Abstract
Background and Aims
Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is the most important and accurate parameter of kidney function in the course of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Renal or plasma inulin, diethylenetriaminepentaacetate (DTPA), ethylenediaminetetraacetate (EDTA), radiocontrast agents (iohexol, iothalamate) and some other substances clearances are the reference methods for determining GFR. However, these methods cannot be applied routinely because of the inconvenience. Several available methods have been developed to estimate GFR in a simpler manner and at low costs. The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation is widely used to evaluate the GFR in practice. However, this equation is not accurate for the full age spectrum. In 2016, the new equation, full age spectrum equation, based on the serum creatinine (FAScr), was developed and can be applicable to all ages. However, data on the benefits of using the FAScr-method in different populations are contradictory. In particular, it is unclear whether the FAScr provides any advantages over the CKD-EPI method in adults. In this regards, we attempted to compare data obtained FAScr method with results some non-reference and reference methods in adult Russian population.
Method
We examined 120 Caucasian patients (M:F - 52:68; age 18-76 year) with CKD 1 - 5 stages. Patients with nephrotic syndrome and congestive heart failure were excluded. GFR (reference method) measured by plasma clearance of 99mTc-DTPA (CDTPA). CDTPA determined by one- compartment model 2-4 h method using a Chantler-Barratt linear correction. Estimation GFRs (eGFR) were established by Cockcroft-Gault creatinine clearance (CG), CKD-EPI (creatinine), FAScr and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) methods. Also, renal creatinine clearance (Ccr; UV/P method) was measured. Only GFRs values corrected on 1.73 m2 body surface area had been use.
Results
The values of GFR (Mean(SEM)) are: CDTPA 67.0(2.46); FAS 69.7(2.50); CKD-EPI 64.3(2.54); MDRD 60.9(2.62); CG 77.6(3.31); Ccr 85.2(3.40), мл/мин/1.73 m2. MDRD was significantly lower (paired Student t-test with correction on multiply comparison by Benjamini-Hochberg method) than CDTPA (P=0.0024), CG (P=0.0001) or Ccr (P<0.0001) were significantly higher. The bias (CDTPA minus non reference GFR) were: FAS -2.67(1.71); CKD-EPI 2.72(1.58); MDRD 6.12(1.78); CG -10.57(2.51); Ccr -18.22(2.26), ml/min. All biases are significantly differ between themselves (P from 0.00064 to <0.000001). The percentage of P30 of the FAS 81.6(3.5) was not significant differ from P30 of CKD-EPI (78.3(3.8); P=0.524) or MDRD (71.7(4.1); P=0.071). However, P30 of CG (67.5(4.3),%; P=0.01) or Ccr (54.2(5.42),%; P<0,001) were significant lower, than P30 of FAS. There were significant comparable direct correlations between CDTPA and FAS (r=0.764), CKD-EPI (r=0.801), MDRD (r=0.756), CG (r=0.656), Ccr (r=0.749); P<0.00001 in all cases.
Conclusion
In adult Russian population FAScr-method of GFR estimation had not any advantage over CKD-EPIcr-method.
Estimating glomerular filtration rate: a systematic comparison of the new European Kidney Function Consortium equation to Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation
