Search

The ''Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative'' guidelines recommend laboratory reporting of a calculated estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The United Kingdom and several states already mandate reporting eGFR for every laboratory serum creatinine (sCr) measurement. In our study, we evaluated the impact of reporting eGFR on the management of hospitalized patients. We reviewed the medical records for 2000 patients, 1000 pre- and 1000 post-reporting eGFR. We excluded patients with previous diagnosis of chronic kidney disease, acute kidney failure, and end-stage renal disease. We analyzed the subgroup of patients with eGFR <60 and sCr <1.5  mg/dL. We did not notice an increase in the number of renal consult, ordering laboratory or imaging study to evaluate chronic kidney disease. The prescription habits did not change for nephrotoxic medications (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and aminoglycosides). We did not find any change in the percentage of patients who received hydration for a radiological contrast study or the use of N-acetylcysteine. In conclusion, reporting eGFR did not improve the renal management of hospitalized patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is diagnosed using the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and the urinary albumin:creatinine ratio (ACR). The eGFR is calculated from serum creatinine levels using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) or Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equations., Aim: To compare the performance of one versus two eGFR/ACR measurements, and the impact of equation choice, on CKD diagnosis and classification., Design and Setting: Cohort study in primary care in the Thames Valley region of the UK., Method: Data were from 485 participants aged >60 years in the Oxford Renal Cohort Study with at least two eGFR tests. The proportion of study participants diagnosed and classified into different CKD stages using one and two positive tests were compared. Prevalence of CKD diagnosis and classification by CKD stage were compared when eGFR was calculated using MDRD and CKD-EPI equations., Results: Participants included in the analysis had a mean age of 72.1 (±6.8) years and 57.0% were female. Use of a single screening test overestimated the proportion of people with CKD by around 25% no matter which equation was used, compared with the use of two tests. The mean eGFR was 1.4 ml/min/1.73 m 2 (95% CI = 1.1 to 1.6) higher using the CKD-EPI equation compared with the MDRD equation. More patients were diagnosed with CKD when using the MDRD equation, compared with the CKD-EPI equation, once (64% versus 63%, respectively) and twice (39% versus 38%, respectively), and 16 individuals, all of who had CKD stages 2 or 3A with MDRD, were reclassified as having a normal urinary ACR when using the CKD-EPI equation., Conclusion: Current guidance to use two eGFR measures to diagnose CKD remains appropriate in an older primary care population to avoid overdiagnosis. A change from MDRD to CKD-EPI equation could result in one in 12 patients with a CKD diagnosis with MDRD no longer having a diagnosis of CKD., (© British Journal of General Practice 2018.)