Juan B Ivey-Miranda1, Lesley A Inker2, Matthew Griffin3, Veena Rao3, Christopher Maulion3, Jeffrey M Turner4, F Perry Wilson4, W H Wilson Tang5, Andrew S Levey6, Jeffrey M Testani7. 1. Department of Heart Failure, Hospital de Cardiologia, Centro Medico Nacional Siglo XXI, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Mexico City, Mexico; Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 2. Department of Nephrology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: linker@tuftsmedicalcenter.org. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Nephrology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 5. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 6. Department of Nephrology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. Electronic address: jeffrey.testani@yale.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from cystatin C (eGFRcys) is often considered a more accurate method to assess GFR compared with an eGFR from creatinine (eGFRcr) in the setting of heart failure (HF) and sarcopenia, because cystatin C is hypothesized to be less affected by muscle mass than creatinine. We evaluated (1) the association of muscle mass with cystatin C, (2) the accuracy of eGFRcys, and (3) the association of eGFRcys with mortality given muscle mass. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 293 patients admitted with HF. Muscle mass was estimated with a validated creatinine excretion-based equation. Accuracy of eGFRcys and eGFRcr was compared with measured creatinine clearance. Cystatin C and creatinine were 31.7% and 59.9% higher per 14 kg higher muscle mass at multivariable analysis (both P < .001). At lower muscle mass, eGFRcys and eGFRcr overestimated the measured creatinine clearance. At higher muscle mass, eGFRcys underestimated the measured creatinine clearance, but eGFRcr did not. After adjusting for muscle mass, neither eGFRcys nor eGFRcr were associated with mortality (both P > .19). CONCLUSIONS: Cystatin C levels were associated with muscle mass in patients with HF, which could potentially decrease the accuracy of eGFRcys. In HF where aberrations in body composition are common, eGFRcys, like eGFRcr, may not provide accurate GFR estimations and results should be interpreted cautiously.
BACKGROUND: The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from cystatin C (eGFRcys) is often considered a more accurate method to assess GFR compared with an eGFR from creatinine (eGFRcr) in the setting of heart failure (HF) and sarcopenia, because cystatin C is hypothesized to be less affected by muscle mass than creatinine. We evaluated (1) the association of muscle mass with cystatin C, (2) the accuracy of eGFRcys, and (3) the association of eGFRcys with mortality given muscle mass. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 293 patients admitted with HF. Muscle mass was estimated with a validated creatinine excretion-based equation. Accuracy of eGFRcys and eGFRcr was compared with measured creatinine clearance. Cystatin C and creatinine were 31.7% and 59.9% higher per 14 kg higher muscle mass at multivariable analysis (both P < .001). At lower muscle mass, eGFRcys and eGFRcr overestimated the measured creatinine clearance. At higher muscle mass, eGFRcys underestimated the measured creatinine clearance, but eGFRcr did not. After adjusting for muscle mass, neither eGFRcys nor eGFRcr were associated with mortality (both P > .19). CONCLUSIONS: Cystatin C levels were associated with muscle mass in patients with HF, which could potentially decrease the accuracy of eGFRcys. In HF where aberrations in body composition are common, eGFRcys, like eGFRcr, may not provide accurate GFR estimations and results should be interpreted cautiously.
Authors: Jeong-Ju Yoo; Sang Gyune Kim; Young Seok Kim; Bora Lee; Min Hee Lee; Soung Won Jeong; Jae Young Jang; Sae Hwan Lee; Hong Soo Kim; Young Don Kim; Gab Jin Cheon Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2019-01-08 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Srinivasan Beddhu; Matthew H Samore; Mark S Roberts; Gregory J Stoddard; Lisa M Pappas; Alfred K Cheung Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 10.121
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: Eric L Knight; Jacobien C Verhave; Donna Spiegelman; Hans L Hillege; Dick de Zeeuw; Gary C Curhan; Paul E de Jong Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Janice S C Chew-Harris; Christopher M Florkowski; Peter M George; Jane L Elmslie; Zoltan H Endre Journal: Ann Clin Biochem Date: 2012-11-05 Impact factor: 2.057
Authors: Lesley A Stevens; Christopher H Schmid; Tom Greene; Liang Li; Gerald J Beck; Marshall M Joffe; Marc Froissart; John W Kusek; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Josef Coresh; Andrew S Levey Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2008-12-31 Impact factor: 10.612