五个估计肾小球滤过率方程在越南肾移植受者中的表现：一项横断面研究

IF 1.9 4区医学 Q2 SURGERY

Clinical Transplantation Pub Date : 2025-04-13 DOI:10.1111/ctr.70145

Tam Thai Thanh Tran, Tho Kieu Anh Pham, Nghia Nhu Nguyen, Thao Minh Truong, Hoang Nguyen Huy Ho, Chuan Khac Hoang, Sam Minh Thai, An Bao Huynh

{"title":"五个估计肾小球滤过率方程在越南肾移植受者中的表现：一项横断面研究","authors":"Tam Thai Thanh Tran, Tho Kieu Anh Pham, Nghia Nhu Nguyen, Thao Minh Truong, Hoang Nguyen Huy Ho, Chuan Khac Hoang, Sam Minh Thai, An Bao Huynh","doi":"10.1111/ctr.70145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Despite the critical role of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) assessment in monitoring kidney transplants, the most accurate estimate remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of established estimated GFR (eGFR) equations in the Vietnamese population.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This cross-sectional study involving 299 Vietnamese kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) compared measured GFR (mGFR), determined using technetium-99m-diethylenetriaminepentaacetate (<sup>99m</sup>Tc-DTPA) renal dynamic scintigraphy, with five eGFR equations (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease [MDRD], Asian modified Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration [CKD-EPI], CKD-EPI SCysC 2012, CKD-EPI SCr 2021, and CKD-EPI SCr–SCysC 2021). The performances of the five eGFR equations were compared based on bias, P<sub>30</sub> accuracy, absolute accuracy, precision, root mean square error (RMSE), concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and Pearson's correlation coefficient (<i>r</i>), along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>CKD-EPI SCr–SCysC 2021 showed the best performance. The values for median bias, P<sub>30</sub> accuracy, absolute accuracy, precision, RMSE, CCC, and <i>r</i> were: 2.57 [1.22; 3.55] mL/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup>, 87.6% [83.3; 90.6], 10.0% [8.3; 11.7], 11.29 [9.57; 13.40] mL/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup>, 11.54 [10.42; 12.92], 0.787 [0.737; 0.828], and 0.810 [0.759; 0.850], respectively. The MDRD equation did not show significantly lower precision and accuracy than the CKD-EPI SCr–SCysC 2021 equation. All five equations demonstrated improved accuracy in the mGFR ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup> subgroup compared to the mGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup> subgroup.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>CKD-EPI SCr–SCysC 2021 is the most accurate eGFR equation for Vietnamese KTRs. Further studies with larger cohorts and comparisons with gold-standard methods are needed to confirm these findings.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10467,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Transplantation","volume":"39 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance of Five Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate Equations in Vietnamese Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Cross-Sectional Study\",\"authors\":\"Tam Thai Thanh Tran, Tho Kieu Anh Pham, Nghia Nhu Nguyen, Thao Minh Truong, Hoang Nguyen Huy Ho, Chuan Khac Hoang, Sam Minh Thai, An Bao Huynh\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ctr.70145\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Despite the critical role of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) assessment in monitoring kidney transplants, the most accurate estimate remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of established estimated GFR (eGFR) equations in the Vietnamese population.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This cross-sectional study involving 299 Vietnamese kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) compared measured GFR (mGFR), determined using technetium-99m-diethylenetriaminepentaacetate (<sup>99m</sup>Tc-DTPA) renal dynamic scintigraphy, with five eGFR equations (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease [MDRD], Asian modified Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration [CKD-EPI], CKD-EPI SCysC 2012, CKD-EPI SCr 2021, and CKD-EPI SCr–SCysC 2021). The performances of the five eGFR equations were compared based on bias, P<sub>30</sub> accuracy, absolute accuracy, precision, root mean square error (RMSE), concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and Pearson's correlation coefficient (<i>r</i>), along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>CKD-EPI SCr–SCysC 2021 showed the best performance. The values for median bias, P<sub>30</sub> accuracy, absolute accuracy, precision, RMSE, CCC, and <i>r</i> were: 2.57 [1.22; 3.55] mL/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup>, 87.6% [83.3; 90.6], 10.0% [8.3; 11.7], 11.29 [9.57; 13.40] mL/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup>, 11.54 [10.42; 12.92], 0.787 [0.737; 0.828], and 0.810 [0.759; 0.850], respectively. The MDRD equation did not show significantly lower precision and accuracy than the CKD-EPI SCr–SCysC 2021 equation. All five equations demonstrated improved accuracy in the mGFR ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup> subgroup compared to the mGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup> subgroup.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>CKD-EPI SCr–SCysC 2021 is the most accurate eGFR equation for Vietnamese KTRs. Further studies with larger cohorts and comparisons with gold-standard methods are needed to confirm these findings.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Transplantation\",\"volume\":\"39 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Transplantation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ctr.70145\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ctr.70145","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

背景尽管肾小球滤过率（GFR）评估在监测肾移植中起着至关重要的作用，但最准确的估计值仍不确定。本研究旨在评估已建立的估算 GFR（eGFR）方程在越南人群中的表现。方法这项横断面研究涉及 299 名越南肾移植受者（KTRs），比较了使用锝-99m-二乙烯三胺五乙酸酯（99mTc-DTPA）肾动态闪烁扫描测定的 GFR（mGFR）与五种 eGFR 方程（Moder）、采用五种 eGFR 方程（肾病饮食改良[MDRD]、亚洲改良慢性肾病流行病学协作[CKD-EPI]、CKD-EPI SCysC 2012、CKD-EPI SCr 2021 和 CKD-EPI SCr-SCysC 2021）。根据偏差、P30 精确度、绝对精确度、精确度、均方根误差 (RMSE)、一致性相关系数 (CCC) 和皮尔逊相关系数 (r) 以及它们的 95% 置信区间 (CI)，比较了五种 eGFR 方程的性能。结果 CKD-EPI SCr-SCysC 2021 表现最佳。中位偏差、P30 精确度、绝对精确度、精确度、RMSE、CCC 和 r 的值分别为分别为 2.57 [1.22; 3.55] mL/min/1.73 m2、87.6% [83.3; 90.6]、10.0% [8.3; 11.7]、11.29 [9.57; 13.40] mL/min/1.73 m2、11.54 [10.42; 12.92]、0.787 [0.737; 0.828] 和 0.810 [0.759; 0.850]。与 CKD-EPI SCr-SCysC 2021 方程相比，MDRD 方程的精确度和准确性并没有明显降低。与 mGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 亚组相比，所有五个方程在 mGFR ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 亚组中的准确性都有所提高。结论 CKD-EPI SCr-SCysC 2021 是越南 KTR 最准确的 eGFR 方程。为证实这些研究结果，需要进一步开展更大规模的队列研究，并与黄金标准方法进行比较。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Performance of Five Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate Equations in Vietnamese Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background

Despite the critical role of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) assessment in monitoring kidney transplants, the most accurate estimate remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of established estimated GFR (eGFR) equations in the Vietnamese population.

Methods

This cross-sectional study involving 299 Vietnamese kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) compared measured GFR (mGFR), determined using technetium-99m-diethylenetriaminepentaacetate (^99mTc-DTPA) renal dynamic scintigraphy, with five eGFR equations (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease [MDRD], Asian modified Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration [CKD-EPI], CKD-EPI SCysC 2012, CKD-EPI SCr 2021, and CKD-EPI SCr–SCysC 2021). The performances of the five eGFR equations were compared based on bias, P₃₀ accuracy, absolute accuracy, precision, root mean square error (RMSE), concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and Pearson's correlation coefficient (r), along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

CKD-EPI SCr–SCysC 2021 showed the best performance. The values for median bias, P₃₀ accuracy, absolute accuracy, precision, RMSE, CCC, and r were: 2.57 [1.22; 3.55] mL/min/1.73 m², 87.6% [83.3; 90.6], 10.0% [8.3; 11.7], 11.29 [9.57; 13.40] mL/min/1.73 m², 11.54 [10.42; 12.92], 0.787 [0.737; 0.828], and 0.810 [0.759; 0.850], respectively. The MDRD equation did not show significantly lower precision and accuracy than the CKD-EPI SCr–SCysC 2021 equation. All five equations demonstrated improved accuracy in the mGFR ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m² subgroup compared to the mGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² subgroup.

Conclusions

CKD-EPI SCr–SCysC 2021 is the most accurate eGFR equation for Vietnamese KTRs. Further studies with larger cohorts and comparisons with gold-standard methods are needed to confirm these findings.

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

Clinical Transplantation 医学-外科

CiteScore

3.70

自引率

4.80%

发文量

286

审稿时长

2 months

期刊介绍： Clinical Transplantation: The Journal of Clinical and Translational Research aims to serve as a channel of rapid communication for all those involved in the care of patients who require, or have had, organ or tissue transplants, including: kidney, intestine, liver, pancreas, islets, heart, heart valves, lung, bone marrow, cornea, skin, bone, and cartilage, viable or stored. Published monthly, Clinical Transplantation’s scope is focused on the complete spectrum of present transplant therapies, as well as also those that are experimental or may become possible in future. Topics include: Immunology and immunosuppression; Patient preparation; Social, ethical, and psychological issues; Complications, short- and long-term results; Artificial organs; Donation and preservation of organ and tissue; Translational studies; Advances in tissue typing; Updates on transplant pathology;. Clinical and translational studies are particularly welcome, as well as focused reviews. Full-length papers and short communications are invited. Clinical reviews are encouraged, as well as seminal papers in basic science which might lead to immediate clinical application. Prominence is regularly given to the results of cooperative surveys conducted by the organ and tissue transplant registries. Clinical Transplantation: The Journal of Clinical and Translational Research is essential reading for clinicians and researchers in the diverse field of transplantation: surgeons; clinical immunologists; cryobiologists; hematologists; gastroenterologists; hepatologists; pulmonologists; nephrologists; cardiologists; and endocrinologists. It will also be of interest to sociologists, psychologists, research workers, and to all health professionals whose combined efforts will improve the prognosis of transplant recipients.