Comparison of creatinine-based equations for estimating glomerular filtration rate in deceased donor renal transplant recipients

Estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is important for clinical management in kidney transplantation recipients (KTR). However, very few studies have evaluated the performance of the new GFR estimating equations (Lund-Malmö Revised-LMR, and Full Age Spectrum-FAS) in KTR. GFR was estimated (eGF...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2020-04, Vol.15 (4), p.e0231873
Hauptverfasser: Selistre, Luciano da Silva, Lemoine, Sandrine, Dantec, Allyriane, Buron, Fanny, de Souza, Vandréa Carla, Bertoldo, Mariana, Poli-de-Figueiredo, Carlos Eduardo, Rimmelé, Thomas, Thaunat, Olivier, Badet, Lionel, Morelon, Emmanuel, Sicard, Antoine, Dubourg, Laurence
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is important for clinical management in kidney transplantation recipients (KTR). However, very few studies have evaluated the performance of the new GFR estimating equations (Lund-Malmö Revised-LMR, and Full Age Spectrum-FAS) in KTR. GFR was estimated (eGFR) using CKD-EPI, MDRD, LMR, and FAS equations and compared to GFR measurement (mGFR) by reference methods (inuline urinary and iohexol plasma clearance) in 395 deceased-donor KTR without corticosteroids. The equations performance was assessed using bias (mean difference of eGFR and mGFR), precision (standard deviation of the difference), accuracy (concordance correlation coefficient-CCC), and agreements (total deviation index-TDI). The area under receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) and the likelihood ratio for a positive result were calculated. In the total population, the performance of the CKD-EPI, MDRD and FAS equations was significantly lower than the LMR equation regarding the mean [95%CI] difference in bias (-2.0 [-4.0; -1.5] versus 9.0 [7.5; 10.0], 5.0 [3.5; 6.0] and 10.0 [8.5; 11.0] mL/min/1.73m2, P
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0231873