Björk Jonas, Jones Ian, Nyman Ulf, Sjöström Per
Competence Centre for Clinical Research, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2012 Jun;46(3):212-22. doi: 10.3109/00365599.2011.644859. Epub 2012 Jan 18.
The aim of this study was to validate externally the Swedish Lund-Malmö revised creatinine-based glomerular filtration rate (GFR) equations (LM Revised) in a Swedish cohort in comparison with the North American Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology (CKD-EPI) equations.
The study included 1397 examinations [median age 61 years, median body mass index (BMI) 26 kg/m(2)] in 996 patients referred for iohexol clearance (median 44 ml/min/1.73 m(2)). Bias, precision [interquartile range (IQR)], accuracy expressed as percentage of estimates ± 10% (P(10)) and ± 30% (P(30)) of measured GFR, and classification ability for five GFR stages (<15, 15-29, 30-59, 60-89 and ≥90 ml/min/1.73 m(2)) were compared.
Overall, all three equations performed satisfactorily: LM Revised, MDRD, CKD-EPI showed, respectively, a median bias of -5.8%, -2.2% and 1.7%, IQR 11.9, 12.3 and 11.7 ml/min/1.73 m(2), P(10) 35%, 34% and 38%, P(30) 84%, 79% and 79% and correctly classified GFR stages 68%, 65% and 69%. LM Revised was at least as accurate in terms of P(30) as the other equations at GFR intervals <90, while CKD-EPI was the only unbiased and the most accurate equation at ≥90 ml/min/1.73 m(2). LM Revised was more stable in terms of bias and accuracy across age and BMI groups than MDRD and CKD-EPI. Both MDRD and CKD-EPI overestimated measured GFR among elderly patients and in the small group of underweight men.
The ideal all-purpose GFR prediction equation does not exist. LM Revised should be preferred in patients with suspected or known renal insufficiency, while CKD-EPI is most useful in settings where patients with no a priori suspicion of renal impairment are evaluated. Differences in creatinine measurements between laboratories may limit the generalizability of the present validation.
本研究旨在对瑞典隆德-马尔默修订的基于肌酐的肾小球滤过率(GFR)方程(LM修订版)在瑞典队列中进行外部验证,并与北美肾脏病饮食改良(MDRD)方程和慢性肾脏病流行病学协作组(CKD-EPI)方程进行比较。
该研究纳入了996例接受碘海醇清除率检测(中位数为44 ml/min/1.73 m²)患者的1397次检测[年龄中位数61岁,体重指数(BMI)中位数26 kg/m²]。比较了偏差、精密度[四分位间距(IQR)]、以测量的GFR的±10%(P(10))和±30%(P(30))表示的准确度,以及五个GFR阶段(<15、15 - 29、30 - 59、60 - 89和≥90 ml/min/1.73 m²)的分类能力。
总体而言,所有三个方程的表现均令人满意:LM修订版、MDRD、CKD-EPI的中位数偏差分别为-5.8%、-2.2%和1.7%,IQR分别为11.9、12.3和11.7 ml/min/1.73 m²,P(10)分别为35%、34%和38%,P(30)分别为84%、79%和79%,正确分类GFR阶段的比例分别为68%、65%和69%。在GFR区间<90时,LM修订版在P(30)方面至少与其他方程一样准确,而在GFR≥90 ml/min/1.73 m²时,CKD-EPI是唯一无偏差且最准确的方程。在不同年龄和BMI组中,LM修订版在偏差和准确度方面比MDRD和CKD-EPI更稳定。MDRD和CKD-EPI在老年患者和一小部分体重过轻的男性中均高估了测量的GFR。
理想的通用GFR预测方程并不存在。对于疑似或已知肾功能不全的患者,应优先选择LM修订版方程,而在对无肾功能损害先验怀疑的患者进行评估时,CKD-EPI最有用。实验室之间肌酐测量的差异可能会限制本验证的可推广性。