Mi Jung Lee1, Jung Tak Park2, Kyoung Sook Park2, Young Eun Kwon3, Hyung Jung Oh2, Tae-Hyun Yoo2, Yong-Lim Kim4,5, Yon Su Kim5,6, Chul Woo Yang5,7, Nam-Ho Kim5,8, Shin-Wook Kang2,5, Seung Hyeok Han9. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnamsi, Korea. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Myongji Hospital, Seonam University College of Medicine, Goyangsi, Korea. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea. 5. Clinical Research Center for End-Stage Renal Disease, Daegu, Korea. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 7. Department of Internal Medicine, Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; and. 8. Department of Internal Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea. 9. Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; hansh@yuhs.ac.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Residual kidney function can be assessed by simply measuring urine volume, calculating GFR using 24-hour urine collection, or estimating GFR using the proposed equation (eGFR). We aimed to investigate the relative prognostic value of these residual kidney function parameters in patients on dialysis. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Using the database from a nationwide prospective cohort study, we compared differential implications of the residual kidney function indices in 1946 patients on dialysis at 36 dialysis centers in Korea between August 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014. Residual GFR calculated using 24-hour urine collection was determined by an average of renal urea and creatinine clearance on the basis of 24-hour urine collection. eGFR-urea, creatinine and eGFR β2-microglobulin were calculated from the equations using serum urea and creatinine and β2-microglobulin, respectively. The primary outcome was all-cause death. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 42 months, 385 (19.8%) patients died. In multivariable Cox analyses, residual urine volume (hazard ratio, 0.96 per 0.1-L/d higher volume; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 0.98) and GFR calculated using 24-hour urine collection (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.95 to 0.99) were independently associated with all-cause mortality. In 1640 patients who had eGFR β2-microglobulin data, eGFR β2-microglobulin (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 0.99) was also significantly associated with all-cause mortality as well as residual urine volume (hazard ratio, 0.96 per 0.1-L/d higher volume; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 0.98) and GFR calculated using 24-hour urine collection (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.95 to 0.99). When each residual kidney function index was added to the base model, only urine volume improved the predictability for all-cause mortality (net reclassification index =0.11, P=0.01; integrated discrimination improvement =0.01, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Higher residual urine volume was significantly associated with a lower risk of death and exhibited a stronger association with mortality than GFR calculated using 24-hour urine collection and eGFR-urea, creatinine. These results suggest that determining residual urine volume may be beneficial to predict patient survival in patients on dialysis.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Residual kidney function can be assessed by simply measuring urine volume, calculating GFR using 24-hour urine collection, or estimating GFR using the proposed equation (eGFR). We aimed to investigate the relative prognostic value of these residual kidney function parameters in patients on dialysis. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Using the database from a nationwide prospective cohort study, we compared differential implications of the residual kidney function indices in 1946 patients on dialysis at 36 dialysis centers in Korea between August 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014. Residual GFR calculated using 24-hour urine collection was determined by an average of renal urea and creatinine clearance on the basis of 24-hour urine collection. eGFR-urea, creatinine and eGFR β2-microglobulin were calculated from the equations using serum urea and creatinine and β2-microglobulin, respectively. The primary outcome was all-cause death. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 42 months, 385 (19.8%) patients died. In multivariable Cox analyses, residual urine volume (hazard ratio, 0.96 per 0.1-L/d higher volume; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 0.98) and GFR calculated using 24-hour urine collection (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.95 to 0.99) were independently associated with all-cause mortality. In 1640 patients who had eGFR β2-microglobulin data, eGFR β2-microglobulin (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 0.99) was also significantly associated with all-cause mortality as well as residual urine volume (hazard ratio, 0.96 per 0.1-L/d higher volume; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 0.98) and GFR calculated using 24-hour urine collection (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.95 to 0.99). When each residual kidney function index was added to the base model, only urine volume improved the predictability for all-cause mortality (net reclassification index =0.11, P=0.01; integrated discrimination improvement =0.01, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Higher residual urine volume was significantly associated with a lower risk of death and exhibited a stronger association with mortality than GFR calculated using 24-hour urine collection and eGFR-urea, creatinine. These results suggest that determining residual urine volume may be beneficial to predict patient survival in patients on dialysis.
Authors: E Lars Penne; Neelke C van der Weerd; Muriel P C Grooteman; Albert H A Mazairac; Marinus A van den Dorpel; Menso J Nubé; Michiel L Bots; Renée Lévesque; Piet M ter Wee; Peter J Blankestijn Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Mi Jung Lee; Fa Mee Doh; Chan Ho Kim; Hyang Mo Koo; Hyung Jung Oh; Jung Tak Park; Seung Hyeok Han; Tae-Hyun Yoo; Yong-Lim Kim; Yon Su Kim; Chul Woo Yang; Nam-Ho Kim; Shin-Wook Kang Journal: Am J Nephrol Date: 2014-05-10 Impact factor: 3.754
Authors: K D Nolph; H L Moore; B Prowant; M Meyer; Z J Twardowski; R Khanna; L Ponferrada; P Keshaviah Journal: Perit Dial Int Date: 1993 Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Fabian Termorshuizen; Johanna C Korevaar; Friedo W Dekker; Jeannette G van Manen; Elisabeth W Boeschoten; Raymond T Krediet Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Nidhi Sukul; Junhui Zhao; Douglas S Fuller; Angelo Karaboyas; Brian Bieber; James A Sloand; Lalita Subramanian; David W Johnson; Matthew J Oliver; Kriang Tungsanga; Tadashi Tomo; Rachael L Morton; Hal Morgenstern; Bruce M Robinson; Jeffrey Perl Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Elena Rodríguez-Sánchez; José Alberto Navarro-García; Jennifer Aceves-Ripoll; Judith Abarca-Zabalía; Andrea Susmozas-Sánchez; Teresa Bada-Bosch; Eduardo Hernández; Evangelina Mérida-Herrero; Amado Andrés; Manuel Praga; Mario Fernández-Ruiz; José María Aguado; Julián Segura; Luis Miguel Ruilope; Gema Ruiz-Hurtado Journal: Biomolecules Date: 2020-03-26
Authors: Kyung Don Yoo; Clara Tammy Kim; Yunmi Kim; Hyo Jin Kim; Jae Yoon Park; Ji In Park; Yun Kyu Oh; Shin-Wook Kang; Chul Woo Yang; Yong-Lim Kim; Yon Su Kim; Chun Soo Lim; Jung Pyo Lee Journal: Kidney Int Rep Date: 2018-08-04