Skip to main content
. 2020 Dec 7;6(2):414–428. doi: 10.1016/j.ekir.2020.11.026

Table 5.

Relationship between histopathologic and clinical variables

Characteristic (no. of valuable biopsies) MAP (mm Hg) P value eGFR (ml/min/per 1.73 m2) P value Proteinuria (g/d) P value
M0 (164/185) 104.05±14.0 0.76 40 (27–72.75) 0.82 2.1 (1–4) 0.10
M1 (21/185) 103.08±12.9 38 (23.5–64.5) 1.5 (0.96–2.35)
E0 (104/185) 102.82±14.9 0.21 40.5 (28.25–73.75) 0.49 1.43 (0.82–2.7) <0.001
E1 (81/185) 105.39±12.4 39 (24–64) 2.85 (1.5–4.83)
S0 (37/185) 100.71±15.3 0.11 82 (38.5–117.5) <0.001 0.94 (0.38–1.75) <0.001
S1 (148/185) 104.75±13.4 37.5 (24–52.75) 2.3 (1.1–4.1)
T0 (39/185) 99.56±11.8 98 (74–116) 0.97 (0.43–2.25)
T1 (70/185) 102.11±13.06 0.01a 44.5 (33–61.5) <0.001 1.5 (1–2.67) <0.001a
T2 (76/185) 107.89±14.7 0.002b 26.5 (19–39.75) <0.001 3.3 (1.73–5.23) <0.001b
C0 (69/185) 104.17±14.1 40 (26–67) 1.9 (1–3.8)
C1 (12/185) 101.4±12.9 51 (31.3–75) 2.4 (0.9–4)
C2 (4/185) 102±4.4 0.773 36 (22.5–67.5) 0.49 3.2 (1.5–7.7) 0.78
(GS/total glomeruli)∗100
<33% (92/184) 102.33±11.3 64.5 (39.3–102) 1.5 (0.9–3)
≥33% (92/184) 105.42±16 0.13 31 (20–40) <0.001 2.5 (1.2–4.2) 0.007
IgA
+ & ++ (53/201) 107.54±17.09 0.06 31 (24-50) 0.005 1.9 (0.9-4) 0.71
+++ (148/201) 102.67±13.04 43.5 (28.25-81.5) 1.9 (1-3.5)
IgG
– & + (190/201) 104.2±14 0.3 39 (25.75-65.25) 0.031 2 (1-3.78) 0.08
++ & +++ (11/201) 99.61±19.6 67 (33-118) 1 (0.7-2.4)
IgM
- & + (196/201) 103.9±14.3 0.7 39 (25.75-65.25) 0.011 1.9 (1-3.79) 0.13
++ & +++ (4/201) 106.67±16.7 67 (33-118) 1.0 (0.34-2.1)
C3
– & + (127/201) 104.8±15 0.27 38 (26-61) 0.26 1.81 (1-3.8) 0.89
++ & +++ (74/201) 102.5±13.1 47 (24-81.25) 2.2 (0.87-3.63)

ANOVA, analysis of variance; MAP, mean arterial pressure; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate (calculated using the CKD-EPI [Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration] formula).

One-way ANOVA for significant effect of T score on MAP was F(2, 182) = 5.92, P = 0.003, post hoc comparisons using the t test with Fisher least significant difference was significant for (T1 vs. T2)a and (T0 vs. T2)b; 1-way ANOVA for significant effect of T score on eGFR was F(2, 182) = 73.84, P < 0.001, post hoc comparisons using the t test with Fisher least significant difference was significant for (T1 vs. T2), (T0 vs. T1), and (T0 vs. T2); 1-way ANOVA for significant effect of T score on proteinuria was F(2, 181) = 69.58, P < 0.001, post hoc comparisons using the t test with Fisher least significant difference was significant for (T1 vs. T2)a and (T0 vs. T2).b