{"title":"在静脉造影前肾功能检查中发现意外的肌酐结果。","authors":"Madhusudhanan Narasimhan, Kibibi Smith, Alagarraju Muthukumar","doi":"10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2025.110979","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Increasing chronic disease incidence drives intravenous (IV) contrast-based diagnostic imaging. While IV procedure is largely safe, contrast-induced neuropathy risk in patients with predisposing factors demand pre-IV renal assessment. Although common, point-of-care creatinine (POC) tests are prone to generating ambiguous results. This frequently result in time-consuming retests, rescheduled appointments, patient distress, and healthcare burdens.</div></div><div><h3>Case Presentation</h3><div>A diabetic, hypertensive, and chronic kidney diseased Caucasian male, aged 61, presented for a scheduled intravenous contrast-enhanced computed tomography scan. His initial POC-based creatinine result of 1.20 mg/dL (106.1 μmol/L) narrowly exceeded the reference interval (0.67–––1.17 mg/dL [59.2 – 103.5 μmol/L]). Given the patient’s pre-existing conditions, laboratory-based creatinine test was performed to reassure his renal function. The new result was found to be 0.95 mg/dL (84 μmol/L), which fell within the normal reference interval. This substantial disparity of 0.25 mg/dL (22.1 μmol/L; 20.8 %) between creatinine tests while delaying the intravenous procedure prompted the clinicians to request an in-depth laboratory investigation.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Comprehensive analysis using patient-centered metrics such as index of individuality, reference change value, and subject-based reference interval alleviated the concerns on his renal health and disparity in assay results (<0.3 mg/dL≡ <26.5 μmol/L) total allowable error limit), thus allowing intravenous contrast imaging.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10172,"journal":{"name":"Clinical biochemistry","volume":"139 ","pages":"Article 110979"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Navigating an unexpected creatinine result during a pre-intravenous contrast renal function workup\",\"authors\":\"Madhusudhanan Narasimhan, Kibibi Smith, Alagarraju Muthukumar\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2025.110979\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Increasing chronic disease incidence drives intravenous (IV) contrast-based diagnostic imaging. While IV procedure is largely safe, contrast-induced neuropathy risk in patients with predisposing factors demand pre-IV renal assessment. Although common, point-of-care creatinine (POC) tests are prone to generating ambiguous results. This frequently result in time-consuming retests, rescheduled appointments, patient distress, and healthcare burdens.</div></div><div><h3>Case Presentation</h3><div>A diabetic, hypertensive, and chronic kidney diseased Caucasian male, aged 61, presented for a scheduled intravenous contrast-enhanced computed tomography scan. His initial POC-based creatinine result of 1.20 mg/dL (106.1 μmol/L) narrowly exceeded the reference interval (0.67–––1.17 mg/dL [59.2 – 103.5 μmol/L]). Given the patient’s pre-existing conditions, laboratory-based creatinine test was performed to reassure his renal function. The new result was found to be 0.95 mg/dL (84 μmol/L), which fell within the normal reference interval. This substantial disparity of 0.25 mg/dL (22.1 μmol/L; 20.8 %) between creatinine tests while delaying the intravenous procedure prompted the clinicians to request an in-depth laboratory investigation.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Comprehensive analysis using patient-centered metrics such as index of individuality, reference change value, and subject-based reference interval alleviated the concerns on his renal health and disparity in assay results (<0.3 mg/dL≡ <26.5 μmol/L) total allowable error limit), thus allowing intravenous contrast imaging.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10172,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical biochemistry\",\"volume\":\"139 \",\"pages\":\"Article 110979\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical biochemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009912025001080\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical biochemistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009912025001080","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Navigating an unexpected creatinine result during a pre-intravenous contrast renal function workup
Background
Increasing chronic disease incidence drives intravenous (IV) contrast-based diagnostic imaging. While IV procedure is largely safe, contrast-induced neuropathy risk in patients with predisposing factors demand pre-IV renal assessment. Although common, point-of-care creatinine (POC) tests are prone to generating ambiguous results. This frequently result in time-consuming retests, rescheduled appointments, patient distress, and healthcare burdens.
Case Presentation
A diabetic, hypertensive, and chronic kidney diseased Caucasian male, aged 61, presented for a scheduled intravenous contrast-enhanced computed tomography scan. His initial POC-based creatinine result of 1.20 mg/dL (106.1 μmol/L) narrowly exceeded the reference interval (0.67–––1.17 mg/dL [59.2 – 103.5 μmol/L]). Given the patient’s pre-existing conditions, laboratory-based creatinine test was performed to reassure his renal function. The new result was found to be 0.95 mg/dL (84 μmol/L), which fell within the normal reference interval. This substantial disparity of 0.25 mg/dL (22.1 μmol/L; 20.8 %) between creatinine tests while delaying the intravenous procedure prompted the clinicians to request an in-depth laboratory investigation.
Conclusion
Comprehensive analysis using patient-centered metrics such as index of individuality, reference change value, and subject-based reference interval alleviated the concerns on his renal health and disparity in assay results (<0.3 mg/dL≡ <26.5 μmol/L) total allowable error limit), thus allowing intravenous contrast imaging.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Biochemistry publishes articles relating to clinical chemistry, molecular biology and genetics, therapeutic drug monitoring and toxicology, laboratory immunology and laboratory medicine in general, with the focus on analytical and clinical investigation of laboratory tests in humans used for diagnosis, prognosis, treatment and therapy, and monitoring of disease.