scholarly journals SAT-329 CORRELATION BETWEEN ESTIMATED GFR AND MEASURED GFR WITH DTPA RENAL SCAN IN LIVING KIDNEY DONORS

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. S138
Author(s):  
S. Samavat ◽  
M. Nafar ◽  
S. Hoseinzadeh ◽  
H. Masroor ◽  
N. Dalili MD
Kidney360 ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 10.34067/KID.0003052021
Author(s):  
Neetika Garg ◽  
Emilio D. Poggio ◽  
Didier Mandelbrot

Living kidney donors incur a small increased risk of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), of which pre-donation glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is an important determinant. As a result, kidney function assessment is central to the donor candidate evaluation and selection process. This article reviews the different methods of GFR assessment including estimated GFR, creatinine clearance and measured GFR, and the current guidelines on GFR thresholds for donor acceptance. Estimated GFR obtained using the 2009 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation, while the best of estimating estimations, tends to underestimate and has limited accuracy, especially near normal GFR values. In the United States, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network policy on living donation mandates either measured GFR or creatinine clearance as part of evaluation. Measured GFR is considered the gold standard, although there is some variation in performance characteristics depending on the marker and technique used. Major limitations of creatinine clearance are dependency on accuracy of timed collection, and overestimation as a result of distal tubular creatinine secretion. GFR declines with healthy aging, and most international guidelines recommend use of age-adapted selection criteria. The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes Guideline for the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors diverges from other guidelines and recommends using absolute cut-off of <60 ml/min/1.73m2 for exclusion and of ≥90 ml/min/1.73m2 for acceptance, and determination of candidacy with intermediate GFR based on long-term ESKD risk. However, several concerns for this strategy exist, including inappropriate acceptance of younger candidates due to underestimation of risk, and exclusion of older candidates whose kidney function is in fact appropriate for age. Role of cystatin C and other newer biomarkers, as well as data on impact of pre-donation GFR on not just ESKD risk but also advanced chronic kidney disease risk and cardiovascular outcomes are needed.


2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 201-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thakshyanee Bhuvanakrishna ◽  
Glen M. Blake ◽  
Rachel Hilton ◽  
Lisa Burnapp ◽  
Christopher Sibley-Allen ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 748-755 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana González-Rinne ◽  
Sergio Luis-Lima ◽  
Beatriz Escamilla ◽  
Natalia Negrín-Mena ◽  
Ana Ramírez ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundReliable determination of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is crucial in the evaluation of living kidney donors. Although some guidelines recommend the use of measured GFR (mGFR), many centres still rely on estimated GFR (eGFR) obtained through equations or 24-h creatinine clearance. However, eGFR is neither accurate nor precise in reflecting real renal function. We analysed the impact of eGFR errors on evaluation and decision making regarding potential donors.MethodsWe evaluated 103 consecutive living donors who underwent mGFR via iohexol plasma clearance and eGFR by 51 creatinine- and/or cystatin C–based equations. The cut-off for living donation in our centre is GFR > 80 mL/min for donors >35 years of age or 90 mL/min for those <35 years of age. We analysed the misclassification of donors based on the cut-off for donation-based eGFR.ResultsNinety-three subjects (90.3%) had mGFR values above (donors) and 10 [9.7% (95% confidence interval 5.4–17)] below (non-donors) the cut-off. In non-donors, most of the equations gave eGFR values above the cut-off, so donation would have been allowed based on eGFR. All non-donors were female with reduced weight, height and body surface. In donors, up to 32 cases showed eGFR below the cut-off, while mGFR was actually higher. Therefore an important number of donors would not have donated based on eGFR alone.ConclusionThe misclassification of donors around the cut-off for donation is very common with eGFR, making eGFR unreliable for the evaluation of living kidney donors. Whenever possible, mGFR should be implemented in this setting.


2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-79
Author(s):  
F Jahan ◽  
MNU Chowdhury ◽  
T Mahbub ◽  
SM Arafat ◽  
S Jahan ◽  
...  

To ensure that potential kidney donors in Bangladesh have no renal impairment, it is extremely important to have accurate methods for evaluating the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). We evaluated the performance of serum creatinine based GFR in healthy adult potential kidney donors in Bangladesh to compare GFR determined by DTPA with that determined by various prediction equations. In this study GFR in 61 healthy adult potential kidney donors were measured with 99mTc-diethylenetriamine penta-acetic acid (DTPA) renogram. We also estimated GFR using a four variable equation modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD), Cockcroft-Gault creatinine clearance (CG CrCl), Cockcroft-Gault glomerular filtration rate (CG-GFR). The mean age of study population was 34.31±9.46 years and out of them 65.6% was male. In this study mean mGFR was 85.4±14.8. Correlation of estimated GFR calculated by CG-CrCl, CG-GFR and MDRD were done with measured GFR DTPA using quartile. Kappa values were also estimated which was found to be 0.104 for (p=0.151), 0.336 for (p=0.001) and 0.125 for (p=0.091) respectively. This indicates there is no association between estimated GFR calculated by CG-CrCl, CG-GFR, MDRD with measured GFR DTPA. These results show poor performance of these equations in evaluation of renal function among healthy population and also raise question regarding validity of these equations for assessment of renal function in chronic kidney disease in our population. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/bmrcb.v39i2.19646 Bangladesh Med Res Counc Bull 2013; 39: 74-79


2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. 3024-3032 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Gaillard ◽  
M. Flamant ◽  
S. Lemoine ◽  
S. Baron ◽  
M.-O. Timsit ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document