Apple F, Bandt C, Prosch A, Erlandson G, Holmstrom V, Scholen J, Googins M
Clin Chem. 1986 Feb;32(2):388-90.
We measured creatinine in plasma and urine samples from 17 normal subjects and 10 renally impaired subjects by four different methods: two enzymatic--Ektachem iminohydrolase and Boehringer Mannheim amidohydrolase--and two Jaffé reaction based--Beckman Astra 8 and Technicon AutoAnalyzer I. Creatinine clearances, standardized for body surface area, were also calculated. In both groups of subjects plasma creatinine values were significantly (p less than 0.05) lower, by 3 to 4 mg/L, when measured enzymatically than when measured by the Jaffé reaction. Additionally, creatinine clearances were significantly (p less than 0.05) greater by at least 30 mL/min when calculated from enzymatically measured creatinine values vs Jaffé method values for creatinine. The benefits of lack of interference with enzymatically measured creatinine concentrations and clearances should be assessed in relation to the lack of agreement with long-established (Jaffé) methods for determining creatinine (and inulin) clearances.
我们采用四种不同方法，对17名正常受试者和10名肾功能受损受试者的血浆和尿液样本中的肌酐进行了测量：两种酶法——伊克塞姆亚氨基水解酶法和勃林格曼海姆酰胺水解酶法，以及两种基于杰氏反应的方法——贝克曼Astra 8法和Technicon自动分析仪I法。同时还计算了经体表面积标准化的肌酐清除率。在两组受试者中，酶法测量的血浆肌酐值比杰氏反应法测量的血浆肌酐值显著降低（p<0.05），降低幅度为3至4mg/L。此外，与杰氏法测量的肌酐值相比，根据酶法测量的肌酐值计算出的肌酐清除率显著更高（p<0.05），至少高出30mL/min。与长期使用的（杰氏）测定肌酐（和菊粉）清除率的方法缺乏一致性相比，应评估酶法测量肌酐浓度和清除率时不受干扰的益处。
