scholarly journals Assessment of Glomerular Filtration Rate and End-Stage Kidney Disease Risk in Living Kidney Donor Candidates: A Paradigm for Evaluation, Selection, and Counseling

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lesley A. Inker ◽  
Farrukh M. Koraishy ◽  
Nitender Goyal ◽  
Krista L. Lentine
2021 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 186-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Raynaud ◽  
Olivier Aubert ◽  
Peter P. Reese ◽  
Yassine Bouatou ◽  
Maarten Naesens ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darren Lee ◽  
John B. Whitlam ◽  
Natasha Cook ◽  
Momena Manzoor ◽  
Geoff Harley ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chee Keong Thye ◽  
Yee Wan Lee ◽  
Maisarah Jalalonmuhali ◽  
Soo Kun Lim ◽  
Kok Peng Ng

Abstract Background and Aims All living kidney donors undergo assessment of renal function by evaluation of Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR). 51Cr-EDTA is one of the most widely used marker for measuring GFR but it is hampered by cost and laboriousness as well as not being widely available in Malaysia. Measuring 24-hour urine for creatinine clearance (Ccr) is a common alternative when exogenous filtration markers are not available. Ccr suffers from over/underestimation of measured GFR (mGFR) due to errors in urine collection and tubular secretion of creatinine. This is a study to compare the correlation of Ccr against 51Cr-EDTA in measuring GFR among the living donors in Malaysian population. Method This is a cross-sectional, single-centre study of a cohort of living kidney donor candidates from January 2007 to March 2019. All candidates who had mGFR done with both 51Cr-EDTA and Ccr in University Malaya Medical Centre were enrolled. Special consideration was taken to account for adequate urine sampling for Ccr. Clinical data was analysed for correlation, bias, precision and accuracy between Ccr and 51Cr-EDTA. Results A total of 83 living kidney donors with a mean age of 45.60 ± 11.06 years and body mass index (BMI) of 24.36 ± 4.03 were enrolled. Female comprised 74.7% of the donors while Chinese, Malay and Indian accounted for 67.5%, 20.5% and 7.2% of the donors respectively. The study group had a mean serum creatinine of 63.37 ± 16.00 umol/L with a urine volume of 2.03 ± 0.81 L (range 0.70 – 3.82). mGFR from 51Cr-EDTA was 125.56 ± 27.64 ml/min/1.73m2 (range 77.0 – 194.3) whereas calculated Ccr was 136.05 ± 36.15 ml/min/1.73m2 (range 75.32 – 280.06). The correlation coefficient between Ccr and 51Cr-EDTA is moderate (r = 0.43) (p < 0.01). Mean absolute bias between Ccr and 51Cr-EDTA was 10.59 ± 37.99 ml/min/1.73m2 (p < 0.05). The accuracy of Ccr within 30% of 51Cr-EDTA was 77.11%. Conclusion Our study showed that Ccr significantly overestimates mGFR compared to 51Cr-EDTA. However, there is a significantly moderate positive correlation between Ccr and 51Cr-EDTA. Thus, in the absence of 51Cr-EDTA, Ccr is a clinically acceptable alternative if utilized with care and understanding its limitations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document