论文部分内容阅读
提要检测了不同工龄的铅接触者、铅吸收和中毒者尿中铅、ＡＬＡ、蛋白定量、β２－ｍ、Ａｌｂ、ＬＡＰ、ＬＤＨ等指标的变化，发现各组诸指标均有不同程度的改变，并进一步分组对相关性、异常率和敏感性进行对比分析。结果表明：铅引起肾混合性损伤，但对肾小管损伤比肾小球更早、更明显，尿β２－ｍ可做铅慢性肾损害的健康监护和早期诊断的敏感指标。Ｐ＜０．０１１；与低工龄组比较△Ｐ＜０．０５；与铅吸收组比较０Ｐ＜０．０５，００Ｐ＜０．０１表３不同尿铅水平段尿蛋白、尿醇的测定结果与对照组比较，Ｐ＜０．０５，Ｐ＜０．０１表３看出，随着铅作业者尿铅水平的增高，尿蛋白含量和尿酶活性也随之增加，尿β２－ｍ变化出现早，且最为突出，其次是ＬＤＨ、ＬＡＰ。提示各指标与尿铅水平有良好的相关性。（三）尿β２－ｍ与其它指标的关系表４表明β２－ｍ与尿铅、尿ＡＬＡ及尿酶、尿蛋白等各项指标均有显著的相关性。表４尿β２－ｍ与其它备指标的相关性（四）各指标敏感性比较以各肾功能检测指标的９５％单侧上限为界值，铅作业者异常情况见表５。显然尿β２－ｍ异常率最高，与尿Ａｌｂ异常率比较有显著性差异。表５铅作业者各肾功能指标的异常人数和异常率Ｐ＜０．０５与尿Ａｌｂ组比较进一步?
Abstract The change of lead, ALA, protein content, β2-m, Alb, LAP and LDH in urine of lead cadres of different ages and lead absorption and poisoning were detected. The indexes of each group were found to be changed to some extent, And further grouped the correlation, abnormal rate and sensitivity for comparative analysis. The results showed that lead induced renal mixed injury, but renal tubular injury earlier than glomerular, and more obvious, urinary β2-m can be used as a sensitive indicator of health monitoring and early diagnosis of lead-induced chronic kidney injury. P <0.011; Compared with low-age group △ P <0.05; Compared with lead absorption group 0P <0.05,00P <0.01 Table 3 urine lead levels of urine protein and urinary alcohol determination results and The control group, P <0.05, P <0.01 Table 3 shows that as lead levels of lead in urine increased, urinary protein content and urease activity also increased urine β2-m changes early , And the most prominent, followed by LDH, LAP. Prompt indicators of urine lead levels have a good correlation. (C) the relationship between urinary β2-m and other indicators Table 4 shows that β2-m and urine lead, urine ALA and urine enzymes, urine protein and other indicators were significantly correlated. Table 4 urinary β2-m and other indicators of the correlation (D) the sensitivity of each index 95% of the renal function test indicators unilateral upper limit of the cut-off, lead workers abnormalities in Table 5. Obviously the highest urinary β2-m abnormal rate, and urine Alb abnormal rate was significantly different. Table 5 lead workers of various renal function abnormalities and the number of abnormalities P <0.05 compared with the urine Alb group?