Estimating glomerular filtration rate in the general population: the second Health Survey of Nord-Trondelag (HUNT II)

被引:55
作者
Hallan, Stein
Astor, Brad
Lydersen, Stian
机构
[1] St Olavs Univ Hosp, IKM, Dept Med, Div Nephrol, N-7006 Trondheim, Norway
[2] Norwegian Univ Sci & Technol, Fac Med, Dept Canc Res & Mol Biol, N-7034 Trondheim, Norway
[3] Johns Hopkins Univ, Welch Ctr Prevent Epidemiol & Clin Res, Baltimore, MD USA
[4] Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Epidemiol, Baltimore, MD USA
关键词
chronic kidney disease; Cockcroft-Gault; general population; glomerular filtration rate; MDRD formula;
D O I
10.1093/ndt/gfl035
中图分类号
R3 [基础医学]; R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1001 ; 1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Background. Guidelines recommend the modification of diet in the renal disease (MDRD) formula or the Cockcroft-Gault formula for estimating the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). However, there is an ongoing discussion whether the MDRD formula should be used in the general population as several studies have found a large underestimation of its GFR estimates. Methods. In this study, 1029 low-risk subjects, eligible for kidney donation according to internationally accepted criteria were selected from the population-based second Health Survey of Nord-Trondelag (HUNT II). Serum creatinine values traceable to isotope dilution mass spectrometry were used with the re-expressed MDRD formula recently published. The 2.5th, 50th and 97.5th percentiles of GFR by age were calculated and compared to reference values from the literature, which are based on GFR measured with gold standard methods in potential kidney donors. Results. The difference between the 50th percentiles for MDRD estimates and measured GFR in the literature was small and constant over age: +0.5 ml/min/1.73 m(2) at age 20 and -2.0 ml/min/1.73 m(2) at age 80. Bias for Cockcroft-Gault estimates varied from 0.0 ml/min/1.73 m(2) to -21.4 ml/min/1.73 m(2). Other formulae also had a too steep age correction, and bias among the elderly varied from -10 to -30 ml/min/1.73 m(2). Hence, 30-80% of the general population above age 60 had GFR estimates below their age-specific 2.5th percentile of normal kidney function, while the MDRD formula was much more conservative (13.3%). Conclusion. The MDRD formula gave nearly unbiased estimates for normal GFR. All other formulae tested had, especially in the elderly, a much larger negative bias and cannot be recommended for use in the general population.
引用
收藏
页码:1525 / 1533
页数:9
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2000, J AM SOC NEPHROL
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2002, NEPHROL DIAL TRAN S7, V17, P7
[3]   USE OF SERUM CREATININE CONCENTRATIONS TO DETERMINE RENAL-FUNCTION [J].
BJORNSSON, TD .
CLINICAL PHARMACOKINETICS, 1979, 4 (03) :200-222
[4]   Relationship of gender, age, and body mass index to errors in predicted kidney function [J].
Cirillo, M ;
Anastasio, P ;
De Santo, NG .
NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION, 2005, 20 (09) :1791-1798
[5]   PREDICTION OF CREATININE CLEARANCE FROM SERUM CREATININE [J].
COCKCROFT, DW ;
GAULT, MH .
NEPHRON, 1976, 16 (01) :31-41
[6]   Calibration and random variation of the serum creatinine assay as critical elements of using equations to estimate glomerular filtration rate [J].
Coresh, J ;
Astor, BC ;
McQuillan, G ;
Kusek, J ;
Greene, T ;
Van Lente, F ;
Levey, AS .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF KIDNEY DISEASES, 2002, 39 (05) :920-929
[7]   AGE CHANGES IN GLOMERULAR FILTRATION RATE, EFFECTIVE RENAL PLASMA FLOW, AND TUBULAR EXCRETORY CAPACITY IN ADULT MALES [J].
DAVIES, DF ;
SHOCK, NW .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION, 1950, 29 (05) :496-507
[8]  
Delmonico FL, 2005, TRANSPLANTATION, V79, pS53
[9]   K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: Evaluation, classification, and stratification - Foreword [J].
Eknoyan, G ;
Levin, NW .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF KIDNEY DISEASES, 2002, 39 (02) :S14-S266
[10]   Predictive performance of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease and Cockcroft-Gault equations for estimating renal function [J].
Froissart, M ;
Rossert, J ;
Jacquot, C ;
Paillard, M ;
Houillier, P .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY, 2005, 16 (03) :763-773