0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Which creatinine and cystatin C equations can be reliably used in children?

      Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN
      Adolescent, Age Factors, Analysis of Variance, Biological Markers, blood, Body Height, Body Weight, Chi-Square Distribution, Child, Colorimetry, Creatinine, Cross-Sectional Studies, Cystatin C, Female, France, Glomerular Filtration Rate, Humans, Inulin, diagnostic use, Kidney Diseases, diagnosis, physiopathology, Male, Models, Biological, Nephelometry and Turbidimetry, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Reproducibility of Results, Sex Factors

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Estimation of GFR in children is challenging; reference methods are cumbersome, and formulas have limitations. The aims of this study were to evaluate (1) the new creatinine-based formula recently proposed by Schwartz using a kinetic colorimetric compensated Jaffe technique; (2) some cystatin C-derived formulas (Hoek, Le Bricon, Larsson, Rule, Filler, and Zappitelli) using a nephelemetric technique; and (3) combined formulas using both cystatin and creatinine (Zappitelli and Bouvet). These formulas were evaluated in a cross-sectional cohort of 252 children with moderate CKD or normal GFR, in comparison with the reference standard (inulin clearance, iGFR). Mean age, body weight, height, creatinine, and cystatin C were 10.7 ± 4.0 years, 35 ± 15 kg, 137 ± 20 cm, 55 ± 30 μmol/L, and 0.91 ± 0.35 mg/L, respectively. Mean ± SD iGFR was 101 ± 32 ml/min per 1.73 m². When evaluating agreement between these formulas and iGFR (e.g. correlation, Bland Altman plots, bias, and accuracies), there was a good correlation between iGFR and all Le Bricon, Larsson, Rule, and Zappitelli (both) and locally adapted Schwartz and 2009 Schwartz formulas; by contrast, Filler and original 1976 Schwartz formulas overestimated iGFR, whereas Hoek and Bouvet formulas underestimated iGFR. Different cystatin C-derived formulas (at least Larsson and Le Bricon) for estimating GFR as well as the Zappitelli combined formula are accurate in addition to the new Schwartz bedside formula in a general pediatric population.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Comments

          Comment on this article