Back to Search
Start Over
Comparison of different equations for estimated glomerular filtration rate in Han Chinese patients with chronic kidney disease.
- Source :
-
Clinical nephrology [Clin Nephrol] 2019 May; Vol. 91 (5), pp. 301-310. - Publication Year :
- 2019
-
Abstract
- Aim: To understand the agreement, precision, and accuracy between other estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) equations and the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) creatinine-cystatin C equation (EPI&#95;Cr&#95;CysC).<br />Materials and Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 1,913 CKD patients. The eGFRs were calculated separately by creatinine clearance rate and Cockcroft-Gault equation corrected for standard body surface area (Ccr&#95;BSA and eCcr&#95;BSA); CKD-EPI creatinine equation (EPI&#95;Cr); CKD-EPI cystatin C equation (EPI&#95;CysC); EPI&#95;Cr&#95;CysC equation; Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study equation with standardized serum creatinine; and full-age spectrum creatinine equation (FAS). The EPI&#95;Cr&#95;CysC equation was used as the reference.<br />Results: When compared with the EPI&#95;Cr&#95;CysC equation, the EPI&#95;Cr equation achieved the highest agreement in eGFRs (Lin's concordance correlation coefficient = 0.936, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.930, 0.941). eCcr&#95;BSA and EPI&#95;Cr equations achieved the first and second highest percentage agreement in the accurate classification of CKD stage (72.55 vs. 71.25%). The MDRD equation had minimal bias and was closely followed by the EPI&#95;Cr equation (median difference = -1.3, 95% CI = -2.0, -0.8 vs. median difference = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.7, 3.3 mL/min/1.73m <superscript>2</superscript> ). The EPI&#95;CysC and EPI&#95;Cr equations achieved the first and second highest precision (interquartile range (IQR) of the difference = 12.2, 95% CI = 11.6, 12.9 vs. IQR of the difference = 15.5, 95% CI = 14.7, 16.3 mL/min/1.73m <superscript>2</superscript> ). The EPI&#95;Cr and MDRD equations performed similarly and both had the highest accuracy at 30% (1 - P <subscript>30</subscript> = 18.6, 95% CI = 16.9, 20.4 vs. 1 - P <subscript>30</subscript> = 18.6, 95% CI = 16.8, 20.3%).<br />Conclusion: For assessment of renal function, the EPI&#95;Cr equation performed the best and remained an acceptable alternative to the EPI&#95;Cr&#95;CysC equation in the absence of cystatin C. .
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 0301-0430
- Volume :
- 91
- Issue :
- 5
- Database :
- MEDLINE
- Journal :
- Clinical nephrology
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 30802202
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.5414/CN109420