Pöge Uwe, Gerhardt Thomas, Stoffel-Wagner Birgit, Palmedo Holger, Klehr Hans-Ulrich, Sauerbruch Tilman, Woitas Rainer P
Department of Internal Medicine I, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Strasse 25, D 53105 Bonn, Germany.
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2007 Dec;22(12):3610-5. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfm282. Epub 2007 Sep 22.
Two modifications of the MDRD equation [the Mayo Clinic (MC) equation and Rule's refitted (RR) MDRD formula] were proposed to overcome disadvantages of the original MDRD formula to calculate glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Additionally, a correction factor for the original MDRD formula has been introduced to adapt this formula to creatinine values measured by the isotope-dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) method. Although precise determination of GFR is of central importance in renal transplant recipients, these equations have not been tested in these patients so far.
Considering the impact of different creatinine calibrations, we analysed the MC equation and the RR-MDRD formula in comparison with the old as well as the re-expressed (IDMS traceable) MDRD equation and the Cockcroft-Gault (C-G) formula in 126 consecutive patients after kidney transplantation with respect to correlation, bias, precision, accuracy and ROC analysis. GFR was determined as technetium-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid ((99m)Tc-DTPA-clearance).
After adjustment to IDMS creatinine determination, the performance of the re-expressed MDRD formula improved considerably in comparison to the original MDRD equation. In comparison with the re-expressed MDRD formula bias of the MC formula and the RR-MDRD formula were significantly smaller (2.31 and -0.35 vs 3.82 ml/min/1.73 m(2)). However, precision and correlation of these formulae did not differ significantly from one another, but all equations showed a higher precision than the C-G formula (P < or = 0.006 each). The accuracies within 30% of true GFR of the MC (79.4%) and the RR-MDRD equation (84.9%) were significantly higher than those of the re-expressed MDRD formula (72.2%; P < 0.03).
In comparison to the original and the re-expressed MDRD formula, calculation of GFR by the MC equation and the RR-MDRD formula led to improved diagnostic performance in renal transplant recipients after adjustment of creatinine. In quotidian work both formulae can be applied to these patients. Nonetheless, to determine GFR exactly, gold standard techniques are mandatory.
为克服原始MDRD公式在计算肾小球滤过率(GFR)方面的缺点,提出了两种对MDRD方程的修正方法[梅奥诊所(MC)方程和Rule重新拟合(RR)的MDRD公式]。此外,还引入了针对原始MDRD公式的校正因子,以使该公式适用于通过同位素稀释质谱法(IDMS)测量的肌酐值。尽管准确测定GFR在肾移植受者中至关重要,但到目前为止,这些方程尚未在这些患者中进行测试。
考虑到不同肌酐校准的影响,我们分析了MC方程和RR-MDRD公式,并将其与旧的以及重新表达的(可溯源至IDMS)MDRD方程和Cockcroft-Gault(C-G)公式进行比较,在126例连续肾移植患者中进行了相关性、偏差、精密度、准确性和ROC分析。GFR通过锝-二乙三胺五乙酸((99m)Tc-DTPA清除率)测定。
调整为IDMS肌酐测定后,与原始MDRD方程相比,重新表达的MDRD公式的性能有了显著改善。与重新表达的MDRD公式相比,MC公式和RR-MDRD公式的偏差显著更小(2.31和-0.35 vs 3.82 ml/min/1.73 m²)。然而,这些公式的精密度和相关性彼此之间没有显著差异,但所有方程的精密度均高于C-G公式(均P≤0.006)。MC(79.4%)和RR-MDRD方程(84.9%)在真实GFR的30%范围内的准确性显著高于重新表达的MDRD公式(72.2%;P<0.03)。
与原始和重新表达的MDRD公式相比,在调整肌酐后,通过MC方程和RR-MDRD公式计算GFR可提高肾移植受者的诊断性能。在日常工作中,这两种公式均可应用于这些患者。尽管如此,为了准确测定GFR,金标准技术是必不可少的。