Alberer Martin, Hoefele Julia, Benz Marcus R, Bökenkamp Arend, Weber Lutz T
Department of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany.
Institute of Human Genetics, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Front Pediatr. 2017 Apr 11;5:66. doi: 10.3389/fped.2017.00066. eCollection 2017.
Measurement of inulin clearance is considered to be the gold standard for determining kidney function in children, but this method is time consuming and expensive. The glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is on the other hand easier to calculate by using various creatinine- and/or cystatin C (Cys C)-based formulas. However, for the determination of serum creatinine (Scr) and Cys C, different and non-interchangeable analytical methods exist. Given the fact that different analytical methods for the determination of creatinine and Cys C were used in order to validate existing GFR formulas, clinicians should be aware of the type used in their local laboratory. In this study, we compared GFR results calculated on the basis of different GFR formulas and either used Scr and Cys C values as determined by the analytical method originally employed for validation or values obtained by an alternative analytical method to evaluate any possible effects on the performance.
Cys C values determined by means of an immunoturbidimetric assay were used for calculating the GFR using equations in which this analytical method had originally been used for validation. Additionally, these same values were then used in other GFR formulas that had originally been validated using a nephelometric immunoassay for determining Cys C. The effect of using either the compatible or the possibly incompatible analytical method for determining Cys C in the calculation of GFR was assessed in comparison with the GFR measured by creatinine clearance (CrCl).
Unexpectedly, using GFR equations that employed Cys C values derived from a possibly incompatible analytical method did not result in a significant difference concerning the classification of patients as having normal or reduced GFR compared to the classification obtained on the basis of CrCl. Sensitivity and specificity were adequate. On the other hand, formulas using Cys C values derived from a compatible analytical method partly showed insufficient performance when compared to CrCl.
Although clinicians should be aware of applying a GFR formula that is compatible with the locally used analytical method for determining Cys C and creatinine, other factors might be more crucial for the calculation of correct GFR values.
菊粉清除率的测定被认为是确定儿童肾功能的金标准,但该方法耗时且昂贵。另一方面,通过使用各种基于肌酐和/或胱抑素C(Cys C)的公式,肾小球滤过率(GFR)更容易计算。然而,对于血清肌酐(Scr)和Cys C的测定,存在不同且不可互换的分析方法。鉴于为验证现有GFR公式使用了不同的肌酐和Cys C分析方法,临床医生应了解其当地实验室所使用的方法类型。在本研究中,我们比较了基于不同GFR公式计算的GFR结果,这些公式要么使用最初用于验证的分析方法所测定的Scr和Cys C值,要么使用替代分析方法获得的值,以评估对性能的任何可能影响。
通过免疫比浊法测定的Cys C值用于使用最初使用该分析方法进行验证的方程来计算GFR。此外,这些相同的值随后被用于其他最初使用散射比浊免疫测定法测定Cys C进行验证的GFR公式中。与通过肌酐清除率(CrCl)测量的GFR相比,评估了在GFR计算中使用兼容或可能不兼容的分析方法测定Cys C的效果。
出乎意料的是,与基于CrCl获得的分类相比,使用采用可能不兼容分析方法得出的Cys C值的GFR方程在将患者分类为GFR正常或降低方面没有导致显著差异。敏感性和特异性足够。另一方面,与CrCl相比,使用兼容分析方法得出的Cys C值的公式部分表现不足。
尽管临床医生应意识到应用与当地用于测定Cys C和肌酐的分析方法兼容的GFR公式,但其他因素可能对正确GFR值的计算更为关键。