BACKGROUND: To overcome disadvantages of serum creatinine two strategies have been suggested to identify patients with reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR). On the one hand, the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation is now recommended to classify the stage of chronic kidney disease. On the other hand, cystatin C (Cys C) has been investigated in numerous studies, finding a higher sensitivity than creatinine in detecting diminished GFR. To date, no comparison of both strategies in patients after renal transplantation has been performed. METHODS: One hundred and five consecutive renal transplant recipients underwent (99m)Tc-DTPA-- clearance measurement. Simultaneously, MDRD estimates were calculated and Cys C serum levels were determined. ROC analyses were performed at different decision points from 20 to 70 mL/min/1.73 m(2). RESULTS: Although the area under the curve did not differ significantly between MDRD and Cys C within the tested GFR range, the AUC for Cys C tended to be higher when GFR exceeded 55 mL/min/1.73 m(2). A significantly higher diagnostic accuracy for Cys C compared with MDRD (p = 0.045 at 65 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) was found when investigating the subgroup of patients with well-functioning grafts (GFR>40 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). CONCLUSION: MDRD equation is equivalent to Cys C measurement in renal transplant recipients. As availability of MDRD is superior to Cys C, we recommend GFR estimation using the MDRD equation. Nevertheless, Cys C may serve as a confirmation test of high MDRD estimates in patients with well-functioning grafts because of superior accuracy in these patients.
BACKGROUND: To overcome disadvantages of serum creatinine two strategies have been suggested to identify patients with reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR). On the one hand, the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation is now recommended to classify the stage of chronic kidney disease. On the other hand, cystatin C (Cys C) has been investigated in numerous studies, finding a higher sensitivity than creatinine in detecting diminished GFR. To date, no comparison of both strategies in patients after renal transplantation has been performed. METHODS: One hundred and five consecutive renal transplant recipients underwent (99m)Tc-DTPA-- clearance measurement. Simultaneously, MDRD estimates were calculated and Cys C serum levels were determined. ROC analyses were performed at different decision points from 20 to 70 mL/min/1.73 m(2). RESULTS: Although the area under the curve did not differ significantly between MDRD and Cys C within the tested GFR range, the AUC for Cys C tended to be higher when GFR exceeded 55 mL/min/1.73 m(2). A significantly higher diagnostic accuracy for Cys C compared with MDRD (p = 0.045 at 65 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) was found when investigating the subgroup of patients with well-functioning grafts (GFR>40 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). CONCLUSION: MDRD equation is equivalent to Cys C measurement in renal transplant recipients. As availability of MDRD is superior to Cys C, we recommend GFR estimation using the MDRD equation. Nevertheless, Cys C may serve as a confirmation test of high MDRD estimates in patients with well-functioning grafts because of superior accuracy in these patients.