Jeong Tae Dong, Cho Eun Jung, Lee Woochang, Chun Sail, Hong Ki Sook, Min Won Ki
Department of Laboratory Medicine, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Ann Lab Med. 2017 Sep;37(5):371-380. doi: 10.3343/alm.2017.37.5.371.
We aimed to assess the performance of the five creatinine-based equations commonly used for estimates of the glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), namely, the creatinine-based Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPIcr), Asian CKD-EPI, revised Lund-Malmö (revised LM), full age spectrum (FAS), and Korean FAS equations, in the Korean population.
A total of 1,312 patients, aged 20 yr and above who underwent ⁵¹Cr-EDTA GFR measurements (mGFR), were enrolled. The bias (eGFR-mGFR) and precision (root mean square error [RMSE]) were calculated. The accuracy (P30) of four eGFR equations was compared to that of the CKD-EPIcr equation. P30 was defined as the percentage of patients whose eGFR was within±30% of the mGFR.
The mean bias (mL·min⁻¹·1.73 m⁻²) of the five eGFR equation was as follows: CKD-EPIcr, -0.6; Asian CKD-EPI, 2.7; revised LM, -6.5; FAS, -2.5; and Korean FAS, -0.2. The bias of the Asian CKD-EPI, revised LM, and FAS equations showed a significant difference from zero (P<0.001). The RMSE values were as follows: CKD-EPIcr, 15.6; Asian CKD-EPI, 15.6; revised LM, 17.9; FAS, 16.3; and Korean FAS, 15.8. There were no significant differences in the P30 except for the Asian CKD-EPI equation: CKD-EPIcr, 76.6%; Asian CKD-EPI, 74.7%; revised LM, 75.8%; FAS, 76.0%; and Korean FAS, 75.8%.
The CKD-EPIcr and Korean FAS equations showed equivalent analytical and clinical performances in the Korean adult population.
我们旨在评估常用于估计肾小球滤过率（eGFR）的五个基于肌酐的方程，即基于肌酐的慢性肾脏病流行病学协作组（CKD-EPIcr）方程、亚洲CKD-EPI方程、修订的隆德-马尔默（revised LM）方程、全年龄谱（FAS）方程和韩国FAS方程在韩国人群中的性能。
共纳入1312例年龄在20岁及以上且接受过⁵¹Cr-EDTA肾小球滤过率（mGFR）测量的患者。计算偏差（eGFR - mGFR）和精密度（均方根误差[RMSE]）。将四个eGFR方程的准确性（P30）与CKD-EPIcr方程的准确性进行比较。P30定义为eGFR在mGFR的±30%范围内的患者百分比。
五个eGFR方程的平均偏差（mL·min⁻¹·1.73 m⁻²）如下：CKD-EPIcr为 -0.6；亚洲CKD-EPI为2.7；修订的LM为 -6.5；FAS为 -2.5；韩国FAS为 -0.2。亚洲CKD-EPI方程、修订的LM方程和FAS方程的偏差与零有显著差异（P<0.001）。RMSE值如下：CKD-EPIcr为15.6；亚洲CKD-EPI为15.6；修订的LM为17.9；FAS为16.3；韩国FAS为15.8。除亚洲CKD-EPI方程外，P30无显著差异：CKD-EPIcr为76.6%；亚洲CKD-EPI为74.7%；修订的LM为75.8%；FAS为76.0%；韩国FAS为75.8%。
CKD-EPIcr方程和韩国FAS方程在韩国成年人群中表现出相当的分析性能和临床性能。
