Discordance Between Creatinine-Based and Cystatin C-Based Estimated GFR: Interpretation According to Performance Compared to Measured GFR.
Details
Download: 37753251_BIB_C0F91D6C213F.pdf (2195.87 [Ko])
State: Public
Version: Final published version
License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
State: Public
Version: Final published version
License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Serval ID
serval:BIB_C0F91D6C213F
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Discordance Between Creatinine-Based and Cystatin C-Based Estimated GFR: Interpretation According to Performance Compared to Measured GFR.
Journal
Kidney medicine
ISSN
2590-0595 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
2590-0595
Publication state
Published
Issued date
10/2023
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
5
Number
10
Pages
100710
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article
Publication Status: epublish
Publication Status: epublish
Abstract
Use of cystatin C in addition to creatinine to estimate glomerular filtration rate (estimated glomerular filtration rate based on cystatin C [eGFRcys] and estimated glomerular filtration rate based on creatinine [eGFRcr], respectively) is increasing. When eGFRcr and eGFRcys are discordant, it is not known which is more accurate, leading to uncertainty in clinical decision making.
Cross-sectional analysis.
Four thousand fifty participants with measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) from 12 studies in North America and Europe.
Serum creatinine and serum cystatin C.
Performance of creatinine-based and cystatin C-based glomerular filtration rate estimating equations compared to mGFR.
We evaluated the accuracy of eGFRcr, eGFRcys, and the combination (eGFRcr-cys) compared to mGFR according to the magnitude of the difference between eGFRcr and eGFRcys (eGFRdiff). We used CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration) equations to estimate glomerular filtration rate. eGFRdiff was defined as eGFRcys minus eGFRcr and categorized as less than -15, -15 to <15, and ≥15 mL/min/1.73 m <sup>2</sup> (negative, concordant, and positive groups, respectively). We compared bias (median of mGFR minus eGFR) and the percentage of eGFR within 30% of mGFR.
Thirty percent of participants had discordant eGFRdiff (21.0% and 9.6% negative and positive eGFRdiffs, respectively). In the concordant eGFRdiff group, all equations displayed similar accuracy. In the negative eGFRdiff groups, eGFRcr had a large overestimation of mGFR (-13.4 [-14.5 to -12.2] mL/min/1.73 m <sup>2</sup> ) and eGFRcys had a large underestimation (9.9 [9.1-11.2] mL/min/1.73m <sup>2</sup> ), with opposite results in the positive eGFRdiff group. In both negative and positive eGFRdiff groups, eGFRcr-cys was more accurate than either eGFRcr or eGFRcys. These results were largely consistent across age, sex, race, and body mass index.
Few participants with major comorbid conditions.
Discordant eGFRcr and eGFRcys are common. eGFR using the combination of creatinine and cystatin C provides the most accurate estimates among persons with discordant eGFRcr or eGFRcys.
Cross-sectional analysis.
Four thousand fifty participants with measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) from 12 studies in North America and Europe.
Serum creatinine and serum cystatin C.
Performance of creatinine-based and cystatin C-based glomerular filtration rate estimating equations compared to mGFR.
We evaluated the accuracy of eGFRcr, eGFRcys, and the combination (eGFRcr-cys) compared to mGFR according to the magnitude of the difference between eGFRcr and eGFRcys (eGFRdiff). We used CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration) equations to estimate glomerular filtration rate. eGFRdiff was defined as eGFRcys minus eGFRcr and categorized as less than -15, -15 to <15, and ≥15 mL/min/1.73 m <sup>2</sup> (negative, concordant, and positive groups, respectively). We compared bias (median of mGFR minus eGFR) and the percentage of eGFR within 30% of mGFR.
Thirty percent of participants had discordant eGFRdiff (21.0% and 9.6% negative and positive eGFRdiffs, respectively). In the concordant eGFRdiff group, all equations displayed similar accuracy. In the negative eGFRdiff groups, eGFRcr had a large overestimation of mGFR (-13.4 [-14.5 to -12.2] mL/min/1.73 m <sup>2</sup> ) and eGFRcys had a large underestimation (9.9 [9.1-11.2] mL/min/1.73m <sup>2</sup> ), with opposite results in the positive eGFRdiff group. In both negative and positive eGFRdiff groups, eGFRcr-cys was more accurate than either eGFRcr or eGFRcys. These results were largely consistent across age, sex, race, and body mass index.
Few participants with major comorbid conditions.
Discordant eGFRcr and eGFRcys are common. eGFR using the combination of creatinine and cystatin C provides the most accurate estimates among persons with discordant eGFRcr or eGFRcys.
Keywords
Glomerular filtration rate, creatinine, cystatin, estimated GFR
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Yes
Create date
29/09/2023 14:05
Last modification date
25/01/2024 7:43