Applicability of Creatinine- and Cystatin C-Based Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate Equations in Patients With Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Yuanyuan Wei, Shuang Li, Dong An, Liang Chen, Zhizhong Liu, Yingchun Ma, Limin Liao
{"title":"Applicability of Creatinine- and Cystatin C-Based Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate Equations in Patients With Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction.","authors":"Yuanyuan Wei, Shuang Li, Dong An, Liang Chen, Zhizhong Liu, Yingchun Ma, Limin Liao","doi":"10.1002/nau.70147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the applicability of Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equations and Chinese eGFR Investigation Collaboration (C-eGFR) equations in estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in patients with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD). These equations are based on serum creatinine, cystatin C, or combined creatinine and cystatin C.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective study enrolled 142 adult patients with NLUTD. GFR was measured using the dual plasma ⁹⁹mTc-DTPA plasma clearance method. We compared the bias, precision, accuracy and correct classification percentage of six estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) equations, including CKD-EPI creatinine equation (CKD-EPIcr), C-eGFR creatinine equation (C-eGFRcr), CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation (CKD-EPIcr-cys), C-eGFR creatinine-cystatin C equation (C-eGFRcr-cys), CKD-EPI cystatin C equation (CKD-EPIcys), and C-eGFR cystatin C equation (C-eGFRcys).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median (interquartile range [IQR]) of measured GFR (mGFR) was 60.54 (34.66-86.28) mL/min/1.73 m². Both CKD-EPIcr and C-eGFRcr significantly overestimated GFR (median differences of 17.20 and 13.60 mL/min/1.73 m², respectively; both p < 0.01), and P<sub>30</sub> values (percentage of estimated GFR within 30% of mGFR) were 51% and 57%, respectively. CKD-EPIcr-cys demonstrated superior performance than C-eGFRcr-cys (median difference: 2.07 vs 9.13 mL/min/1.73 m²; both p < 0.01; P<sub>30</sub>: 84% vs 69%). CKD-EPIcys achieved the highest P<sub>30</sub> (88%), while C-eGFRcys showed minimal bias (median difference: 0.42 mL/min/1.73 m²; p = 0.69). CKD-EPIcr-cys, CKD-EPIcys, and C-eGFRcys all achieved acceptable P<sub>30</sub> values and correct classification percentage. CKD-EPIcr-cys performed optimally at mGFR ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m², whereas CKD-EPIcys was superior at mGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m².</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Creatinine-based equations systematically overestimate GFR in NLUTD patients and should be used with caution. In contrast, cystatin C-based equations-whether used alone (e.g., CKD-EPIcys, C-eGFRcys) or combined with creatinine (e.g., CKD-EPIcr-cys)-demonstrate superior accuracy and should be preferred for GFR estimation in NLUTD patients.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>The Chinese clinical trial registration number is ChiCTR2100054934.</p>","PeriodicalId":19200,"journal":{"name":"Neurourology and Urodynamics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurourology and Urodynamics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.70147","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the applicability of Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equations and Chinese eGFR Investigation Collaboration (C-eGFR) equations in estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in patients with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD). These equations are based on serum creatinine, cystatin C, or combined creatinine and cystatin C.

Methods: This prospective study enrolled 142 adult patients with NLUTD. GFR was measured using the dual plasma ⁹⁹mTc-DTPA plasma clearance method. We compared the bias, precision, accuracy and correct classification percentage of six estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) equations, including CKD-EPI creatinine equation (CKD-EPIcr), C-eGFR creatinine equation (C-eGFRcr), CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation (CKD-EPIcr-cys), C-eGFR creatinine-cystatin C equation (C-eGFRcr-cys), CKD-EPI cystatin C equation (CKD-EPIcys), and C-eGFR cystatin C equation (C-eGFRcys).

Results: The median (interquartile range [IQR]) of measured GFR (mGFR) was 60.54 (34.66-86.28) mL/min/1.73 m². Both CKD-EPIcr and C-eGFRcr significantly overestimated GFR (median differences of 17.20 and 13.60 mL/min/1.73 m², respectively; both p < 0.01), and P30 values (percentage of estimated GFR within 30% of mGFR) were 51% and 57%, respectively. CKD-EPIcr-cys demonstrated superior performance than C-eGFRcr-cys (median difference: 2.07 vs 9.13 mL/min/1.73 m²; both p < 0.01; P30: 84% vs 69%). CKD-EPIcys achieved the highest P30 (88%), while C-eGFRcys showed minimal bias (median difference: 0.42 mL/min/1.73 m²; p = 0.69). CKD-EPIcr-cys, CKD-EPIcys, and C-eGFRcys all achieved acceptable P30 values and correct classification percentage. CKD-EPIcr-cys performed optimally at mGFR ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m², whereas CKD-EPIcys was superior at mGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m².

Conclusion: Creatinine-based equations systematically overestimate GFR in NLUTD patients and should be used with caution. In contrast, cystatin C-based equations-whether used alone (e.g., CKD-EPIcys, C-eGFRcys) or combined with creatinine (e.g., CKD-EPIcr-cys)-demonstrate superior accuracy and should be preferred for GFR estimation in NLUTD patients.

Clinical trial registration: The Chinese clinical trial registration number is ChiCTR2100054934.

基于肌酐和胱抑素c估计肾小球滤过率方程在神经源性下尿路功能障碍患者中的适用性。
目的:评价慢性肾脏病流行病学协进会(CKD-EPI)方程和中国eGFR调查协进会(C-eGFR)方程在估计神经源性下尿路功能障碍(NLUTD)患者肾小球滤过率(GFR)中的适用性。这些方程是基于血清肌酐、胱抑素C或联合肌酐和胱抑素C。方法:这项前瞻性研究纳入了142例成年NLUTD患者。采用双等离子体(⁹mTc-DTPA)等离子体清除法测量GFR。我们比较了六种估计肾小球滤过率(eGFR)方程的偏倚、精密度、准确度和正确分类百分比,包括CKD-EPI肌酐方程(CKD-EPIcr)、C-eGFR肌酐方程(C- egfrcr)、CKD-EPI肌酐-胱抑素C方程(ckd - egfrcr -cys)、C-eGFR肌酐-胱抑素C方程(C- egfrcr -cys)、CKD-EPI胱抑素C方程(CKD-EPIcys)和C-eGFR胱抑素C方程(C- egfrys)。结果:测量GFR (mGFR)的中位数(四分位数间距[IQR])为60.54 (34.66 ~ 86.28)mL/min/1.73 m²。CKD-EPIcr和C-eGFRcr均显著高估了GFR(中位数差异分别为17.20和13.60 mL/min/1.73 m²);两者的p 30值(估计GFR在mGFR的30%内的百分比)分别为51%和57%。CKD-EPIcr-cys表现出优于C-eGFRcr-cys的性能(中位差:2.07 vs 9.13 mL/min/1.73 m²;p均为84% vs 69%)。CKD-EPIcys的P30最高(88%),而C-eGFRcys的偏倚最小(中位差:0.42 mL/min/1.73 m²;p = 0.69)。CKD-EPIcr-cys、CKD-EPIcys和C-eGFRcys均达到可接受的P30值和正确的分类百分比。CKD-EPIcr-cys在mGFR≥60 mL/min/1.73 m²时表现最佳,而CKD-EPIcys在mGFR时表现更好。结论:基于肌酐的方程系统性地高估了NLUTD患者的GFR,应谨慎使用。相比之下,基于胱抑素c的方程-无论是单独使用(如CKD-EPIcys, C-eGFRcys)还是与肌酐(如CKD-EPIcr-cys)联合使用-都显示出更高的准确性,应优先用于NLUTD患者的GFR估计。临床试验注册:中文临床试验注册号为ChiCTR2100054934。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neurourology and Urodynamics
Neurourology and Urodynamics 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
231
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurourology and Urodynamics welcomes original scientific contributions from all parts of the world on topics related to urinary tract function, urinary and fecal continence and pelvic floor function.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信