Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Health Sciences, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Internal Medicine, Atakent Hospital, Acıbadem University, Istanbul, Turkey.
J Spinal Cord Med. 2023 Mar;46(2):231-236. doi: 10.1080/10790268.2021.1975084. Epub 2021 Oct 26.
To compare the accuracy of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation by 24-hour urinary creatinine clearance with GFR estimation by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation, the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation, the Mayo Clinic Quadratic equation (MCQE), and the modified Cockcroft-Gault formula in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI).
Cross-sectional study.
Fifty-nine consecutive subjects, who were admitted to our hospital SCI rehabilitation and no additional acute medical disorders, were enrolled in this study. A 24-hour urine sample was collected for the determination of 24-hour urinary creatinine clearance, which was assumed as the standard technique for estimation of the GFR. The accuracy of several estimation formulas includes the 4-variable MDRD equation, the 6-variable MDRD equation, the Cockcroft and Gault equation, the CKD-EPI equation, and the MCQE.
GFRs calculated by the Cockcroft-Gault equation and 4-variable MDRD were significantly different from the 24-hour urinary creatinine clearance, whereas there were no significant differences in GFRs calculated by CKD-EPI (P = 1.000), Mayo Clinic Quadratic formula (P = 0.794), and 6-variable MDRD equations (P = 0.435) and 24-hour urinary creatinine clearance. Both the 6-variable MDRD equation and CKD-EPI were accurate within ±20 of the reference methods in 52.54% of the subjects.
Among the methods used for estimation of the GFR including the 4- and 6-variable MDRD, the CKD-EPI, the modified Cockcroft-Gault equation, and the MCQE, the 6-variable MDRD equation and the CKD-EPI demonstrated best performance to estimate the GFR. However, none of the formulas were sufficient to estimate the GFR in SCI patients accurately.
比较 24 小时尿肌酐清除率和改良肾脏病饮食研究(MDRD)方程、慢性肾脏病流行病学合作(CKD-EPI)方程、Mayo 诊所二次方程(MCQE)以及改良 Cockcroft-Gault 公式对脊髓损伤(SCI)患者肾小球滤过率(GFR)的估计准确性。
横断面研究。
连续纳入 59 例因 SCI 住院且无其他急性医学疾病的患者。收集 24 小时尿液样本以测定 24 小时尿肌酐清除率,将其作为估计 GFR 的标准技术。几种估计公式的准确性包括 4 变量 MDRD 方程、6 变量 MDRD 方程、Cockcroft-Gault 方程、CKD-EPI 方程和 MCQE。
Cockcroft-Gault 方程和 4 变量 MDRD 方程计算的 GFR 与 24 小时尿肌酐清除率显著不同,而 CKD-EPI(P=1.000)、Mayo 诊所二次方程(P=0.794)和 6 变量 MDRD 方程(P=0.435)和 24 小时尿肌酐清除率计算的 GFR 无显著差异。6 变量 MDRD 方程和 CKD-EPI 在 52.54%的受试者中能准确估计±20 的参考方法。
在用于估计 GFR 的方法中,包括 4 变量和 6 变量 MDRD、CKD-EPI、改良 Cockcroft-Gault 方程和 MCQE,6 变量 MDRD 方程和 CKD-EPI 对 GFR 的估计性能最好。然而,没有一种公式足以准确估计 SCI 患者的 GFR。