Objective To evaluate and compare the performance of the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemi-ology Collaboration(CKD-EPI)equation,the abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease(aMDRD)equa-tion,the Cockroft-Gault(C-G)formula,the Mayo Clinic Quadratic(MCQ)equation,and the Berlin Initiative Study 1(BIS1)equation in determining renal function among critically ill patients,and to identify the most appro-priate method for clinical application.Methods Critically ill patients admitted to the Intensive Care Units of the Department of Geriatric Medicine at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University(Jiangsu Province Hospital)between June 2020 and June 2022 were included.Their renal function was assessed within 48 hours of admission using the 24-hour creatinine clearance rate(CrCl24h)as the reference standard,and compared with the CKD-EPI equation,aMDRD equation,C-G formula,MCQ equation,and BIS1 equation.The precision and accuracy of each equation in evaluating renal function in critically ill patients were analyzed.Results Total of 534 patients were included in the study.(1)The aMDRD equation exhibited the least bias(-3.91),yet the accuracy of the five estimated glomerular filtration rate(eGFR)equations was relatively low,ranging from 42.9%to 63.1%.(2)For renal function grading,the weighted κ agreement values between the CKD-EPI equation,aMDRD equation,C-G formula,MCQ equation,BIS1 equation,and CrCl24h were 0.464,0.555,0.403,0.405,and 0.159,respectively(all P<0.001).(3)Among patients with severe kidney function decline[CrCl24h≤60 mL/(min·1.73 m2)],the eGFR value derived from the C-G formula was the lowest,while that from the BIS1 equation was the highest.In patients with normal or moderately reduced renal function[60 mL/(min·1.73 m2)130 mL/(min·1.73 m2)],the eGFR value of the BIS1 equation was the lowest,and the aMDRD equation produced the highest eGFR value.(4)When renal function was severely decreased or augmented[CrCl24h>130 mL/(min·1.73 m2)],the accuracy of the CKD-EPI and MCQ equations declined.Conversely,as creatinine clearance increased,the accuracy of the aMDRD equation improved gradually.The C-G formula demonstrated an opposite trend compared to the aMDRD equation,and the BIS1 equation exhibited low accuracy across all groups.(5)The optimal critical values[mL/(min·m2)]for diagnosing augmented renal clearance(ARC)using the five eGFR equations were as follows:eGFRCKD-EPI:91.1,eGFRaMDRD:99.84,eGFRC-G:76.27,eGFRMCQ:100.87,eGFRBIS1:82.36.Conclusions The precision and accuracy of the five eGFR equations are relatively low,making them unsuitable for assessing renal function in critically ill patients.Collecting 24-hour urine to calculate creatinine clearance remains an essential method for evaluating renal function in this population.In the absence of early CrCl24h data upon ICU admission,the cut-off values of the eGFR equa-tions may serve as a tool for the early identification of ARC.Additionally,the aMDRD equation can provide a rough estimate of creatinine clearance in critically ill patients.

Objective To evaluate and compare the performance of the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemi-ology Collaboration(CKD-EPI)equation,the abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease(aMDRD)equa-tion,the Cockroft-Gault(C-G)formula,the Mayo Clinic Quadratic(MCQ)equation,and the Berlin Initiative Study 1(BIS1)equation in determining renal function among critically ill patients,and to identify the most appro-priate method for clinical application.Methods Critically ill patients admitted to the Intensive Care Units of the Department of Geriatric Medicine at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University(Jiangsu Province Hospital)between June 2020 and June 2022 were included.Their renal function was assessed within 48 hours of admission using the 24-hour creatinine clearance rate(CrCl24h)as the reference standard,and compared with the CKD-EPI equation,aMDRD equation,C-G formula,MCQ equation,and BIS1 equation.The precision and accuracy of each equation in evaluating renal function in critically ill patients were analyzed.Results Total of 534 patients were included in the study.(1)The aMDRD equation exhibited the least bias(-3.91),yet the accuracy of the five estimated glomerular filtration rate(eGFR)equations was relatively low,ranging from 42.9%to 63.1%.(2)For renal function grading,the weighted κ agreement values between the CKD-EPI equation,aMDRD equation,C-G formula,MCQ equation,BIS1 equation,and CrCl24h were 0.464,0.555,0.403,0.405,and 0.159,respectively(all P<0.001).(3)Among patients with severe kidney function decline[CrCl24h≤60 mL/(min·1.73 m2)],the eGFR value derived from the C-G formula was the lowest,while that from the BIS1 equation was the highest.In patients with normal or moderately reduced renal function[60 mL/(min·1.73 m2)130 mL/(min·1.73 m2)],the eGFR value of the BIS1 equation was the lowest,and the aMDRD equation produced the highest eGFR value.(4)When renal function was severely decreased or augmented[CrCl24h>130 mL/(min·1.73 m2)],the accuracy of the CKD-EPI and MCQ equations declined.Conversely,as creatinine clearance increased,the accuracy of the aMDRD equation improved gradually.The C-G formula demonstrated an opposite trend compared to the aMDRD equation,and the BIS1 equation exhibited low accuracy across all groups.(5)The optimal critical values[mL/(min·m2)]for diagnosing augmented renal clearance(ARC)using the five eGFR equations were as follows:eGFRCKD-EPI:91.1,eGFRaMDRD:99.84,eGFRC-G:76.27,eGFRMCQ:100.87,eGFRBIS1:82.36.Conclusions The precision and accuracy of the five eGFR equations are relatively low,making them unsuitable for assessing renal function in critically ill patients.Collecting 24-hour urine to calculate creatinine clearance remains an essential method for evaluating renal function in this population.In the absence of early CrCl24h data upon ICU admission,the cut-off values of the eGFR equa-tions may serve as a tool for the early identification of ARC.Additionally,the aMDRD equation can provide a rough estimate of creatinine clearance in critically ill patients.

Objective:To investigate the dosimetric differences in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy and internal lymph node irradiation after left-sided modified radical mastectomy.Methods:VMAT and IMRT radiotherapy plans were established for 20 patients undergoing left-sided modified radical mastectomy. The dosimetric parameters of the target area and organs at risk were calculated by the dose volume histogram. The categorical variables were tested by χ2 or Fisher′ s exact probability test. The continuous variables with normal distribution were analyzed by paired-t test or rank-sum test. Results:Among the two radiotherapy techniques, the homogeneity index of IMRT was significantly higher than that of VMAT ( P<0.05). The time of VMAT treatment was significantly shorter than that of IMRT ( P<0.01). VMAT was superior to IMRT in V 20Gy and V 30Gy of the affected lung (both P<0.05). VMAT was superior to IMRT in the left anterior descending coronary artery D mean, D max, and heart V 30Gy, V 40Gy, D mean and D max(all P<0.01). The esophageal D mean in the VMAT group was superior to that in the IMRT group ( P<0.05). The V 5Gy and V 10Gy of the contralateral lung and the D max of the esophagus in the IMRT group were significantly better compared with those in the VMAT group (all P<0.05). Conclusions:VMAT can significantly reduce the dose of the heart, contralateral lung, spinal cord, esophagus and other vital organs, and shorten the treatment time. For patients who need adjuvant radiotherapy and internal mammary lymph node irradiation after left-sided modified radical mastectomy, VMAT technology can better protect normal tissues than IMRT.