BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to compare the estimation of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) from 99mTc-DTPA renography with that estimated from the renal clearance of 51Cr-EDTA, creatinine and urea. METHODS: Fifty patients with reduced renal function (serum creatinine between 150 and 600 micromol/l) were enrolled in the study. GFR was estimated from the uptake phase of 99mTc-DTPA renography (GFR(DTPA)). The renal clearance of 51Cr-EDTA (GFR(EDTA)) was used as the reference method. Creatinine clearance (C(Cr)), urea clearance (C(Ur)) and the mean of urea and creatinine clearance (C(Cr+Ur)/2) were also calculated from urine collected during a period of 24 h. Limits of agreement were used for method comparison. RESULTS: The limit of agreement between GFR(DTPA) and GFR(EDTA) was 2 +/- 17 ml/min. The mean difference did not deviate significantly from zero. The other clearance techniques had larger limits of agreement and a mean difference significantly different from zero. Furthermore, C(Ur) and C(Cr+Ur)/2 had systematic deviations of the differences, indicating that C(Ur) and C(Cr+Ur)/2 are poor estimates of GFR. CONCLUSION: The limit of agreement between GFR(DTPA) and GFR(EDTA) are acceptable and, therefore, GFR estimated from 99mTc-DTPA renography is acceptable for clinical use in patients with reduced renal function. Furthermore, the method is simple and less time consuming compared with renal clearance techniques.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to compare the estimation of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) from 99mTc-DTPA renography with that estimated from the renal clearance of 51Cr-EDTA, creatinine and urea. METHODS: Fifty patients with reduced renal function (serum creatinine between 150 and 600 micromol/l) were enrolled in the study. GFR was estimated from the uptake phase of 99mTc-DTPA renography (GFR(DTPA)). The renal clearance of 51Cr-EDTA (GFR(EDTA)) was used as the reference method. Creatinine clearance (C(Cr)), urea clearance (C(Ur)) and the mean of urea and creatinine clearance (C(Cr+Ur)/2) were also calculated from urine collected during a period of 24 h. Limits of agreement were used for method comparison. RESULTS: The limit of agreement between GFR(DTPA) and GFR(EDTA) was 2 +/- 17 ml/min. The mean difference did not deviate significantly from zero. The other clearance techniques had larger limits of agreement and a mean difference significantly different from zero. Furthermore, C(Ur) and C(Cr+Ur)/2 had systematic deviations of the differences, indicating that C(Ur) and C(Cr+Ur)/2 are poor estimates of GFR. CONCLUSION: The limit of agreement between GFR(DTPA) and GFR(EDTA) are acceptable and, therefore, GFR estimated from 99mTc-DTPA renography is acceptable for clinical use in patients with reduced renal function. Furthermore, the method is simple and less time consuming compared with renal clearance techniques.
Authors: Kilian Salerno May; Gary Y Yang; Nikhil I Khushalani; Rameela Chandrasekhar; Gregory E Wilding; Leayn Flaherty; Harish K Malhotra; Richard C Russo; John C Warner; Johnny C Yap; Renuka V Iyer; Chukwumere E Nwogu; Saikrishna S Yendamuri; John F Gibbs; Hector R Nava; Dominick Lamonica; Charles R Thomas Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2010-09
Authors: Almudena Vega; Soledad García de Vinuesa; Marian Goicoechea; Ursula Verdalles; María Luz Martínez-Pueyo; Ana Chacón; Borja Quiroga; José Luño Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2013-11-22 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Alaa N A Fahmi; George S G Shehatou; Abdelhadi M Shebl; Hatem A Salem Journal: Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol Date: 2016-05-23 Impact factor: 3.000
Authors: Azrina Md Ralib; Farah Nadia Mohd Hanafiah; Iqbalmunawwir Abd Rashid; Mohamad Shahrir Abd Rahim; Fatimah Dzaharudin; Mohd Basri Mat Nor Journal: Int J Nephrol Date: 2021-09-08