The error of estimated GFR in predialysis care

The error of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and its consequences in predialysis are unknown. In this prospective multicentre study, 315 predialysis patients underwent measured GFR (mGFR) by the clearance of iohexol and eGFR by 52 formulas. Agreement between eGFR and mGFR was evaluated b...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Scientific reports 2024-03, Vol.14 (1), p.5219-5219, Article 5219
Hauptverfasser: Escamilla-Cabrera, Beatriz, Luis-Lima, Sergio, Gallego-Valcarce, Eduardo, Sánchez-Dorta, Nuria Victoria, Negrín-Mena, Natalia, Díaz-Martín, Laura, Cruz-Perera, Coriolano, Hernández-Valles, Ana Monserrat, González-Rinne, Federico, Rodríguez-Gamboa, María José, Estupiñán-Torres, Sara, Miquel-Rodríguez, Rosa, Cobo-Caso, María Ángeles, Delgado-Mallén, Patricia, Fernández-Suárez, Gema, González-Rinne, Ana, Hernández-Barroso, Grimanesa, González-Delgado, Alejandra, Torres-Ramírez, Armando, Jiménez-Sosa, Alejandro, Ortiz, Alberto, Gaspari, Flavio, Hernández-Marrero, Domingo, Porrini, Esteban Luis
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The error of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and its consequences in predialysis are unknown. In this prospective multicentre study, 315 predialysis patients underwent measured GFR (mGFR) by the clearance of iohexol and eGFR by 52 formulas. Agreement between eGFR and mGFR was evaluated by concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), total deviation index (TDI) and coverage probability (CP). In a sub-analysis we assessed the impact of eGFR error on decision-making as (i) initiating dialysis, (ii) preparation for renal replacement therapy (RRT) and (iii) continuing clinical follow-up. For this sub-analysis, patients who started RRT due to clinical indications (uremia, fluid overload, etc.) were excluded. eGFR had scarce precision and accuracy in reflecting mGFR (average CCC 0.6, TDI 70% and cp 22%) both in creatinine- and cystatin-based formulas. Variations -larger than 10 ml/min- between mGFR and eGFR were frequent. The error of formulas would have suggested (a) premature preparation for RTT in 14% of stable patients evaluated by mGFR; (b) to continue clinical follow-up in 59% of subjects with indication for RTT preparation due to low GFRm and (c) to delay dialysis in all asymptomatic patients (n = 6) in whom RRT was indicated based on very low mGFR. The error of formulas in predialysis was frequent and large and may have consequences in clinical care.
ISSN:2045-2322
2045-2322
DOI:10.1038/s41598-024-55022-8