Suppr超能文献

慢性肾脏病流行病学合作组肌酐-胱抑素 C 方程评估肝硬化患者肾功能的表现。

Performance of chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration creatinine-cystatin C equation for estimating kidney function in cirrhosis.

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.

出版信息

Hepatology. 2014 Apr;59(4):1532-42. doi: 10.1002/hep.26556. Epub 2013 Sep 30.

Abstract

UNLABELLED

Conventional creatinine-based glomerular filtration rate (GFR) equations are insufficiently accurate for estimating GFR in cirrhosis. The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) recently proposed an equation to estimate GFR in subjects without cirrhosis using both serum creatinine and cystatin C levels. Performance of the new CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation (2012) was superior to previous creatinine- or cystatin C-based GFR equations. To evaluate the performance of the CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation in subjects with cirrhosis, we compared it to GFR measured by nonradiolabeled iothalamate plasma clearance (mGFR) in 72 subjects with cirrhosis. We compared the "bias," "precision," and "accuracy" of the new CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation to that of 24-hour urinary creatinine clearance (CrCl), Cockcroft-Gault (CG), and previously reported creatinine- and/or cystatin C-based GFR-estimating equations. Accuracy of CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation as quantified by root mean squared error of difference scores (differences between mGFR and estimated GFR [eGFR] or between mGFR and CrCl, or between mGFR and CG equation for each subject) (RMSE = 23.56) was significantly better than that of CrCl (37.69, P = 0.001), CG (RMSE = 36.12, P = 0.002), and GFR-estimating equations based on cystatin C only. Its accuracy as quantified by percentage of eGFRs that differed by greater than 30% with respect to mGFR was significantly better compared to CrCl (P = 0.024), CG (P = 0.0001), 4-variable MDRD (P = 0.027), and CKD-EPI creatinine 2009 (P = 0.012) equations. However, for 23.61% of the subjects, GFR estimated by CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation differed from the mGFR by more than 30%.

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic performance of CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation (2012) in patients with cirrhosis was superior to conventional equations in clinical practice for estimating GFR. However, its diagnostic performance was substantially worse than reported in subjects without cirrhosis.

摘要

目的

常规基于肌酐的肾小球滤过率(GFR)方程在估计肝硬化患者的 GFR 时不够准确。慢性肾脏病流行病学合作(CKD-EPI)最近提出了一种使用血清肌酐和胱抑素 C 水平估计无肝硬化患者 GFR 的方程。新的 CKD-EPI 肌酐-胱抑素 C 方程(2012 年)的性能优于以前基于肌酐或胱抑素 C 的 GFR 方程。为了评估 CKD-EPI 肌酐-胱抑素 C 方程在肝硬化患者中的性能,我们将其与 72 例肝硬化患者的非放射性碘酞酸盐血浆清除率(mGFR)测量值进行了比较。我们比较了新的 CKD-EPI 肌酐-胱抑素 C 方程与 24 小时尿肌酐清除率(CrCl)、 Cockcroft-Gault(CG)以及以前报告的基于肌酐和/或胱抑素 C 的 GFR 估计方程的“偏差”、“精度”和“准确性”。CKD-EPI 肌酐-胱抑素 C 方程的准确性(通过差异分数均方根误差来量化)(mGFR 与估计的 GFR [eGFR] 之间的差异、mGFR 与 CrCl 之间的差异,或每个受试者的 mGFR 与 CG 方程之间的差异)(RMSE=23.56)显著优于 CrCl(37.69,P=0.001)、CG(RMSE=36.12,P=0.002)和仅基于胱抑素 C 的 GFR 估计方程。其准确性(通过 eGFR 与 mGFR 的差异大于 30%的百分比来量化)与 CrCl(P=0.024)、CG(P=0.0001)、4 变量 MDRD(P=0.027)和 CKD-EPI 肌酐 2009(P=0.012)方程相比,差异有统计学意义。然而,对于 23.61%的受试者,CKD-EPI 肌酐-胱抑素 C 方程估计的 GFR 与 mGFR 相差 30%以上。

结论

与临床实践中常规方程相比,CKD-EPI 肌酐-胱抑素 C 方程(2012 年)在肝硬化患者中估计 GFR 的诊断性能更好。然而,其诊断性能远逊于在非肝硬化患者中的报告。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

10
Assessment of kidney function: clinical indications for measured GFR.肾功能评估:测定肾小球滤过率的临床指征。
Clin Kidney J. 2021 Feb 22;14(8):1861-1870. doi: 10.1093/ckj/sfab042. eCollection 2021 Aug.

本文引用的文献

5
A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate.一种估算肾小球滤过率的新公式。
Ann Intern Med. 2009 May 5;150(9):604-12. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-150-9-200905050-00006.
7
New data on the intraindividual variation of cystatin C.胱抑素C个体内变异的新数据。
Nephron Clin Pract. 2008;108(4):c246-8. doi: 10.1159/000124327. Epub 2008 Apr 9.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验