BACKGROUND: Estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR) results based on serum creatinine are frequently inaccurate with differences against measured GFR (mGFR) often attributed to unmeasured non-functional factors, such as muscle mass. METHODS: The influence of muscle mass (measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, DEXA) on eGFR error (eGFR-mGFR) was evaluated using isotopic mGFR (Tc99m DTPA plasma clearance) in 137 kidney transplant recipients. Serum creatinine was measured by isotopic-calibrated enzymatic analysis, converted to eGFR using Chronic Kidney Disease EPIdemiology (CKD-EPI) formula, then unindexed from body surface area. FINDINGS: Unindexed CKD-EPI eGFR error displayed absent fixed bias but modest proportional bias against reference mGFR. eGFR error correlated with total lean mass by DEXA (r=-0·350, P<0·001) and appendicular skeletal muscle index (ASMI), a proxy for muscularity (r=-0·420, P<0·001). eGFR was falsely reduced by -5·9 ± 1·4 mls/min per 10 kg lean mass. Adipose mass and percentage fat had no effect on error. Muscle-associated error varied with each eGFR formula and influenced all CKD stages. Systemic eGFR error was predicted by ASMI, mGFR, recipient age, and trimethoprim use using multivariable regression. Residual plots demonstrated heteroscedasticity and greater imprecision at higher mGFR levels (P<0·001), from increased variance corresponding to higher absolute values and unreliable prediction by serum creatinine of high mGFR. Serum creatinine correlated with ASMI independent of mGFR level (r = 0·416, P<0·001). The diagnostic test performance of CKD-EPI eGFR to predict CKD stage 3 (by mGFR) was weakest in cachexia (sensitivity 68·4%) and muscularity (specificity 47·4%, positive predictive value 54·5% for the highest ASMI quartile). INTERPRETATION: Serum creatinine and eGFR are imperfect estimates of true renal function, with systemic errors from muscle mass, tubular secretion, and intrinsic proportional bias; and additional inaccuracy at the extremes of renal function and patient muscularity. Cautious interpretation of eGFR results in the context of body habitus and clinical condition is recommended.
BACKGROUND: Estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR) results based on serum creatinine are frequently inaccurate with differences against measured GFR (mGFR) often attributed to unmeasured non-functional factors, such as muscle mass. METHODS: The influence of muscle mass (measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, DEXA) on eGFR error (eGFR-mGFR) was evaluated using isotopic mGFR (Tc99m DTPA plasma clearance) in 137 kidney transplant recipients. Serum creatinine was measured by isotopic-calibrated enzymatic analysis, converted to eGFR using Chronic Kidney Disease EPIdemiology (CKD-EPI) formula, then unindexed from body surface area. FINDINGS: Unindexed CKD-EPI eGFR error displayed absent fixed bias but modest proportional bias against reference mGFR. eGFR error correlated with total lean mass by DEXA (r=-0·350, P<0·001) and appendicular skeletal muscle index (ASMI), a proxy for muscularity (r=-0·420, P<0·001). eGFR was falsely reduced by -5·9 ± 1·4 mls/min per 10 kg lean mass. Adipose mass and percentage fat had no effect on error. Muscle-associated error varied with each eGFR formula and influenced all CKD stages. Systemic eGFR error was predicted by ASMI, mGFR, recipient age, and trimethoprim use using multivariable regression. Residual plots demonstrated heteroscedasticity and greater imprecision at higher mGFR levels (P<0·001), from increased variance corresponding to higher absolute values and unreliable prediction by serum creatinine of high mGFR. Serum creatinine correlated with ASMI independent of mGFR level (r = 0·416, P<0·001). The diagnostic test performance of CKD-EPI eGFR to predict CKD stage 3 (by mGFR) was weakest in cachexia (sensitivity 68·4%) and muscularity (specificity 47·4%, positive predictive value 54·5% for the highest ASMI quartile). INTERPRETATION: Serum creatinine and eGFR are imperfect estimates of true renal function, with systemic errors from muscle mass, tubular secretion, and intrinsic proportional bias; and additional inaccuracy at the extremes of renal function and patient muscularity. Cautious interpretation of eGFR results in the context of body habitus and clinical condition is recommended.
Authors: Pierre Delanaye; Christophe Mariat; Etienne Cavalier; Nicolas Maillard; Jean-Marie Krzesinski; Christine A White Journal: Nephron Clin Pract Date: 2011-08-11
Authors: R N Baumgartner; K M Koehler; D Gallagher; L Romero; S B Heymsfield; R R Ross; P J Garry; R D Lindeman Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1998-04-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Josef Coresh; Tom Greene; Lesley A Stevens; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Stephen Hendriksen; John W Kusek; Frederick Van Lente Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-08-15 Impact factor: 25.391
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: Ceri Rowe; Alice J Sitch; Jonathan Barratt; Elizabeth A Brettell; Paul Cockwell; R Neil Dalton; Jon J Deeks; Gillian Eaglestone; Tracy Pellatt-Higgins; Philip A Kalra; Kamlesh Khunti; Fiona C Loud; Frances S Morris; Ryan S Ottridge; Paul E Stevens; Claire C Sharpe; Andrew J Sutton; Maarten W Taal; Edmund J Lamb Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2019-03-07 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Erika Bíró; István Szegedi; Csongor Kiss; Anna V Oláh; Mark Dockrell; Robert G Price; Tamás Szabó Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2022-07-20 Impact factor: 2.567