Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate in Renal Transplantation: The Nephrologist in the Mist.

Transplantation

1 Centre for Biomedical Research of the Canary Islands (CIBICAN). University of La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain. 2 Department of Nephrology, University Hospital of the Canary Islands, Tenerife, Spain. 3 Department of Anatomic Pathology, Faculty of Medicine at the University of La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain. 4 Department of Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospital of the Canary Islands, Tenerife, Spain. 5 Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Clinical Research Center for Rare Diseases "Aldo e Cele Daccò", Ranica (BG), Italy. 6 Clinical Analysis Laboratory, University Hospital Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain. 7 Fundación Canaria Rafael Clavijo para la Investigación Biomédica, Tenerife, Spain. 8 Research Unit, University Hospital of the Canary Islands, Tenerife, Spain.

Published: December 2015

Background: Formulas do not estimate renal function with acceptable precision and accuracy.

Methods: We compared 51 creatinine-based and/or cystatin c-based formulas with a gold standard (iohexol plasma clearance) in 193 renal transplant recipients using concordance correlation coefficient, total deviation index, coverage probability and the error in chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage classification.

Results: No formula showed a concordance correlation coefficient greater than 0.90 (average for creatinine-based formulas: ∼0.70 and for cystatin c-based formulas: ∼0.85). A wide total deviation index was observed: approximately 70% (creatinine-based) and approximately 50% (cystatin c-based), indicating that 90% of the estimations showed bounds of error of ±70% or ±50%, respectively, compared with the gold standard. No formula included 90% of the estimations within a coverage probability of ±10%. Half the CKD stages classified by creatinine-based formulas were incorrect, mainly due to overestimation of renal function. One of 3 CKD stages diagnosed by cystatin c-based formulas was incorrect, with both overestimation and underestimation. Overall, the formulas showed very low precision and accuracy and a high degree of error in reflecting real renal function.

Conclusions: In conclusion, formulas do not properly reflect renal function in kidney transplantation, which makes their use in clinical practice unreliable. Moreover, their use in clinical trials should be avoided.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/TP.0000000000000786DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

cystatin c-based
16
renal function
12
c-based formulas
12
formulas
8
gold standard
8
concordance correlation
8
correlation coefficient
8
total deviation
8
coverage probability
8
creatinine-based formulas
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!