OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the accuracy of three formulae that estimate creatinine clearance (CL(CR)), in elderly hospitalized patients: the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) formula and the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formulae with 4 and 6 variables (MDRD4 and MDRD6). METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional, observational study was conducted in four hospital geriatric wards. Consecutive patients admitted to the wards who were aged ≥75 years and had an indwelling urinary catheter for the purpose of care were eligible for enrolment. CL(CR) was determined via four methods: measurement of CL(CR) from plasma and urine creatinine plus 24-h urine volume; the CG formula; and the MDRD4 and MDRD6 formulae. Moderate and severe renal impairments were defined as a CL(CR) of 30.0-59.9 and <30.0 mL/min, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 157 patients were included. Their mean age (±SD) was 86.5 ± 6.1 (range 75-105) years and 46.5 % were male. The median values and interquartile ranges (IQRs) (in mL/min) were 44.0 (IQR 32.1-64.5) for measured CL(CR), 42.1 (IQR 31.3-56.3) for CG-estimated CL(CR), 64.3 (IQR 49.8-81.7) for MDRD4-estimated CL(CR) and 49.3 (IQR 37.4-63.4) for MDRD6-estimated CL(CR) (respectively, p < 0.05, p < 0.001 and p = 0.44 compared with measured CL(CR)). Biases (±SD) for CG, MDRD4 and MDRD6 CL(CR) estimates were -3.6 (±22.2), 19.3 (±26.4) and 2.4 (±22.5) mL/min, respectively. When estimated CL(CR) values were assessed against the measured value, it was found that misclassification of renal impairment (absent/moderate/severe) occurred in 41 % of patients when using the CG, in 40 % when using the MDRD6, and in 45 % when using the MDRD4. The 30 % accuracies of the three formulae were 63 % for CG, 37 % for MDRD4 and 59 % for MDRD6. CONCLUSION: In elderly hospitalized patients, CG and MDRD6 gave better predictions for measured CL(CR) than MDRD4, with no significant difference between them.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the accuracy of three formulae that estimate creatinine clearance (CL(CR)), in elderly hospitalized patients: the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) formula and the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formulae with 4 and 6 variables (MDRD4 and MDRD6). METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional, observational study was conducted in four hospital geriatric wards. Consecutive patients admitted to the wards who were aged ≥75 years and had an indwelling urinary catheter for the purpose of care were eligible for enrolment. CL(CR) was determined via four methods: measurement of CL(CR) from plasma and urine creatinine plus 24-h urine volume; the CG formula; and the MDRD4 and MDRD6 formulae. Moderate and severe renal impairments were defined as a CL(CR) of 30.0-59.9 and <30.0 mL/min, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 157 patients were included. Their mean age (±SD) was 86.5 ± 6.1 (range 75-105) years and 46.5 % were male. The median values and interquartile ranges (IQRs) (in mL/min) were 44.0 (IQR 32.1-64.5) for measured CL(CR), 42.1 (IQR 31.3-56.3) for CG-estimated CL(CR), 64.3 (IQR 49.8-81.7) for MDRD4-estimated CL(CR) and 49.3 (IQR 37.4-63.4) for MDRD6-estimated CL(CR) (respectively, p < 0.05, p < 0.001 and p = 0.44 compared with measured CL(CR)). Biases (±SD) for CG, MDRD4 and MDRD6 CL(CR) estimates were -3.6 (±22.2), 19.3 (±26.4) and 2.4 (±22.5) mL/min, respectively. When estimated CL(CR) values were assessed against the measured value, it was found that misclassification of renal impairment (absent/moderate/severe) occurred in 41 % of patients when using the CG, in 40 % when using the MDRD6, and in 45 % when using the MDRD4. The 30 % accuracies of the three formulae were 63 % for CG, 37 % for MDRD4 and 59 % for MDRD6. CONCLUSION: In elderly hospitalized patients, CG and MDRD6 gave better predictions for measured CL(CR) than MDRD4, with no significant difference between them.
Authors: Edmund J Lamb; Michelle C Webb; David E Simpson; Anthony J Coakley; David J Newman; Shelagh E O'Riordan Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Nele J Van Den Noortgate; Wim H Janssens; Joris R Delanghe; Marcel B Afschrift; Norbert H Lameire Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 5.562