Suppr超能文献

碘海醇血浆清除率测量肾小球滤过率:计算曲线下面积的不同方法的影响。

Iohexol plasma clearance for measuring glomerular filtration rate: effect of different ways to calculate the area under the curve.

机构信息

Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven Campus Kulak Kortrijk, Etienne Sabbelaan 53, 8500, Kortrijk, Belgium.

Institute of Public Health, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

出版信息

BMC Nephrol. 2021 May 5;22(1):166. doi: 10.1186/s12882-021-02376-0.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Measuring glomerular filtration rate (GFR) using iohexol plasma clearance has been proposed as the preferred way for GFR determination. The extended multiple-sample protocol is based on fitting the full concentration-time decay-curve, and from the obtained fit-parameters, the area under the curve (AUC) and GFR (the injected dose divided by the AUC) were calculated. The goal of the current study is to evaluate the impact of different fitting procedures on the precision of GFR-results obtained from the full concentration-time curve, and compare these results with those obtained with simplified multiple-samples and single-sample protocols.

METHODS

The concentration-time curves of 8 samples at times 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 240 and 300 min after bolus injection of iohexol of 570 adults, aged 70+, from the Berlin Initiative Study (BIS), were analysed. The fit-parameters for the two-compartment model (double-exponential decay curve), and from these, the AUC and GFR were obtained with 8 different fitting procedures.

RESULTS

The two-compartmental non-linear least squares fitting procedure showed the best accuracy (541 out of 570 reported GFR-results were within 5% of the majority of the 8 fitting methods). The two-compartmental slope-intercept fitting procedure was not always applicable and the non-compartmental fitting procedures did not always allow to calculate the GFR. All correction formulas for the simplified late multiple-samples methods showed acceptable accuracy and precision with a preference for Ng's correction formula (Lin's CCC = 0.992, bias = 0.5 ± 2.5). Jacobsson's iterative method was the best one-sample method, with Lin's CCC = 0.983 and bias = - 0.6 ± 3.4.

CONCLUSION

The fitting procedure has an important impact on the precision of the calculated AUC and GFR. The simplified late-sample protocols and one-sample methods did not suffer from fitting problems and showed acceptable equivalence when compared to the full compartment GFR-results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The "Berlin Initiative Study" is officially registered with the German Register for Clinical Studies ("Deutschen Register Klinischer Studien"(DRKS)) under registration number DRKS00017058 , since April 12, 2019, and it is also visible on the WHO clinical trials registry platform (within the next 4 weeks after the registration date).

摘要

背景

使用碘海醇血浆清除率来测量肾小球滤过率(GFR)已被提议作为 GFR 测定的首选方法。扩展的多样本方案基于拟合完整的浓度-时间衰减曲线,并且从获得的拟合参数中,计算曲线下面积(AUC)和 GFR(注射剂量除以 AUC)。当前研究的目的是评估不同拟合程序对从完整浓度-时间曲线获得的 GFR 结果的精度的影响,并将这些结果与简化的多样本和单样本方案获得的结果进行比较。

方法

对来自柏林倡议研究(BIS)的 570 名 70 岁以上成年人在推注碘海醇后 30、60、90、120、150、180、240 和 300 分钟时的 8 个样本的浓度-时间曲线进行分析。使用 8 种不同的拟合程序对双室模型(双指数衰减曲线)的拟合参数进行分析,并从这些参数中获得 AUC 和 GFR。

结果

双室非线性最小二乘拟合程序显示出最佳的准确性(570 个报告的 GFR 结果中有 541 个在 8 种拟合方法中的大多数的 5%以内)。双室斜率截距拟合程序并非总是适用,非房室拟合程序也并非总是允许计算 GFR。简化的晚期多样本方法的所有校正公式都具有可接受的准确性和精密度,Ng 的校正公式(Lin 的 CCC=0.992,偏差=0.5±2.5)更受欢迎。Jacobsson 的迭代方法是最好的单样本方法,Lin 的 CCC=0.983,偏差=-0.6±3.4。

结论

拟合程序对计算 AUC 和 GFR 的精度有重要影响。简化的晚期样本方案和单样本方法没有拟合问题,与完整房室 GFR 结果相比具有可接受的等效性。

试验注册

“柏林倡议研究”于 2019 年 4 月 12 日在德国临床试验注册处(“Deutschen Register Klinischer Studien”(DRKS))正式注册,注册号为 DRKS00017058,并且也可在世界卫生组织临床试验注册平台上查看(在注册日期后的 4 周内)。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/10d2/8101203/40208fc67c78/12882_2021_2376_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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