Axel Åkerblom1, Johanna Helmersson-Karlqvist2, Mats Flodin2, Anders Larsson2. 1. Department of Medical Sciences, University Hospital, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden ; Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala, Sweden ; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., USA. 2. Department of Medical Sciences, University Hospital, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Estimation of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is essential for identification, evaluation and risk prediction in patients with kidney disease. Estimated GFR (eGFR) is also needed for the correct dosing of drugs eliminated by the kidneys and to identify high-risk individuals in whom coronary angiography or other procedures may lead to kidney failure. Both cystatin C and creatinine are used for the determination of GFR, and we aimed to investigate if eGFR by the two methods differ in cardiology patients. METHODS: We compared cystatin C and creatinine (CKD-EPI) eGFR calculated from the same request from a cardiology outpatient unit (n = 2,716), a cardiology ward (n = 980), a coronary care unit (n = 1,464), and an advanced coronary care unit (n = 518) in an observational, cross-sectional study. RESULTS: The median creatinine eGFR results are approximately 10 ml/min/1.73 m(2) higher than the median cystatin C eGFR that is up to 90 ml/min/1.73 m(2), irrespective of the level of care. Creatinine eGFR resulted in a less advanced eGFR category in the majority of patients with a cystatin C eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m(2). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates a difference between creatinine and cystatin C eGFR in cardiology patients. It is important to be aware of which marker is used for the reported eGFR to minimize erroneous interpretations of the test results, as this could lead to under- or overmedication. Further studies are needed to determine the best method of estimating the GFR in cardiology units.
OBJECTIVE: Estimation of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is essential for identification, evaluation and risk prediction in patients with kidney disease. Estimated GFR (eGFR) is also needed for the correct dosing of drugs eliminated by the kidneys and to identify high-risk individuals in whom coronary angiography or other procedures may lead to kidney failure. Both cystatin C and creatinine are used for the determination of GFR, and we aimed to investigate if eGFR by the two methods differ in cardiology patients. METHODS: We compared cystatin C and creatinine (CKD-EPI) eGFR calculated from the same request from a cardiology outpatient unit (n = 2,716), a cardiology ward (n = 980), a coronary care unit (n = 1,464), and an advanced coronary care unit (n = 518) in an observational, cross-sectional study. RESULTS: The median creatinine eGFR results are approximately 10 ml/min/1.73 m(2) higher than the median cystatin C eGFR that is up to 90 ml/min/1.73 m(2), irrespective of the level of care. Creatinine eGFR resulted in a less advanced eGFR category in the majority of patients with a cystatin C eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m(2). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates a difference between creatinine and cystatin C eGFR in cardiology patients. It is important to be aware of which marker is used for the reported eGFR to minimize erroneous interpretations of the test results, as this could lead to under- or overmedication. Further studies are needed to determine the best method of estimating the GFR in cardiology units.
Authors: Michael G Shlipak; Kunihiro Matsushita; Johan Ärnlöv; Lesley A Inker; Ronit Katz; Kevan R Polkinghorne; Dietrich Rothenbacher; Mark J Sarnak; Brad C Astor; Josef Coresh; Andrew S Levey; Ron T Gansevoort Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-09-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Elisabet Nerpin; Erik Ingelsson; Ulf Risérus; Johan Sundström; Anders Larsson; Elisabeth Jobs; Magnus Jobs; Stein Hallan; Björn Zethelius; Lars Berglund; Samar Basu; Johan Arnlöv Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2011-02-18 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Mark J Sarnak; Andrew S Levey; Anton C Schoolwerth; Josef Coresh; Bruce Culleton; L Lee Hamm; Peter A McCullough; Bertram L Kasiske; Ellie Kelepouris; Michael J Klag; Patrick Parfrey; Marc Pfeffer; Leopoldo Raij; David J Spinosa; Peter W Wilson Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-10-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Bakhtawar K Mahmoodi; Kunihiro Matsushita; Mark Woodward; Peter J Blankestijn; Massimo Cirillo; Takayoshi Ohkubo; Peter Rossing; Mark J Sarnak; Bénédicte Stengel; Kazumasa Yamagishi; Kentaro Yamashita; Luxia Zhang; Josef Coresh; Paul E de Jong; Brad C Astor Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-09-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Stein I Hallan; Kunihiro Matsushita; Yingying Sang; Bakhtawar K Mahmoodi; Corri Black; Areef Ishani; Nanne Kleefstra; David Naimark; Paul Roderick; Marcello Tonelli; Jack F M Wetzels; Brad C Astor; Ron T Gansevoort; Adeera Levin; Chi-Pang Wen; Josef Coresh Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Dorothea Nitsch; Morgan Grams; Yingying Sang; Corri Black; Massimo Cirillo; Ognjenka Djurdjev; Kunitoshi Iseki; Simerjot K Jassal; Heejin Kimm; Florian Kronenberg; Cecilia M Oien; Andrew S Levey; Adeera Levin; Mark Woodward; Brenda R Hemmelgarn Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-01-29
Authors: Ahmed Alaini; Deepak Malhotra; Helbert Rondon-Berrios; Christos P Argyropoulos; Zeid J Khitan; Dominic S C Raj; Mark Rohrscheib; Joseph I Shapiro; Antonios H Tzamaloukas Journal: World J Methodol Date: 2017-09-26