Division of Nephrology, Department of Geriatrics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, 300 Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, 210029, Jiangsu, China.
Int Urol Nephrol. 2012 Dec;44(6):1877-84. doi: 10.1007/s11255-012-0278-x. Epub 2012 Sep 26.
Cystatin C has been proposed as a surrogate marker of kidney function. The elderly population accounts for the largest proportion of chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic value of serum cystatin C and compare the applicability of cystatin C-based equations with serum creatinine (Scr)-based equations for estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR).
The estimated GFR (eGFR) values from six cystatin C-based equations (Tan, MacIsaac, Ma, Stevens1-3) and three Scr-based equations (CG, MDRD, CKD-EPI) were compared with the reference GFR (rGFR) values from 99mTc-DTPA renal dynamic imaging method.
A total of 110 elderly Chinese (60-92 year, 71.05±7.62 year) were enrolled. Cystatin C had better diagnostic value than Scr (relationship coefficient with rGFR: cystatin C -0.847 vs. Scr -0.729, P<0.01; sensitivity: cystatin C 0.90 vs. Scr 0.55, P<0.01; AUCROC: cystatin C 0.857 vs. Scr 0.757, P<0.01). All the equations predicted GFR more accurately for rGFR≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2 than for rGFR<60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Most equations had acceptable accuracy. The cystatin C-based equations deviated from rGFR by -12.78 ml/min/1.73 m2 to -2.12 ml/min/1.73 m2, with accuracy varying from 64.6 to 82.7%. The Scr-based equations deviated from rGFR by -5.37 ml/min/1.73 m2 to -0.68 ml/min/1.73 m2, with accuracy varying from 77.3 to 79.1%. The CKD-EPI, MacIsaac and Ma equations predicted no bias with rGFR (P>0.05), with higher accuracy and lower deviation in the total group. The MacIsaac, CKD-EPI and Stevens3 equations could be optimal for those with normal and mildly impaired kidney function, whereas the Ma equation for those with CKD.
Cystatin C is a promising kidney function marker. However, not all cystatin C-based equations could be superior to the Scr-equations.
胱抑素 C 已被提议作为肾功能的替代标志物。老年人占慢性肾脏病(CKD)患者的比例最大。本研究旨在评估血清胱抑素 C 的诊断价值,并比较胱抑素 C 为基础的方程与基于血清肌酐(Scr)的方程估算肾小球滤过率(GFR)的适用性。
使用基于 6 种胱抑素 C 的方程(Tan、MacIsaac、Ma、Stevens1-3)和 3 种基于 Scr 的方程(CG、MDRD、CKD-EPI)计算的估计肾小球滤过率(eGFR)值与 99mTc-DTPA 肾动态成像法测定的参考肾小球滤过率(rGFR)值进行比较。
共纳入 110 例中国老年人(60-92 岁,71.05±7.62 岁)。胱抑素 C 比 Scr 具有更好的诊断价值(与 rGFR 的关系系数:胱抑素 C-0.847 比 Scr-0.729,P<0.01;敏感性:胱抑素 C0.90 比 Scr0.55,P<0.01;AUCROC:胱抑素 C0.857 比 Scr0.757,P<0.01)。对于 rGFR≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2,所有方程均比 rGFR<60 ml/min/1.73 m2 更准确地预测 GFR。大多数方程具有可接受的准确性。胱抑素 C 为基础的方程与 rGFR 的偏差为-12.78 ml/min/1.73 m2 至-2.12 ml/min/1.73 m2,准确性为 64.6%至 82.7%。基于 Scr 的方程与 rGFR 的偏差为-5.37 ml/min/1.73 m2 至-0.68 ml/min/1.73 m2,准确性为 77.3%至 79.1%。CKD-EPI、MacIsaac 和 Ma 方程预测 rGFR 时无偏差(P>0.05),在总人群中具有更高的准确性和更低的偏差。MacIsaac、CKD-EPI 和 Stevens3 方程对于肾功能正常和轻度受损的患者可能是最佳选择,而 Ma 方程则适用于 CKD 患者。
胱抑素 C 是一种很有前途的肾功能标志物。然而,并非所有基于胱抑素 C 的方程都优于基于 Scr 的方程。