Suppr超能文献

创伤患者肌酐清除率估算方法的比较

Comparison of creatinine clearance estimation methods in patients with trauma.

作者信息

Davis G A, Chandler M H

机构信息

College of Pharmacy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA.

出版信息

Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1996 May 1;53(9):1028-32. doi: 10.1093/ajhp/53.9.1028.

Abstract

The abilities of a modified Cockcroft-Gault equation and the standard equation to estimate creatinine clearance (CLcr) in trauma patients were compared. The medical records of patients with stable renal function who had been treated for trauma and had had a 24-hour urine collection for creatinine measurement were reviewed. Creatinine concentrations in urine and serum were used to calculate the actual CLcr, which was normalized to 1.73 sq m. CLcr was estimated by the modified equation (which normalized body weight to 72 kg) and by the standard equation using ABW, IBW, and dosing body weight (DBW). Values derived with the standard equation were normalized to 1.73 sq m. The predictive performances of the modified and standard equations in estimating the actual CLcr were then compared. Fifty patients were enrolled. The standard equation using IBW or DBW produced estimates that differed significantly from the actual CLcr. The modified equation and the standard equation using ABW did not differ significantly in bias or precision, but both were significantly less biased than the standard equation using IBW or DBW. The only significant difference among equations in precision was between the modified equation (the more precise) and the standard equation using IBW. There were no clinically significant differences among methods in gentamicin dosing simulations. The modified Cockcroft-Gault equation can be used to estimate CLcr in trauma patients with stable renal function.

摘要

比较了改良的Cockcroft-Gault方程和标准方程在估计创伤患者肌酐清除率(CLcr)方面的能力。回顾了肾功能稳定且因创伤接受治疗并进行了24小时尿肌酐测量的患者的病历。使用尿和血清中的肌酐浓度来计算实际的CLcr,并将其标准化为1.73平方米。通过改良方程(将体重标准化为72千克)和使用实际体重(ABW)、理想体重(IBW)和给药体重(DBW)的标准方程来估计CLcr。用标准方程得出的值被标准化为1.73平方米。然后比较改良方程和标准方程在估计实际CLcr方面的预测性能。共纳入50例患者。使用IBW或DBW的标准方程得出的估计值与实际CLcr有显著差异。改良方程和使用ABW的标准方程在偏差或精密度方面没有显著差异,但两者的偏差均明显小于使用IBW或DBW的标准方程。各方程在精密度方面的唯一显著差异在于改良方程(更精确)和使用IBW的标准方程之间。在庆大霉素给药模拟中,各方法之间没有临床显著差异。改良的Cockcroft-Gault方程可用于估计肾功能稳定的创伤患者的CLcr。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验