A comparison between cystatin C, plasma creatinine and the Cockcroft and Gault formula for the estimation of glomerular filtration rate

Background. In clinical practice, the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is often estimated from plasma creatinine. Several studies have shown cystatin C (cys C) to be a better parameter for the diagnosis of impaired renal function. No data are available, however, on the performance of cys C in follow...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation dialysis, transplantation, 2003-10, Vol.18 (10), p.2024-2031
Hauptverfasser: Hoek, Frans J., Kemperman, Frits A. W., Krediet, Raymond T.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background. In clinical practice, the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is often estimated from plasma creatinine. Several studies have shown cystatin C (cys C) to be a better parameter for the diagnosis of impaired renal function. No data are available, however, on the performance of cys C in follow-up of patients, compared with creatinine. Also, comparisons of cys C with the Cockcroft and Gault (C&G) formula for estimation of GFR are few. Methods. Plasma samples were obtained from 93 consecutive patients seen for GFR determination and from 30 patients with diabetes mellitus type 2, of whom 23 were investigated a second time after 2 years. GFR was determined with [125I]iothalamate. Plasma creatinine was determined enzymatically and the creatinine clearance calculated according to C&G. Cys C was measured with a particle-enhanced immunonephelometric method. Results. GFR correlated with 1/cys C (r = 0.873) as well as with C&G (r = 0.876). The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating curves (ROCs), a measure of diagnostic accuracy, for cys C (0.931) and C&G (0.938) were equal (P = 0.815) and both better than the creatinine AUC (0.848; P = 0.006). Bland and Altman analysis showed that the simple formula GFR = –4.32 + 80.35 × 1/cys C, derived from our data, gave more accurate (P 
ISSN:0931-0509
1460-2385
1460-2385
DOI:10.1093/ndt/gfg349