Dataset Information

Assessing glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury--true GFR versus urinary creatinine clearance and estimating equations.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Estimation of kidney function in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI), is important for appropriate dosing of drugs and adjustment of therapeutic strategies, but challenging due to fluctuations in kidney function, creatinine metabolism and fluid balance. Data on the agreement between estimating and gold standard methods to assess glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in early AKI are lacking. We evaluated the agreement of urinary creatinine clearance (CrCl) and three commonly used estimating equations, the Cockcroft Gault (CG), the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equations, in comparison to GFR measured by the infusion clearance of chromium-ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (51Cr-EDTA), in critically ill patients with early AKI after complicated cardiac surgery. METHODS: Thirty patients with early AKI were studied in the intensive care unit, 2 to 12 days after complicated cardiac surgery. The infusion clearance for 51Cr-EDTA obtained as a measure of GFR (GFR51Cr-EDTA) was calculated from the formula: GFR (mL/min/1.73m2)=(51Cr-EDTA infusion rate×1.73)/(arterial 51Cr-EDTA×body surface area) and compared with the urinary CrCl and the estimated GFR (eGFR) from the three estimating equations. Urine was collected in two 30-minute periods to measure urine flow and urine creatinine. Urinary CrCl was calculated from the formula: CrCl (mL/min/1.73m2)=(urine volume×urine creatinine×1.73)/(serum creatinine×30 min×body surface area). RESULTS: The within-group error was lower for GFR51Cr-EDTA than the urinary CrCl method, 7.2% versus 55.0%. The between-method bias was 2.6, 11.6, 11.1 and 7.39 ml/min for eGFRCrCl, eGFRMDRD, eGFRCKD-EPI and eGFRCG, respectively, when compared to GFR51Cr-EDTA. The error was 103%, 68.7%, 67.7% and 68.0% for eGFRCrCl, eGFRMDRD, eGFRCKD-EPI and eGFRCG, respectively, when compared to GFR51Cr-EDTA. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated poor precision of the commonly utilized urinary CrCl method for assessment of GFR in critically ill patients with early AKI, suggesting that this should not be used as a reference method when validating new methods for assessing kidney function in this patient population. The commonly used estimating equations perform poorly when estimating GFR, with high biases and unacceptably high errors.

SUBMITTER: Bragadottir G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4056314 | biostudies-other | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessing glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury--true GFR versus urinary creatinine clearance and estimating equations.

Bragadottir Gudrun G Redfors Bengt B Ricksten Sven-Erik SE

Critical care (London, England) 20130615 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>Estimation of kidney function in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI), is important for appropriate dosing of drugs and adjustment of therapeutic strategies, but challenging due to fluctuations in kidney function, creatinine metabolism and fluid balance. Data on the agreement between estimating and gold standard methods to assess glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in early AKI are lacking. We evaluated the agreement of urinary creatinine clearance (CrCl) and ...[more]

PMID: 23767877

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDetermining kidney function in critically ill patients is paramount for the dose adjustment of several medications. When assessing kidney function, the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is generally estimated either by calculating urine creatinine clearance (UCrCl) or using a predictive equation. Unfortunately, all predictive equations have been derived for medical outpatients. Therefore, the validity of predictive equations is of concern when compared with that of the UCrCl method, particularly in medical critically ill patients. Therefore, we conducted this study to assess the agreement of the estimated GFR (eGFR) using common predictive equations and UCrCl in medical critical care setting.MethodsThis was the secondary analysis of a nutrition therapy study. Urine was collected from participating patients over 24 h for urine creatinine, urine nitrogen, urine volume, and serum creatinine measurements on days 1, 3, 5, and 14 of the study. Subsequently, we calculated UCrCl and eGFR using four predictive equations, the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) formula, the four and six-variable Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study (MDRD-4 and MDRD-6) equations, and the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation. The correlation and agreement between eGFR and UCrCl were determined using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per subject, respectively. The performance of each predictive equation for estimating GFR was reported as bias, precision, and absolute percentage error (APE).ResultsA total of 49 patients with 170 urine samples were included in the final analysis. Of 49 patients, the median age was 74 (21-92) years-old and 49% was male. All patients were hemodynamically stable with mean arterial blood pressure of 82 (65-108) mmHg. Baseline serum creatinine was 0.93 (0.3-4.84) mg/dL and baseline UCrCl was 46.69 (3.40-165.53) mL/min. The eGFR from all the predictive equations showed modest correlation with UCrCl (r: 0.692 to 0.759). However, the performance of all the predictive equations in estimating GFR compared to that of UCrCl was poor, demonstrating bias ranged from -8.36 to -31.95 mL/min, precision ranged from 92.02 to 166.43 mL/min, and an unacceptable APE (23.01% to 47.18%). Nevertheless, the CG formula showed the best performance in estimating GFR, with a small bias (-2.30 (-9.46 to 4.86) mL/min) and an acceptable APE (14.72% (10.87% to 23.80%)), especially in patients with normal UCrCl.ConclusionFrom our finding, CG formula was the best eGFR formula in the medical critically ill patients, which demonstrated the least bias and acceptable APE, especially in normal UCrCl patients. However, the predictive equation commonly used to estimate GFR in critically ill patients must be cautiously applied due to its large bias, wide precision, and unacceptable error, particularly in renal function impairment.

Project description:Accurate estimation of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is important for diagnosis and risk stratification in chronic kidney disease and for selection of living donors. Ethnic differences have required correction factors in the originally developed creatinine-based GFR estimation equations for populations around the world. Existing equations have not been validated in the vegetarian Indian population. We examined the performance of creatinine and cystatin-based GFR estimating equations in Indians.GFR was measured by urinary clearance of inulin. Serum creatinine was measured using IDMS-traceable Jaffe's and enzymatic assays, and cystatin C by colloidal gold immunoassay. Dietary protein intake was calculated by measuring urinary nitrogen appearance. Bias, precision and accuracy were calculated for the eGFR equations.A total of 130 participants (63 healthy kidney donors and 67 with CKD) were studied. About 50% were vegetarians, and the remainder ate meat 3.8 times every month. The average creatinine excretion were 14.7 mg/kg/day (95% CI: 13.5 to 15.9 mg/kg/day) and 12.4 mg/kg/day (95% CI: 11.2 to 13.6 mg/kg/day) in males and females, respectively. The average daily protein intake was 46.1 g/day (95% CI: 43.2 to 48.8 g/day). The mean mGFR in the study population was 51.66?±?31.68 ml/min/1.73m2. All creatinine-based eGFR equations overestimated GFR (p?<?0.01 for each creatinine based eGFR equation). However, eGFR by CKD-EPICys was not significantly different from mGFR (p?=?0.38). The CKD-EPICys exhibited lowest bias [mean bias: -3.53?±?14.70 ml/min/1.73m2 (95% CI: -0.608 to -0.98)] and highest accuracy (P30: 74.6%). The GFR in the healthy population was 79.44 ± 20.19 (range: 41.90-134.50) ml/min/1.73m2.Existing creatinine-based GFR estimating equations overestimate GFR in Indians. An appropriately powered study is needed to develop either a correction factor or a new equation for accurate assessment of kidney function in the Indian population.

Project description:ImportanceEstimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is useful in many clinical conditions. However, very few studies have evaluated the performance of GFR-estimating equations in older adults at various degrees of kidney impairment.ObjectiveTo determine the performance of plasma-creatinine-based equations Chronic Kidney Disease-Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI), Lund-Malmö Revised, (LMR), full age spectrum (FAS), and Berlin Initiative Study (BIS) 1 in older adults across a broad spectrum of GFRs.Design, setting, and participantsSingle-center cross-sectional study performed in France including 2247 participants aged 65 to 90 years who underwent inulin GFR measurements from July 1, 2003, to July 30, 2017, for suspected or established renal dysfunction, for renal risk, before kidney donation, or after kidney transplant.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome measure was GRF measured by inulin clearance. Equation performance criteria considered bias (difference between estimated and measured GFR), precision (interquartile range of the median difference), and accuracy P30 (percentage of estimated GFRs lying between [measured GFR - 30% of measured GFR] and [measured GFR + 30% of measured GFR]).ResultsThe mean (SD) age of the 2247 participants was 71.5 (5) years and 1192 (53.0%) were male. The difference in median (95% CI) bias was significant between CKD-EPI vs LMR (-4.0 [-4.0 to -3.5 mL/min/1.73 m2; P?<?.001]) and CKD-EPI vs FAS (-2.0 [-3.5 to -2.5] mL/min/1.73 m2, P?<?.001) but not significant between CKD-EPI vs BIS 1 (0.0 [-1.5 to 0.5], P?=?.07, Mood test). In patients aged 65 to 74 years with measured GFR<45 mL/min/1.73 m2, the difference in median P30 (95% CI) was not significant between CKD-EPI vs LMR (P?=?.08) and CKD-EPI vs FAS (P?=?.48) but significant vs BIS 1 (P?=?.004, McNemar test). In subjects 75 years and older, with measured GFR less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2, LMR and BIS 1 were more accurate than CKD-EPI and FAS (P30?=?74.5 [70.0-79.5] and 73.0 [68.0-78.0] vs 69.0 [64.5-74.0] and 69.0 [65.5-72.0]). In all patients, despite small statistical differences, the performance of CKD-EPI equation was not clinically different from that of LMR, FAS, or BIS 1.Conclusions and relevanceIn a referral group of patients 65 years and older who had GFR estimated using CDK-EPI, LMR, BIS 1, and FAS equations, a comparison with renal inulin clearance found that none of the equations had a superior diagnostic performance. Each had limitations regarding accuracy.

Project description:Accurate assessment of kidney function is important for the management of solid-organ transplant recipients. In other clinical populations, glomerular filtration rate (GFR) most commonly is estimated using the CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration) creatinine or the 4-variable MDRD (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease) Study equation. The accuracy of these equations compared with other GFR estimating equations in transplant recipients has not been carefully studied.Diagnostic test study.Solid-organ transplant recipients longer than 6 months posttransplantation from 5 clinical populations (N=3,622, including recipients of kidney [53%], liver [35%], and other or multiple organs [12%]).Estimated GFR (eGFR) using creatinine-based GFR estimating equations identified from a systematic review of the literature. Performance of the CKD-EPI creatinine and the MDRD Study equations was compared with alternative equations.Measured GFR (mGFR) from urinary clearance of iothalamate or plasma clearance of iohexol.Error (difference between mGFR and eGFR) expressed as P30 (proportion of absolute percent error <30%) and mean absolute error.We identified 26 GFR estimating equations. Mean mGFR was 55.1±22.7 (SD) mL/min/1.73 m(2). P30 and mean absolute error for the CKD-EPI and the MDRD Study equations were 78.9% (99.6% CI, 76.9%-80.8%) for both and 10.6 (99.6% CI, 10.1-11.1) versus 11.0 (99.6% CI, 10.5-11.5) mL/min/1.73 m(2), respectively; these equations were more accurate than any of the alternative equations (P <0.001 for all pairwise comparisons for both measures). They performed better than or as well as the alternative equations in most subgroups defined by demographic and clinical characteristics, including type of transplanted organ.Study population included few nonwhites and people with solid-organ transplants other than liver and kidneys.The CKD-EPI creatinine and the MDRD Study equations perform better than the alternative creatinine-based estimating equations in solid-organ transplant recipients. They can be used for clinical management.

Project description:Estimates of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) that are based on serum creatinine are routinely used; however, they are imprecise, potentially leading to the overdiagnosis of chronic kidney disease. Cystatin C is an alternative filtration marker for estimating GFR.Using cross-sectional analyses, we developed estimating equations based on cystatin C alone and in combination with creatinine in diverse populations totaling 5352 participants from 13 studies. These equations were then validated in 1119 participants from 5 different studies in which GFR had been measured. Cystatin and creatinine assays were traceable to primary reference materials.Mean measured GFRs were 68 and 70 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) of body-surface area in the development and validation data sets, respectively. In the validation data set, the creatinine-cystatin C equation performed better than equations that used creatinine or cystatin C alone. Bias was similar among the three equations, with a median difference between measured and estimated GFR of 3.9 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) with the combined equation, as compared with 3.7 and 3.4 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) with the creatinine equation and the cystatin C equation (P=0.07 and P=0.05), respectively. Precision was improved with the combined equation (interquartile range of the difference, 13.4 vs. 15.4 and 16.4 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2), respectively [P=0.001 and P<0.001]), and the results were more accurate (percentage of estimates that were >30% of measured GFR, 8.5 vs. 12.8 and 14.1, respectively [P<0.001 for both comparisons]). In participants whose estimated GFR based on creatinine was 45 to 74 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2), the combined equation improved the classification of measured GFR as either less than 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) or greater than or equal to 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) (net reclassification index, 19.4% [P<0.001]) and correctly reclassified 16.9% of those with an estimated GFR of 45 to 59 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) as having a GFR of 60 ml or higher per minute per 1.73 m(2).The combined creatinine-cystatin C equation performed better than equations based on either of these markers alone and may be useful as a confirmatory test for chronic kidney disease. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.).

Dataset Information

Assessing glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury--true GFR versus urinary creatinine clearance and estimating equations.

Publications

Assessing glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury--true GFR versus urinary creatinine clearance and estimating equations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets