BACKGROUND: To compare estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) by Schwartz formula and cystatin C-derived formula in a large population of children with a large spectrum of renal disease. METHODS: Serum creatinine, cystatin C and estimated GFR were determined in 273 children, 254 with renal disease, and a mean age of 10.0+/-4.4 y. Nineteen children were used as control, with a mean age of 8.5+/-4.2 y. RESULTS: The children had nephrotic syndrome (16.5%), glomerulonephritis (11.4%), neurogenic bladder (11.4%), hydronephrosis (9.8%), asymptomatic hematuria (11%), chronic renal disease (5.9%) and other diseases (11%). Cystatin C, creatinine, Schwartz estimated GFR and cystatin C estimated GFR (mean+/-SD) were 1.30+/-1.03 mg/dl, 0.82+/-1.20 mg/l, 143+/-72 ml/min/1.73 m(2) and 88+/-36 ml/min/1.73 m(2), respectively. Although GFR estimated by creatinine and cystatin C had a significant correlation, the Bland-Altman analysis showed greater differences between GFR estimated by the 2 methods, with a mean difference of 50 ml/min. Besides, >50% of the patients with a reduced cystatin C estimated GFR had a normal GFR when analyzed by the Schwartz formula. CONCLUSIONS: Our data shows that cystatin C-based GFR is more sensitive than previous study had demonstrated. It is important to perform studies in specific populations to determine the variability in GFR measurements.
BACKGROUND: To compare estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) by Schwartz formula and cystatin C-derived formula in a large population of children with a large spectrum of renal disease. METHODS: Serum creatinine, cystatin C and estimated GFR were determined in 273 children, 254 with renal disease, and a mean age of 10.0+/-4.4 y. Nineteen children were used as control, with a mean age of 8.5+/-4.2 y. RESULTS: The children had nephrotic syndrome (16.5%), glomerulonephritis (11.4%), neurogenic bladder (11.4%), hydronephrosis (9.8%), asymptomatic hematuria (11%), chronic renal disease (5.9%) and other diseases (11%). Cystatin C, creatinine, Schwartz estimated GFR and cystatin C estimated GFR (mean+/-SD) were 1.30+/-1.03 mg/dl, 0.82+/-1.20 mg/l, 143+/-72 ml/min/1.73 m(2) and 88+/-36 ml/min/1.73 m(2), respectively. Although GFR estimated by creatinine and cystatin C had a significant correlation, the Bland-Altman analysis showed greater differences between GFR estimated by the 2 methods, with a mean difference of 50 ml/min. Besides, >50% of the patients with a reduced cystatin C estimated GFR had a normal GFR when analyzed by the Schwartz formula. CONCLUSIONS: Our data shows that cystatin C-based GFR is more sensitive than previous study had demonstrated. It is important to perform studies in specific populations to determine the variability in GFR measurements.
Authors: R Stein; C Assion; R Beetz; M Bürst; R Cremer; A Ermert; M Goepel; E Kuwertz-Bröking; B Ludwikowski; T Michael; J Pannek; H Peters; D Rohrmann; I Rübben; A Schröder; R Trollmann; J W Thüroff; W Wagner Journal: Urologe A Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 0.639