UNLABELLED: Conventional creatinine-based glomerular filtration rate (GFR) equations are insufficiently accurate for estimating GFR in cirrhosis. The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) recently proposed an equation to estimate GFR in subjects without cirrhosis using both serum creatinine and cystatin C levels. Performance of the new CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation (2012) was superior to previous creatinine- or cystatin C-based GFR equations. To evaluate the performance of the CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation in subjects with cirrhosis, we compared it to GFR measured by nonradiolabeled iothalamate plasma clearance (mGFR) in 72 subjects with cirrhosis. We compared the "bias," "precision," and "accuracy" of the new CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation to that of 24-hour urinary creatinine clearance (CrCl), Cockcroft-Gault (CG), and previously reported creatinine- and/or cystatin C-based GFR-estimating equations. Accuracy of CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation as quantified by root mean squared error of difference scores (differences between mGFR and estimated GFR [eGFR] or between mGFR and CrCl, or between mGFR and CG equation for each subject) (RMSE = 23.56) was significantly better than that of CrCl (37.69, P = 0.001), CG (RMSE = 36.12, P = 0.002), and GFR-estimating equations based on cystatin C only. Its accuracy as quantified by percentage of eGFRs that differed by greater than 30% with respect to mGFR was significantly better compared to CrCl (P = 0.024), CG (P = 0.0001), 4-variable MDRD (P = 0.027), and CKD-EPI creatinine 2009 (P = 0.012) equations. However, for 23.61% of the subjects, GFR estimated by CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation differed from the mGFR by more than 30%. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation (2012) in patients with cirrhosis was superior to conventional equations in clinical practice for estimating GFR. However, its diagnostic performance was substantially worse than reported in subjects without cirrhosis.
UNLABELLED: Conventional creatinine-based glomerular filtration rate (GFR) equations are insufficiently accurate for estimating GFR in cirrhosis. The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) recently proposed an equation to estimate GFR in subjects without cirrhosis using both serum creatinine and cystatin C levels. Performance of the new CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation (2012) was superior to previous creatinine- or cystatin C-based GFR equations. To evaluate the performance of the CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation in subjects with cirrhosis, we compared it to GFR measured by nonradiolabeled iothalamate plasma clearance (mGFR) in 72 subjects with cirrhosis. We compared the "bias," "precision," and "accuracy" of the new CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation to that of 24-hour urinary creatinine clearance (CrCl), Cockcroft-Gault (CG), and previously reported creatinine- and/or cystatin C-based GFR-estimating equations. Accuracy of CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation as quantified by root mean squared error of difference scores (differences between mGFR and estimated GFR [eGFR] or between mGFR and CrCl, or between mGFR and CG equation for each subject) (RMSE = 23.56) was significantly better than that of CrCl (37.69, P = 0.001), CG (RMSE = 36.12, P = 0.002), and GFR-estimating equations based on cystatin C only. Its accuracy as quantified by percentage of eGFRs that differed by greater than 30% with respect to mGFR was significantly better compared to CrCl (P = 0.024), CG (P = 0.0001), 4-variable MDRD (P = 0.027), and CKD-EPI creatinine 2009 (P = 0.012) equations. However, for 23.61% of the subjects, GFR estimated by CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation differed from the mGFR by more than 30%. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation (2012) in patients with cirrhosis was superior to conventional equations in clinical practice for estimating GFR. However, its diagnostic performance was substantially worse than reported in subjects without cirrhosis.
Authors: E Cholongitas; L Marelli; A Kerry; D W Goodier; D Nair; M Thomas; D Patch; A K Burroughs Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: E Randers; P Ivarsen; E J Erlandsen; E F Hansen; N K Aagaard; F Bendtsen; H Vilstrup Journal: Scand J Clin Lab Invest Date: 2002 Impact factor: 1.713
Authors: Lesley A Inker; Christopher H Schmid; Hocine Tighiouart; John H Eckfeldt; Harold I Feldman; Tom Greene; John W Kusek; Jane Manzi; Frederick Van Lente; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Josef Coresh; Andrew S Levey Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-07-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Paul A Skluzacek; Robert G Szewc; Charles R Nolan; Daniel J Riley; Shuko Lee; Pablo E Pergola Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Zaid Haddadin; Vivian Lee; Christopher Conlin; Lei Zhang; Kristi Carlston; Glen Morrell; Daniel Kim; John M Hoffman; Kathryn Morton Journal: J Nucl Med Technol Date: 2017-02-02
Authors: Ayse L Mindikoglu; Antone R Opekun; Nagireddy Putluri; Sridevi Devaraj; David Sheikh-Hamad; John M Vierling; John A Goss; Abbas Rana; Gagan K Sood; Prasun K Jalal; Lesley A Inker; Robert P Mohney; Hocine Tighiouart; Robert H Christenson; Thomas C Dowling; Matthew R Weir; Stephen L Seliger; William R Hutson; Charles D Howell; Jean-Pierre Raufman; Laurence S Magder; Cristian Coarfa Journal: Transl Res Date: 2017-12-12 Impact factor: 7.012
Authors: Ayse L Mindikoglu; Thomas C Dowling; Laurence S Magder; Robert H Christenson; Matthew R Weir; Stephen L Seliger; William R Hutson; Charles D Howell Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Ayse L Mindikoglu; Antone R Opekun; William E Mitch; Laurence S Magder; Robert H Christenson; Thomas C Dowling; Matthew R Weir; Stephen L Seliger; Charles D Howell; Jean-Pierre Raufman; Abbas Rana; John A Goss; Saira A Khaderi; John M Vierling Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 3.199