Don Kyoung Choi1, See Min Choi1, Bong Hee Park2, Byong Chang Jeong1, Seong Il Seo1, Seong Soo Jeon1, Hyun Moo Lee1, Han-Yong Choi1, Hwang Gyun Jeon3. 1. Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710, Korea. 2. Department of Urology, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710, Korea. hwanggyun.jeon@samsung.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the performance of various GFR estimates compared with direct measurement of GFR (dGFR). We also sought to create a new formula for volume-based GFR (new-vGFR) using kidney volume determined by CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: GFR was measured using creatinine-based methods (MDRD, the Cockcroft-Gault equation, CKD-EPI formula, and the Mayo clinic formula) and the Herts method, which is volume-based (vGFR). We compared performance between GFR estimates and created a new vGFR model by multiple linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Among the creatinine-based GFR estimates, the MDRD and C-G equations were similarly associated with dGFR (correlation and concordance coefficients of 0.359 and 0.369 and 0.354 and 0.318, respectively). We developed the following new kidney volume-based GFR formula: 217.48-0.39XA + 0.25XW-0.46XH-54.01XsCr + 0.02XV-19.89 (if female) (A = age, W = weight, H = height, sCr = serum creatinine level, V = total kidney volume). The MDRD and CKD-EPI had relatively better accuracy than the other creatinine-based methods (30.7% vs. 32.3% within 10% and 78.0% vs. 73.0% within 30%, respectively). However, the new-vGFR formula had the most accurate results among all of the analyzed methods (37.4% within 10% and 84.6% within 30%). CONCLUSIONS: The new-vGFR can replace dGFR or creatinine-based GFR for assessing kidney function in donors and healthy individuals. KEY POINTS: • Accurate prediction of GFR is crucial in kidney donors. • DTPA is accurate but costly, invasive, and clinically difficult to apply. • Volume-based GFR estimation performs as well as the Cr-based method. • New volume-based GFR estimation performs better among GFR estimation formulas.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the performance of various GFR estimates compared with direct measurement of GFR (dGFR). We also sought to create a new formula for volume-based GFR (new-vGFR) using kidney volume determined by CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: GFR was measured using creatinine-based methods (MDRD, the Cockcroft-Gault equation, CKD-EPI formula, and the Mayo clinic formula) and the Herts method, which is volume-based (vGFR). We compared performance between GFR estimates and created a new vGFR model by multiple linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Among the creatinine-based GFR estimates, the MDRD and C-G equations were similarly associated with dGFR (correlation and concordance coefficients of 0.359 and 0.369 and 0.354 and 0.318, respectively). We developed the following new kidney volume-based GFR formula: 217.48-0.39XA + 0.25XW-0.46XH-54.01XsCr + 0.02XV-19.89 (if female) (A = age, W = weight, H = height, sCr = serum creatinine level, V = total kidney volume). The MDRD and CKD-EPI had relatively better accuracy than the other creatinine-based methods (30.7% vs. 32.3% within 10% and 78.0% vs. 73.0% within 30%, respectively). However, the new-vGFR formula had the most accurate results among all of the analyzed methods (37.4% within 10% and 84.6% within 30%). CONCLUSIONS: The new-vGFR can replace dGFR or creatinine-based GFR for assessing kidney function in donors and healthy individuals. KEY POINTS: • Accurate prediction of GFR is crucial in kidney donors. • DTPA is accurate but costly, invasive, and clinically difficult to apply. • Volume-based GFR estimation performs as well as the Cr-based method. • New volume-based GFR estimation performs better among GFR estimation formulas.
Entities:
Keywords:
Glomerular filtration rate; Kidney function test; Living donor; Multidetector computed tomography; Technetium Tc 99 m Pentetate
Authors: Enrique Lopez Hänninen; Timm Denecke; Lars Stelter; Maciej Pech; Petr Podrabsky; Johann Pratschke; Jens Ricke; Ralf Schindler; Peter Neuhaus; Ronald Felix; Stefan G Tullius; Stefen G Tullius Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 3.782
Authors: Naim Issa; Brian Stephany; Richard Fatica; Saul Nurko; Venkatesh Krishnamurthi; David A Goldfarb; William E Braun; Vincent W Dennis; Peter S Heeger; Emilio D Poggio Journal: Transplantation Date: 2007-03-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Hassan N Ibrahim; Robert Foley; LiPing Tan; Tyson Rogers; Robert F Bailey; Hongfei Guo; Cynthia R Gross; Arthur J Matas Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-01-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: E D Poggio; S Hila; B Stephany; R Fatica; V Krishnamurthi; C del Bosque; D Goldfarb; B Herts; V W Dennis; P S Heeger; W Braun Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Lesley A Stevens; Christopher H Schmid; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Alejandro F Castro; Harold I Feldman; John W Kusek; Paul Eggers; Frederick Van Lente; Tom Greene; Josef Coresh Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Doloretta Piras; Marco Masala; Alessandro Delitala; Silvana A M Urru; Nicolò Curreli; Lenuta Balaci; Liana P Ferreli; Francesco Loi; Alice Atzeni; Gianfranca Cabiddu; Walter Racugno; Laura Ventura; Magdalena Zoledziewska; Maristella Steri; Edoardo Fiorillo; Maria G Pilia; David Schlessinger; Francesco Cucca; Andrew D Rule; Antonello Pani Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Steven Habbous; Justin Woo; Ngan N Lam; Krista L Lentine; Matthew Cooper; Marian Reich; Amit X Garg Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2018-09-20