Sandrine Lemoine1, Fitsum Guebre-Egziabher, Florence Sens, Marie-Sophie Nguyen-Tu, Laurent Juillard, Laurence Dubourg, Aoumeur Hadj-Aissa. 1. Departments of Renal Function Study and, †Nephrology, Edouard Herriot Hospital, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France;, ‡Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U1060, Laboratoire de Recherche en Cardiovasculaire, Métabolisme, Diabétologie et Nutrition, Lyon, France;, §University of Lyon, Université Lyon 1 Claude Bernard, Lyon, France, ‖Unité Mixte de Recherche 5305 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Adequate estimation of renal function in obese patients is essential for the classification of patients in CKD category as well as the dose adjustment of drugs. However, the body size descriptor for GFR indexation is still debatable, and formulas are not validated in patients with extreme variations of weight. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This study included 209 stages 1-5 CKD obese patients referred to the Department of Renal Function Study at the University Hospital in Lyon between 2010 and 2013 because of suspected renal dysfunction. GFR was estimated with the Chronic Kidney Disease and Epidemiology equation (CKD-EPI) and measured with a gold standard method (inulin or iohexol) not indexed (mGFR) or indexed to body surface area determined by the Dubois and Dubois formula with either real (mGFRr) or ideal (mGFRi) body weight. Mean bias (eGFR-mGFR), precision, and accuracy of mGFR were compared with the results obtained for nonobese participants (body mass index between 18.5 and 24.9) who had a GFR measurement during the same period of time. RESULTS: Mean mGFRr (51.6 ± 24.2 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)) was significantly lower than mGFR, mGFRi, and eGFRCKD-EPI. eGFRCKD-EPI had less bias with mGFR (0.29; -1.7 to 2.3) and mGFRi (-1.62; -3.1 to 0.45) compared with mGFRr (8.7; 7 to 10). This result was confirmed with better accuracy for the whole cohort (78% for mGFR, 84% for mGFRi, and 72% for mGFRr) and participants with CKD stages 3-5. Moreover, the Bland Altman plot showed better agreement between mGFR and eGFRCKD-EPI. The bias between eGFRCKD-EPI and mGFRr was greater in obese than nonobese participants (8.7 versus 0.58, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that, in obese CKD patients, the performance of eGFRCKD-EPI is good for GFR ≤ 60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). Indexation of mGFR with body surface area using ideal body weight gives less bias than mGFR scaled with body surface area using real body weight.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Adequate estimation of renal function in obesepatients is essential for the classification of patients in CKD category as well as the dose adjustment of drugs. However, the body size descriptor for GFR indexation is still debatable, and formulas are not validated in patients with extreme variations of weight. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This study included 209 stages 1-5 CKD obesepatients referred to the Department of Renal Function Study at the University Hospital in Lyon between 2010 and 2013 because of suspected renal dysfunction. GFR was estimated with the Chronic Kidney Disease and Epidemiology equation (CKD-EPI) and measured with a gold standard method (inulin or iohexol) not indexed (mGFR) or indexed to body surface area determined by the Dubois and Dubois formula with either real (mGFRr) or ideal (mGFRi) body weight. Mean bias (eGFR-mGFR), precision, and accuracy of mGFR were compared with the results obtained for nonobese participants (body mass index between 18.5 and 24.9) who had a GFR measurement during the same period of time. RESULTS: Mean mGFRr (51.6 ± 24.2 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)) was significantly lower than mGFR, mGFRi, and eGFRCKD-EPI. eGFRCKD-EPI had less bias with mGFR (0.29; -1.7 to 2.3) and mGFRi (-1.62; -3.1 to 0.45) compared with mGFRr (8.7; 7 to 10). This result was confirmed with better accuracy for the whole cohort (78% for mGFR, 84% for mGFRi, and 72% for mGFRr) and participants with CKD stages 3-5. Moreover, the Bland Altman plot showed better agreement between mGFR and eGFRCKD-EPI. The bias between eGFRCKD-EPI and mGFRr was greater in obese than nonobese participants (8.7 versus 0.58, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that, in obese CKDpatients, the performance of eGFRCKD-EPI is good for GFR ≤ 60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). Indexation of mGFR with body surface area using ideal body weight gives less bias than mGFR scaled with body surface area using real body weight.
Authors: Caroline S Fox; Martin G Larson; Eric P Leip; Bruce Culleton; Peter W F Wilson; Daniel Levy Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-02-18 Impact factor: 56.272