Comparison of estimated glomerular filtration rate equations on prediction of mortality, kidney failure, and acute kidney injury.

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 TRANSPLANTATION
Denise M J Veltkamp, Maarten B Rookmaaker, Mark C H de Groot, Marianne C Verhaar, Wouter W van Solinge, Saskia Haitjema, Robin W M Vernooij
{"title":"Comparison of estimated glomerular filtration rate equations on prediction of mortality, kidney failure, and acute kidney injury.","authors":"Denise M J Veltkamp, Maarten B Rookmaaker, Mark C H de Groot, Marianne C Verhaar, Wouter W van Solinge, Saskia Haitjema, Robin W M Vernooij","doi":"10.1093/ndt/gfaf054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The CKD-EPIASR-NB2009 estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) equation has shown substantial overestimation of GFR in Europeans, hence new equations have been developed. We examined the effect of introducing the European Kidney Function Consortium (EKFC) or Lund-Malmö revised (LMR) eGFR equations on KDIGO eGFR-category classification in a large cohort. We compared the EKFC and LMR equations with the CKD-EPIASR-NB2009 formula in view of discriminative ability of all-cause mortality, kidney failure with replacement therapy (KFRT), and acute kidney injury (AKI) risks across eGFR-categories.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Individuals ≥18y with a SCr measurement (December 2006-July 2024) at University Medical Center Utrecht, were included. Hazard ratios (HRs) were analysed for all outcomes per eGFR-category, per equation. Harrell's Concordance index (C-index) was used to assess the ability of risk discrimination across eGFR-categories. Whether reclassification between eGFR-categories was justified by the occurrence of events, was assessed with net reclassification improvement analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 285,686 individuals were included. Compared with the CKD-EPIASR-NB2009 equation, the EKFC and LMR estimated GFR lower (mean -6.3(SD5.3) and -10.7(SD6.5)ml/min/1.732, respectively). The number of individuals with eGFR <60ml/min/1.73m2 increased 29.0%(EKFC) and 36.4%(LMR). The EKFC predominantly reclassified older individuals, and the LMR older men, to worse eGFR-categories. HRs of reclassified individuals to worse eGFR-categories were mainly higher compared with the non-reclassified. The EKFC and LMR equations showed equal/improved C-index for mortality (EKFC 0.584/LMR 0.588/CKD-EPIASR-NB2009 0.570), KFRT (0.895/0.900/0.897), and AKI (0.606/0.609/0.599). The LMR equation reclassified more individuals without an event to worse eGFR-categories.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>eGFR-category classification was substantially different when using the EKFC or LMR equation compared with the CKD-EPIASR-NB2009 formula. Both equations showed equal to improved ability of risk stratification across eGFR-categories. Shifts in eGFR-category classification might significantly impact clinical decisions. Given that we have identified variation between equations, a careful consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of different eGFR equations is essential.</p>","PeriodicalId":19078,"journal":{"name":"Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfaf054","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"TRANSPLANTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The CKD-EPIASR-NB2009 estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) equation has shown substantial overestimation of GFR in Europeans, hence new equations have been developed. We examined the effect of introducing the European Kidney Function Consortium (EKFC) or Lund-Malmö revised (LMR) eGFR equations on KDIGO eGFR-category classification in a large cohort. We compared the EKFC and LMR equations with the CKD-EPIASR-NB2009 formula in view of discriminative ability of all-cause mortality, kidney failure with replacement therapy (KFRT), and acute kidney injury (AKI) risks across eGFR-categories.

Methods: Individuals ≥18y with a SCr measurement (December 2006-July 2024) at University Medical Center Utrecht, were included. Hazard ratios (HRs) were analysed for all outcomes per eGFR-category, per equation. Harrell's Concordance index (C-index) was used to assess the ability of risk discrimination across eGFR-categories. Whether reclassification between eGFR-categories was justified by the occurrence of events, was assessed with net reclassification improvement analysis.

Results: In total, 285,686 individuals were included. Compared with the CKD-EPIASR-NB2009 equation, the EKFC and LMR estimated GFR lower (mean -6.3(SD5.3) and -10.7(SD6.5)ml/min/1.732, respectively). The number of individuals with eGFR <60ml/min/1.73m2 increased 29.0%(EKFC) and 36.4%(LMR). The EKFC predominantly reclassified older individuals, and the LMR older men, to worse eGFR-categories. HRs of reclassified individuals to worse eGFR-categories were mainly higher compared with the non-reclassified. The EKFC and LMR equations showed equal/improved C-index for mortality (EKFC 0.584/LMR 0.588/CKD-EPIASR-NB2009 0.570), KFRT (0.895/0.900/0.897), and AKI (0.606/0.609/0.599). The LMR equation reclassified more individuals without an event to worse eGFR-categories.

Conclusion: eGFR-category classification was substantially different when using the EKFC or LMR equation compared with the CKD-EPIASR-NB2009 formula. Both equations showed equal to improved ability of risk stratification across eGFR-categories. Shifts in eGFR-category classification might significantly impact clinical decisions. Given that we have identified variation between equations, a careful consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of different eGFR equations is essential.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
10.10
自引率
4.90%
发文量
1431
审稿时长
1.7 months
期刊介绍: Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation (ndt) is the leading nephrology journal in Europe and renowned worldwide, devoted to original clinical and laboratory research in nephrology, dialysis and transplantation. ndt is an official journal of the [ERA-EDTA](http://www.era-edta.org/) (European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association). Published monthly, the journal provides an essential resource for researchers and clinicians throughout the world. All research articles in this journal have undergone peer review. Print ISSN: 0931-0509.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信