Dataset Information

Predictive ability of creatinine clearance versus estimated glomerular filtration rate for outcomes in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: Subanalysis of the J-RHYTHM Registry.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Renal impairment is a risk factor for various adverse events, especially for death. In general, creatinine clearance (CrCl) is used for dose-adjustments of many drugs including oral anticoagulants, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is adopted for the diagnosis of chronic kidney disease. Predictive ability of CrCl versus eGFR for outcomes in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) remains controversial; therefore, this was compared using data from the J-RHYTHM Registry.

Methods

Out of 7406 outpatients with NVAF from 158 institutions, 6004 (age, 69.7 ± 9.9 years; men, 71.2%) having data of CrCl (mL/min, by the Cockcroft-Gault formula), eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m², by the equations of the Japanese Society of Nephrology), and body surface area (BSA) were analyzed. C-statistics (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve) of CrCl and eGFR for events were compared by DeLong's test.

Results

Thromboembolism, major hemorrhage, and all-cause death occurred in 107 (1.8%), 117 (1.9%), and 154 (2.6%) patients during the 2-year follow-up period. C-statistics of CrCl for each event were 0.609 (95% confidence interval, 0.559-0.658), 0.599 (0.548-0.657), and 0.746 (0.706-0.786); and those of eGFR were 0.542 (0.487-0.597), 0.573 (0.519-0.626), and 0.677 (0.631-0.723), respectively. C-statistics of CrCl for thromboembolism and all-cause death were significantly higher than those of eGFR (P < 0.001 for both). These results were consistent when BSA-unadjusted eGFR was used instead of eGFR (P = 0.002 for thromboembolism and P < 0.001 for all-cause death).

Conclusions

CrCl was superior to eGFR in the prediction of adverse outcomes, i.e., thromboembolism and all-cause death in Japanese patients with NVAF.

SUBMITTER: Kodani E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7298529 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Predictive ability of creatinine clearance versus estimated glomerular filtration rate for outcomes in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: Subanalysis of the J-RHYTHM Registry.

Kodani Eitaro E Inoue Hiroshi H Atarashi Hirotsugu H Tomita Hirofumi H Okumura Ken K Yamashita Takeshi T Origasa Hideki H

International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature 20200610

<h4>Background</h4>Renal impairment is a risk factor for various adverse events, especially for death. In general, creatinine clearance (CrCl) is used for dose-adjustments of many drugs including oral anticoagulants, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is adopted for the diagnosis of chronic kidney disease. Predictive ability of CrCl versus eGFR for outcomes in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) remains controversial; therefore, this was compared using data from th ...[more]

PMID: 32566722

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guideline recommends use of a cystatin C-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to confirm creatinine-based eGFR between 45 and 59 mL · min(-1) · (1.73 m(2))(-1). Prior studies have demonstrated that comorbidities such as solid-organ transplant strongly influence the relationship between measured GFR, creatinine, and cystatin C. Our objective was to evaluate the performance of cystatin C-based eGFR equations compared with creatinine-based eGFR and measured GFR across different clinical presentations. METHODS:We compared the performance of the CKD-EPI 2009 creatinine-based estimated GFR equation (eGFRCr) and the newer CKD-EPI 2012 cystatin C-based equations (eGFRCys and eGFRCr-Cys) with measured GFR (iothalamate renal clearance) across defined patient populations. Patients (n = 1652) were categorized as transplant recipients (n = 568 kidney; n = 319 other organ), known chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients (n = 618), or potential kidney donors (n = 147). RESULTS:eGFRCr-Cys showed the most consistent performance across different clinical populations. Among potential kidney donors without CKD [stage 2 or higher; eGFR >60 mL · min(-1) · (1.73 m(2))(-1)], eGFRCys and eGFRCr-Cys demonstrated significantly less bias than eGFRCr; however, all 3 equations substantially underestimated GFR when eGFR was <60 mL · min(-1) · (1.73 m(2))(-1). Among transplant recipients with CKD stage 3B or greater [eGFR <45 mL · min(-1) · (1.73 m(2))(-1)], eGFRCys was significantly more biased than eGFRCr. No clear differences in eGFR bias between equations were observed among known CKD patients regardless of eGFR range or in any patient group with a GFR between 45 and 59 mL · min(-1) · (1.73 m(2))(-1). CONCLUSIONS:The performance of eGFR equations depends on patient characteristics that are readily apparent on presentation. Among the 3 CKD-EPI equations, eGFRCr-Cys performed most consistently across the studied patient populations.

Project description:ObjectiveThere are several equations for estimating the glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and each method has its limitations. We compared various estimated GFR (eGFR) equations with 24 hours urine creatinine clearance (24u-CCr).DesignSample analysis of randomised controlled trial participants.Setting and participantsWe compared the mean 24u-CCr values measured 2-3 times for 211 patients with eGFR values calculated using the following equations: isotope dilution mass spectrometry-Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (IDMS-MDRD) equation, Chronic Kidney Disease-Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation, equations for Koreans (KOR-IDMS-MDRD and KOR-CKD-EPI) and full age spectrum equation.Outcome measuresPerformance of various creatinine-based eGFR equations, including those with Korean coefficients, compared with the results of the 24u-CCr.ResultsIDMS-MDRD showed the best overall correlation with the 24u-CCr (R=0.949, p<0.001), and KOR-CKD-EPI showed the best agreement in terms of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC, 0.969, 95% CI 0.959 to 0.976, p<0.001). In subgroup analysis, IDMS-MDRD-GFR showed the highest ICCs in CKD stages 1 and 3 (ICC 0.872 in stage 1 and 0.927 in CKD stage 3, all p<0.001). KOR-CKD-EPI showed the highest ICC in CKD stage 2 (ICC 0.854, p<0.001). Overall, the accuracy of CKD-EPI (2021) was the highest at P15 (15%) and P30 (30%) (P15: 65.4 and P30: 97.6). In addition, CKD-EPI (2021) showed the highest P30 accuracy in CKD stage 1 (98.7), whereas KOR-IDMS-MDRD showed the highest P30 accuracy in CKD stages 2 and 3 (98.8 and 98.2, respectively).ConclusionsThe IDMS-MDRD equation showed the best correlation and overall good agreement with the 24u-CCr; however, the accuracy was low. The most accurate measurements were obtained using the CKD-EPI (2021) equation in CKD stage 1 and the KOR-IDMS-MDRD equation in CKD stages 2-3; nevertheless, the CKD-EPI (2021) equation showed the best overall accuracy.Trial registration numberNCT01552954.

Project description:Background and objectivesThe tracing of creatinine (Cr) reference materials to isotope dilution mass spectrometry-assigned values was implemented worldwide to reduce interlaboratory variability and improve assay accuracy. The aims of this study were to examine the current extent of interlaboratory variability and its effect on eGFR.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsLeftover plasma from 2-3 consecutive days was obtained from 53 intensive care unit patients with a range of kidney functions. Individual patient samples were pooled and split and sent to 12 different laboratories for Cr measurement. For each patient, the mean Cr and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration eGFR (eGFR-EPI), assuming a 65-year-old nonblack woman, were determined. Interlaboratory variability was assessed by the range and SD of Cr and eGFR-EPI. This was repeated after stratifying by assay type and by the median Cr of 1.36 mg/dl. For patients whose eGFR-EPI range included 60 ml/min per 1.73 m2, the percentage of laboratories with eGFR-EPI<60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 was determined.ResultsThe mean±SD of the Cr and eGFR-EPI ranges were 0.20±0.09 mg/dl and 14±9 ml/min per 1.73 m2 for Cr<1.36 mg/dl. Jaffe Cr results were an average 0.1 mg/dl (Cr?1.36 mg/dl) and 0.05 mg/dl (Cr<1.36 mg/dl) higher than enzymatic results (P<0.001 for both). Ten patients had an eGFR-EPI range that included 60 ml/min per 1.73 m2. Their median eGFR-EPI range was 15 ml/min per 1.73 m2. There was significant discordance in the diagnosis of CKD (eGFR-EPI<60 ml/min per 1.73 m2), with laboratories using Jaffe Cr methods making the diagnosis more frequently than those using enzymatic Cr methods (60% versus 39%).ConclusionsSignificant interlaboratory variability in Cr measurement still exists. Jaffe assays yield higher Cr values than enzymatic assays, leading to lower eGFR-EPIs and more frequent CKD diagnoses. Further improvements in assay performance are required to standardize patient CKD diagnosis and to facilitate longitudinal Cr monitoring across laboratories.

Dataset Information

Predictive ability of creatinine clearance versus estimated glomerular filtration rate for outcomes in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: Subanalysis of the J-RHYTHM Registry.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Predictive ability of creatinine clearance versus estimated glomerular filtration rate for outcomes in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: Subanalysis of the J-RHYTHM Registry.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets