Impacts of different creatinine detection methods on the efficacy of different GFR estimation equations
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-9158.2011.12.002
- VernacularTitle:苦味酸法和酶法检测肌酐对肾小球滤过率预测公式效能的影响
- Author:
Ling QIU
;
Xiuzhi GUO
;
Yan ZHU
;
Weiling SHOU
;
Mengchun GONG
;
Lin ZHANG
;
Huijuan HAN
;
Guoqiang QUAN
;
Tao XU
;
Hang LI
;
Xuewang LI
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Glomerular filtration rate;
Creatinine;
Picrates;
Indicators and reagents;
Clinical enzyme tests;
Algorithms
- From:
Chinese Journal of Laboratory Medicine
2011;34(12):1062-1068
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
ObjectiveTo investigate the impacts of different serum creatinine detection methods,including Jaffe and enzymatic methods,on the efficacy of different GFR estimation equations in CKD patients in China.MethodsrGFR of 176 patients with CKD were determined by dual plasma sample method 99mTc-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (99mTc-DTPA) plasma clearance rate.Serum creatinine was detected with four kinds of creatinine reagents from different manufacturers.Cockcroft-Gault Equation corrected for body surface area (CG/BSA),simplified Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study equation,IDMS-traceable MDRD equation,CKD epidemiology collaborative research (CKD-EPI) equation and two Chinese simplified MDRD equation (project group equation 1,2) were applied to calculate estimated GFR (eGFR)respectively.eGFRwerecomparedwithrGFRforthecorrelation, deviation, precisionand30％ accuracy.ResultsThe mean rGFR of 176 patients with CKD,was [ 40.70 ( 19.41 -84.35 ) ] ml · min- 1 ·( 1.73 m2 ) -1.For all GFR estimation equations,there were significant differences in eGFR results between enzymatic method and Jaffe method,when analyzed by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.eGFR results assessed by two enzymatic creatinine detection systems showed no significant difference,while eGFR results analyzed by two Jaffe detection system were significantly different.The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of eGFR and rGFR ranged from 0.879 to 0.923 by Jaffe method,while from 0.925 to 0.946 by enzymatic creatinine method.ICC and Pearson correlation analysis revealed a significant correlation between eGFR and rGFR,and the correlation was better when using enzymatic method.Bland-Altman plots indicated that large deviation occurred in the high value area of GFR using various equations.However,deviation with the enzymatic creatinine method was smaller than that with the Jaffe method. When rGFR ≥ 60 ml · min- 1 ·(1.73 m2) -1,the 30％ accuracy of eGFR using enzymatic creatinine method for all six equations was between 68.3％ and 90.0％,while it was between 41％ and 75％ when using Jaffe method. The 30％ accuracy of eGFR using enzymatic creatinine method was significantly higher than that using picric acid method for these equations except for the project group equation 1.When rGFR ＜60 ml · min -1 · ( 1.73 m2 ) -1,the 30％accuracy of eGFR using both methods was between 39.7％ -49.1％,40.5％ -52.6％respectively,and the difference of data showed no statistical significance.For the same equation,there was a significant differernce in 30％ accuracy of eGFR between two enzymatic creatinine detection systems,while there was no significant differernce between two Jaffe creatinine detection systems.ConclusionsA significant difference was demonstrated in the same GFR evaluation equation using two different creatinine detection methods (Jaffe method and enzymatic method).The correlation between rGFR and eGFR,the degree of deviation,and accuracy of eGFR results assessed by enzymatic creatinine method were better than those by Jaffe method.The eGFR results assessed by different enzymatic detection systems revealed no significant difference.
