评估重症患者与门诊患者肾小球滤过率的估算方程的准确性。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-22 DOI:10.1111/aas.14540
Katalin Kiss, Aso Saeed, Sven-Erik Ricksten, Gudrun Bragadottir
{"title":"评估重症患者与门诊患者肾小球滤过率的估算方程的准确性。","authors":"Katalin Kiss, Aso Saeed, Sven-Erik Ricksten, Gudrun Bragadottir","doi":"10.1111/aas.14540","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Estimating equations for the assessment of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) have been poorly investigated in the critical care setting. We evaluated the agreement between the GFR measured with <sup>51</sup>CrEDTA/iohexol (mGFR) and four estimating equations based on serum concentrations of creatine and/or cystatin C (eGFR) in two cohorts: critically ill patients and outpatients with normal-to-moderately reduced GFR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty-three patients in the critical care group and 48 patients in the outpatient group were included. GFR was measured (mGFR) by plasma infusion clearance of <sup>51</sup>Cr-EDTA/iohexol (critical care group) and the single injection, one-sample plasma <sup>51</sup>Cr-EDTA clearance technique (outpatients). The following estimating equations (eGFR) were used: the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation for creatinine (CKD-EPI<sub>Cr</sub>), cystatin C (CKD-EPI<sub>Cys C</sub>), creatinine+cystatin C (CKD-EPI<sub>Cr + Cys C</sub>) and the Lund-Malmö creatinine+cystatin C equation (LM<sub>Cr + Cys C</sub>). Agreement between mGFR and eGFR was assessed by the Bland-Altman method and accuracy by calculating P30 and P10.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the critically ill group, the bias between the estimating equations and mGFR was -3.6 to 2.8 mL/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup>, while the error was 121%-127% and the accuracy (P30) 33%-40%. In the outpatients, the bias between the estimating equations and mGFR was -13.0 to 7.6 mL/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup>, while the error was 31%-41% and the accuracy (P30), 67%-96%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All four equations performed poorly in assessing GFR in the critically ill cohort with an unacceptably high error and low accuracy in contrast to the outpatient group. To accurately assess GFR in critically ill patients, GFR must be measured not estimated.</p><p><strong>Editorial comment: </strong>For the assessment of glomerular filtration rate (GFR), it can be measured directly, but is frequently estimated using a point measure of serum creatinine concentration. In this study, ICU case GFR estimations, by different adjusted equations, done also for a cohort of outpatients, showed that these serum creatinine-based estimations for ICU cases are not highly precise or reliable.</p>","PeriodicalId":6909,"journal":{"name":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","volume":" ","pages":"e14540"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of estimating equations for the assessment of glomerular filtration rate in critically ill patients versus outpatients.\",\"authors\":\"Katalin Kiss, Aso Saeed, Sven-Erik Ricksten, Gudrun Bragadottir\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/aas.14540\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Estimating equations for the assessment of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) have been poorly investigated in the critical care setting. We evaluated the agreement between the GFR measured with <sup>51</sup>CrEDTA/iohexol (mGFR) and four estimating equations based on serum concentrations of creatine and/or cystatin C (eGFR) in two cohorts: critically ill patients and outpatients with normal-to-moderately reduced GFR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty-three patients in the critical care group and 48 patients in the outpatient group were included. GFR was measured (mGFR) by plasma infusion clearance of <sup>51</sup>Cr-EDTA/iohexol (critical care group) and the single injection, one-sample plasma <sup>51</sup>Cr-EDTA clearance technique (outpatients). The following estimating equations (eGFR) were used: the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation for creatinine (CKD-EPI<sub>Cr</sub>), cystatin C (CKD-EPI<sub>Cys C</sub>), creatinine+cystatin C (CKD-EPI<sub>Cr + Cys C</sub>) and the Lund-Malmö creatinine+cystatin C equation (LM<sub>Cr + Cys C</sub>). Agreement between mGFR and eGFR was assessed by the Bland-Altman method and accuracy by calculating P30 and P10.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the critically ill group, the bias between the estimating equations and mGFR was -3.6 to 2.8 mL/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup>, while the error was 121%-127% and the accuracy (P30) 33%-40%. In the outpatients, the bias between the estimating equations and mGFR was -13.0 to 7.6 mL/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup>, while the error was 31%-41% and the accuracy (P30), 67%-96%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All four equations performed poorly in assessing GFR in the critically ill cohort with an unacceptably high error and low accuracy in contrast to the outpatient group. To accurately assess GFR in critically ill patients, GFR must be measured not estimated.</p><p><strong>Editorial comment: </strong>For the assessment of glomerular filtration rate (GFR), it can be measured directly, but is frequently estimated using a point measure of serum creatinine concentration. In this study, ICU case GFR estimations, by different adjusted equations, done also for a cohort of outpatients, showed that these serum creatinine-based estimations for ICU cases are not highly precise or reliable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6909,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e14540\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14540\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14540","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在重症监护环境中,对评估肾小球滤过率(GFR)的估算方程的研究很少。我们评估了用 51CrEDTA/iohexol 测量的肾小球滤过率(mGFR)与基于肌酸和/或胱抑素 C 血清浓度的四种估算方程(eGFR)之间的一致性:方法:纳入危重病人组 43 名患者和门诊病人组 48 名患者。通过 51Cr-EDTA/iohexol 血浆输注清除率(重症监护组)和单次注射、单样本血浆 51Cr-EDTA 清除率技术(门诊患者)测量 GFR(mGFR)。使用了以下估计方程(eGFR):慢性肾脏病流行病学协作组(CKD-EPI)肌酐(CKD-EPICr)、胱抑素 C(CKD-EPICys C)、肌酐+胱抑素 C(CKD-EPICr + Cys C)方程和隆德-马尔默肌酐+胱抑素 C方程(LMCr + Cys C)。mGFR 和 eGFR 之间的一致性采用 Bland-Altman 法进行评估,准确性采用 P30 和 P10 计算:在重症患者组中,估计方程与 mGFR 之间的偏差为 -3.6 至 2.8 mL/min/1.73 m2,误差为 121%-127%,准确度(P30)为 33%-40%。在门诊患者中,估计方程与 mGFR 之间的偏差为-13.0 至 7.6 mL/min/1.73 m2,误差为 31%-41%,准确率(P30)为 67%-96%:与门诊患者组相比,所有四种方程在评估重症患者组 GFR 方面的表现都很差,误差和准确性都很低,令人难以接受。要准确评估重症患者的肾小球滤过率,必须测量而不是估算肾小球滤过率:对于肾小球滤过率(GFR)的评估,可以直接测量,但通常使用血清肌酐浓度的点测量来估算。在这项研究中,采用不同的调整方程对 ICU 病例的 GFR 进行了估算,同时还对一组门诊病人进行了估算,结果表明这些基于血清肌酐的 ICU 病例估算并不十分精确或可靠。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accuracy of estimating equations for the assessment of glomerular filtration rate in critically ill patients versus outpatients.

Background: Estimating equations for the assessment of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) have been poorly investigated in the critical care setting. We evaluated the agreement between the GFR measured with 51CrEDTA/iohexol (mGFR) and four estimating equations based on serum concentrations of creatine and/or cystatin C (eGFR) in two cohorts: critically ill patients and outpatients with normal-to-moderately reduced GFR.

Methods: Forty-three patients in the critical care group and 48 patients in the outpatient group were included. GFR was measured (mGFR) by plasma infusion clearance of 51Cr-EDTA/iohexol (critical care group) and the single injection, one-sample plasma 51Cr-EDTA clearance technique (outpatients). The following estimating equations (eGFR) were used: the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation for creatinine (CKD-EPICr), cystatin C (CKD-EPICys C), creatinine+cystatin C (CKD-EPICr + Cys C) and the Lund-Malmö creatinine+cystatin C equation (LMCr + Cys C). Agreement between mGFR and eGFR was assessed by the Bland-Altman method and accuracy by calculating P30 and P10.

Results: In the critically ill group, the bias between the estimating equations and mGFR was -3.6 to 2.8 mL/min/1.73 m2, while the error was 121%-127% and the accuracy (P30) 33%-40%. In the outpatients, the bias between the estimating equations and mGFR was -13.0 to 7.6 mL/min/1.73 m2, while the error was 31%-41% and the accuracy (P30), 67%-96%.

Conclusions: All four equations performed poorly in assessing GFR in the critically ill cohort with an unacceptably high error and low accuracy in contrast to the outpatient group. To accurately assess GFR in critically ill patients, GFR must be measured not estimated.

Editorial comment: For the assessment of glomerular filtration rate (GFR), it can be measured directly, but is frequently estimated using a point measure of serum creatinine concentration. In this study, ICU case GFR estimations, by different adjusted equations, done also for a cohort of outpatients, showed that these serum creatinine-based estimations for ICU cases are not highly precise or reliable.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.50%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica publishes papers on original work in the fields of anaesthesiology, intensive care, pain, emergency medicine, and subjects related to their basic sciences, on condition that they are contributed exclusively to this Journal. Case reports and short communications may be considered for publication if of particular interest; also letters to the Editor, especially if related to already published material. The editorial board is free to discuss the publication of reviews on current topics, the choice of which, however, is the prerogative of the board. Every effort will be made by the Editors and selected experts to expedite a critical review of manuscripts in order to ensure rapid publication of papers of a high scientific standard.
×
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