal ischemia/reperfusion injury in diabetic rats group, Group IV (diabetic IR + DIPC): renal ischemia/reperfusion injury in diabetic rats group and local ischemia preconditioning, BUN: blood urea nitrogen, and serum NGAL: Cr: blood creatinine level, Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to compare two independent groups. Values are mean ± 1 SD, median, minimum, and maximum.

p 12: comparison of nondiabetic sham and diabetic sham.

p 13: comparison of nondiabetic sham and diabetic IR.

p 14: comparison of nondiabetic sham and diabetic IR + LIPC.

p 23: comparison of diabetic sham and diabetic IR.

p 24: comparison of diabetic sham and diabetic IR + LIPC.

p 34: comparison of diabetic IR and diabetic IR + LIPC.