AbstractObjectivesThe one-compartment iohexol plasma clearance has been proposed as a reliable alternative to renal inulin clearance. However, this method’s performance depends on the formula used to calculate glomerular filtration rate (GFR). This study reports on performance comparisons between various mathematical formulas proposed for iohexol plasma clearance vs. inulin urinary clearance.MethodsGFR was simultaneously determined by inulin and iohexol clearance in 144 participants (age: 10–84 years; glomerular filtration rate: 15–169 mL/min/1.73 m2). A retrospective cross-sectional study evaluated the performance of four formulas proposed to calculate plasma iohexol clearance (Brøchner–Mortensen, Fleming et al., Jødal–Brøchner–Mortensen, and Ng–Schwartz–Munoz). The performance of each formula was assessed using bias, precision (standard deviation of the bias), accuracy (percentage iohexol within 5, 10, and 15%), root mean square error, and concordance correlation coefficient vs. renal inulin clearance as reference.ResultsRegarding accuracy, there was no difference in root mean square error (RMSE), P5, P10, or P15 between the four formulas. The four concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) between the value from each formula and in-GFR were high and not significantly different. At in-GFR ≥90 mL/min/1.73 m2, Ng–Schwartz–Munoz formula performed slightly better than other formulas regarding median bias (−0.5; 95% CI [−3.0 to 2.0] and accuracy P15 (95.0; 95% CI [88.0–100.0]).ConclusionsThe studied formulas were found equivalent in terms of precision and accuracy, but the Ng–Schwartz–Munoz formula improved the accuracy at higher levels of in-GFR.
Iohexol plasma clearance for measuring glomerular filtration rate in clinical practice and research: a review. Part 2: Why to measure glomerular filtration rate with iohexol?
