Total amount: € 0,00
Indexed/Abstracted in: Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,236
Online ISSN 1827-1669
Yildiz G. 1, Mağden K. 2, Abdulkerim Y. 3, Ozcicek F. 4, Hür E. 5, Candan F. 6
1 Atatürk State Hospital, Zonguldak, Turkey;
2 Bülen Ecevit Üniversity, Zonguldak, Turkey;
3 Gaziosmanpasa University School of Medicine Tokat, Turkey;
4 Erzincan University, Erzincan, Turkey;
5 Bülen Ecevit Üniversity, Zonguldak, Turkey;
6 Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey
Aim: In this study, we compared estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) calculated with the formulas of Cockcroft-Gault (C&G), Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD), Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) and Mayo Clinic Quadratic (Mayo Q) and, GFR (mGFR) that was scintigraphically measured with creatinine clearance (CrCl) and technetium-99m diethylene triamine penta-acetic acid (99mTc-DTPA). Objective of this study was to define the correlations between the formulas, provide a reliable method for measurement and estimation of GFR in daily clinical practice and demonstrate the potential errors.
Methods: C&G, CKD-EPI, Mayo Q and MDRD eGFR of 84(37 males, 47 females) patients diagnosed with chronic kidney disease were calculated. Values of 99mTc-DTPA based on mGFR were compared with eGFR values of the formulas.
Results: Significant correlations were found with the values of 99mTc-DTPA mGFR, CrCl, MDRD, CKD-EPI, Mayo Q and C&G eGFR. The highest correlation was found between LBM(lean body mass) corrected C&G, MDRD-6, Mayo Q and CKD-EPI eGFR. The best estimate was made with MDRD-6 in the cases with 99mTc-DTPA mGFR<30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and with MDRD-4 in the cases with 99mTc-DTPA mGFR≥30 mL/min/1.73 m2, while the worst estimate was made with uncorrected C&G formula in both groups.
Conclusion: All eGFR formulas can be used in daily clinical practice. However, using MDRD-6 in the cases with GFR<30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and MDRD-4 in the cases with GFR≥30 mL/min/1.73m2 as well as using LBM for C&G eGFR or correction according to LBM when AW (actual weight) is used, might provide a more accurate estimation.