首页> 外文期刊>American Journal of Kidney Diseases: The official journal of the National Kidney Foundation >Performance of creatinine-based GFR estimating equations in solid-organ transplant recipients
【24h】

Performance of creatinine-based GFR estimating equations in solid-organ transplant recipients

机译:基于肌酸酐的GFR估计方程在实体器官移植受者中的表现

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background 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. Study Design Diagnostic test study. Setting & Participants 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%]). Index Test 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. Reference Test Measured GFR (mGFR) from urinary clearance of iothalamate or plasma clearance of iohexol. Measurements Error (difference between mGFR and eGFR) expressed as P30 (proportion of absolute percent error 30%) and mean absolute error. Results 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 m2, 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. Limitations Study population included few nonwhites and people with solid-organ transplants other than liver and kidneys. Conclusions 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.
机译:背景技术肾功能的准确评估对于实体器官移植接受者的管理很重要。在其他临床人群中,最常见的肾小球滤过率(GFR)使用CKD-EPI(慢性肾脏病流行病学协作)肌酐或4变量MDRD(肾脏疾病饮食的改变)研究方程式估算。与移植受体中其他GFR估计方程相比,这些方程的准确性尚未得到认真研究。研究设计诊断测试研究。设置和参与者来自5个临床人群的实体器官移植接受者移植后超过6个月(N = 3,622,包括肾脏[53%],肝脏[35%]和其他或多个器官[12%]的接受者)。使用基于肌酐的GFR估算方程进行指数测试估算的GFR(eGFR),该方程是从文献的系统综述中确定的。比较了CKD-EPI肌酐和MDRD研究方程的性能。参考测试从碘乙酸盐的尿清除率或碘海醇的血浆清除率测量GFR(mGFR)。测量值误差(mGFR和eGFR之间的差异)表示为P30(绝对百分比误差的比例<30%)和平均绝对误差。结果我们确定了26个GFR估计方程。平均mGFR为55.1±22.7(SD)mL / min / 1.73 m 2. P30和CKD-EPI和MDRD Study方程的平均绝对误差分别为78.9%(99.6%CI,76.9%-80.8%)和10.6 (99.6%CI,10.1-11.1)和11.0(99.6%CI,10.5-11.5)mL / min / 1.73 m2;这些方程比任何其他方程都更准确(两种测量的所有成对比较的P <0.001)。在大多数由人口统计学和临床​​特征(包括移植器官的类型)定义的亚组中,它们的表现优于或优于替代方程。局限性研究人群中只有少数非白人患者,并且接受了除肝脏和肾脏以外的实体器官移植手术的人群。结论在实体器官移植受者中,CKD-EPI肌酐和MDRD研究方程的性能优于基于肌酐的替代估计方程。它们可用于临床管理。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号