Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of glomerular filtration rate formula by comparising the CKD-EPI 2009 formula and the modified Modified MDRD formula with the 99mTc-DTPA double-phase plasma method as "gold sta...Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of glomerular filtration rate formula by comparising the CKD-EPI 2009 formula and the modified Modified MDRD formula with the 99mTc-DTPA double-phase plasma method as "gold standard" respectively. Methods: Totally 166 patients diognosed as chronic kidney disease (CKD) were enrolled. The 99mTc-DTPA double-plasma method (rGFR) was used as the "gold standard". The CKD-EPI 2009 formula and the modified MDRD formula were used to calculate eGFR. Statistical software was used to analyze the correlation between the calculated values of the two formulas and the gold standard value and the bias. Then we evaluated the accuracy of the two GFR formulas. Results: Among the CKD stage 1 patients, the bias of the CKD-EPI 2009 formula was smaller than that of the Modified MDRD formula (13.9911.45;20.1815.90);both formulas were weakly correlated with the gold standard (correlation coefficients were 0.216, 0.229, P<0.01, respectively);The probability that the bias of the calculated value of the CKD-EPI 2009 formula less than 15%, 30%, and 50% of the gold standard value is smaller. Among the CKD stage 2 patients, the bias of the CKD-EPI 2009 formula was smaller than that of the Modified MDRD formula (12.748.45;15.6811.01);both formulas were moderately correlated with the gold standard (correlation coefficients were 0.568, 0.581, P<0.01, respectively);The probability that the bias of the calculated value of the CKD-EPI 2009 formula less than 15%, 30%, and 50% of the gold standard value is smaller. Among the CKD stage 3 patients, the bias of the CKD-EPI 2009 formula was smaller than that of the Modified MDRD formula (12.6410.27;12.8810.97), and both formulas were strongly correlated with the gold standard (correlation coefficients were 0.664, 0.670, P<0.01, respectively);The probability that the bias of the calculated value of the Modified MDRD formula less than 15%, 30%, and 50% of the gold standard value is smaller. Among the CKD stage 4 to 5 patients, the bias of the CKD-EPI 2009 formula was smaller than that of the Modified MDRD formula (5.585.36;5.945.20);The CKD-EPI 2009 formula and the Modified MDRD formula were strongly correlated with the gold standard (correlation coefficient r was 0.808. 0.802, P<0.01, respectively);The probability of the bias of the calculated value of the CKD-EPI 2009 formula less than 15%, 30%, and 50% of the gold standard value is smaller. In patients with decreased renal function with GFR <60 ml/min, the sensitivity and positive predictive value of the CKD-EPI 2009 formula for the diagnosis of "decreased renal function"were higher, and the specificity was comparable. Conclusion: 1. When the renal function is only slightly decreased, the accuracy of the two formulas is not good. In this condition, the CKD-EPI 2009 formula is more accurate and recommended. 2. It is necessary to further improve the current formulas especialy when it comes to value the slightly declined renal function;3. When we try to identify the stage of CKD patients, only based on eGFR may cause misclassification, it is recommended to combine the cause-GFR-albuminuria staging to assess the stage of CKD;4. The current formulas have limitations.in the case that requires a highly accurate assessment of GFR, the 99mTc-DTPA dual plasma method is recommended.展开更多
文摘Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of glomerular filtration rate formula by comparising the CKD-EPI 2009 formula and the modified Modified MDRD formula with the 99mTc-DTPA double-phase plasma method as "gold standard" respectively. Methods: Totally 166 patients diognosed as chronic kidney disease (CKD) were enrolled. The 99mTc-DTPA double-plasma method (rGFR) was used as the "gold standard". The CKD-EPI 2009 formula and the modified MDRD formula were used to calculate eGFR. Statistical software was used to analyze the correlation between the calculated values of the two formulas and the gold standard value and the bias. Then we evaluated the accuracy of the two GFR formulas. Results: Among the CKD stage 1 patients, the bias of the CKD-EPI 2009 formula was smaller than that of the Modified MDRD formula (13.9911.45;20.1815.90);both formulas were weakly correlated with the gold standard (correlation coefficients were 0.216, 0.229, P<0.01, respectively);The probability that the bias of the calculated value of the CKD-EPI 2009 formula less than 15%, 30%, and 50% of the gold standard value is smaller. Among the CKD stage 2 patients, the bias of the CKD-EPI 2009 formula was smaller than that of the Modified MDRD formula (12.748.45;15.6811.01);both formulas were moderately correlated with the gold standard (correlation coefficients were 0.568, 0.581, P<0.01, respectively);The probability that the bias of the calculated value of the CKD-EPI 2009 formula less than 15%, 30%, and 50% of the gold standard value is smaller. Among the CKD stage 3 patients, the bias of the CKD-EPI 2009 formula was smaller than that of the Modified MDRD formula (12.6410.27;12.8810.97), and both formulas were strongly correlated with the gold standard (correlation coefficients were 0.664, 0.670, P<0.01, respectively);The probability that the bias of the calculated value of the Modified MDRD formula less than 15%, 30%, and 50% of the gold standard value is smaller. Among the CKD stage 4 to 5 patients, the bias of the CKD-EPI 2009 formula was smaller than that of the Modified MDRD formula (5.585.36;5.945.20);The CKD-EPI 2009 formula and the Modified MDRD formula were strongly correlated with the gold standard (correlation coefficient r was 0.808. 0.802, P<0.01, respectively);The probability of the bias of the calculated value of the CKD-EPI 2009 formula less than 15%, 30%, and 50% of the gold standard value is smaller. In patients with decreased renal function with GFR <60 ml/min, the sensitivity and positive predictive value of the CKD-EPI 2009 formula for the diagnosis of "decreased renal function"were higher, and the specificity was comparable. Conclusion: 1. When the renal function is only slightly decreased, the accuracy of the two formulas is not good. In this condition, the CKD-EPI 2009 formula is more accurate and recommended. 2. It is necessary to further improve the current formulas especialy when it comes to value the slightly declined renal function;3. When we try to identify the stage of CKD patients, only based on eGFR may cause misclassification, it is recommended to combine the cause-GFR-albuminuria staging to assess the stage of CKD;4. The current formulas have limitations.in the case that requires a highly accurate assessment of GFR, the 99mTc-DTPA dual plasma method is recommended.
