Waller D G, Fleming J S, Ramsey B, Gray J
Clinical Pharmacology Group, Southampton General Hospital, UK.
Postgrad Med J. 1991 Jan;67(783):42-6. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.67.783.42.
Conventional creatinine clearances involving urine collections over 2, 4 and 24 hours and creatinine clearance predicted from plasma creatinine concentrations without urine collection were compared to glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimated by 99mTc DTPA clearance in 171 patients with a wide range of GFR. All creatinine clearance methods involving urine collection had standard errors of the estimate of GFR greater than predictions from formulae. Predictions of creatinine clearance by formulae had coefficients of variation of the estimate of approximately 23% when compared to isotopically determined GFR. Creatinine clearances determined by these equations in patients with stable renal function are an easier and at least as accurate a guide to GFR as methods involving urine collection.
在171例肾小球滤过率(GFR)范围广泛的患者中,将涉及2小时、4小时和24小时尿液收集的传统肌酐清除率以及不进行尿液收集仅根据血浆肌酐浓度预测的肌酐清除率,与通过99mTc二乙三胺五乙酸(DTPA)清除率估算的肾小球滤过率进行比较。所有涉及尿液收集的肌酐清除率方法对肾小球滤过率估算的标准误差均大于公式预测值。与同位素测定的肾小球滤过率相比,公式预测的肌酐清除率估算值的变异系数约为23%。对于肾功能稳定的患者,通过这些公式确定的肌酐清除率是一种比涉及尿液收集的方法更简便且至少同样准确的肾小球滤过率指导指标。