Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and effective renal plasma flow (ERPF) were measured by SPECT in 172 patients (192 times) with renal impairment due to various diseases and also in 18 normal controls. The results sugg...Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and effective renal plasma flow (ERPF) were measured by SPECT in 172 patients (192 times) with renal impairment due to various diseases and also in 18 normal controls. The results suggest that GFR and ERPF are sensitive and efficient renal function indicators in monitoring the change of the disease and assessing therapeutic effect. However, they should be checked carefully because of many factors affect the resutls of the measurement.展开更多
Glomerular filtration rate （GFR） is considered as the best marker of kidney function. Evaluation of various prediction equations to estimate GFR is rare in our population. The aim of this study was to compare GFR es...Glomerular filtration rate （GFR） is considered as the best marker of kidney function. Evaluation of various prediction equations to estimate GFR is rare in our population. The aim of this study was to compare GFR estimated by various prediction equations with GFR by creatinine clearance （GFRer） in Bangladeshi population. Serum creatinine and 24 hours urinary creatinine concentrations were measured in 216 adult Bangladeshi subjects （100 males and 116 females）. Creatinine clearance rate was calculated and adjusted for body surface area to obtain GFRcr. GFR was also calculated by CKD-EPI, MDRD4, Cockcroft-Gault, Jelliffe, Mawer, Bjornsson, Gates, Apollo-Chennai and Mayo Clinic prediction equations and compared with GFRcr. Results were expressed as mean ＋ SD and compared by two-tailed paired t-test, precision （r2） and receiver-operating characteristic curve. Mean ± SD of age of the total subjects was 57.15 ±10.96 years. The mean GFILzr was 42.41 ± 22.95 mL/min/1.73m2. Estimated GFR （eGFR） by CKD-EPI, MDRD4, Cockcroft-Gault, Jelliffc 1, Jelliffe 2, Mawer, Bjornsson, Gates, Apollo-Chennai and Mayo Clinic prediction equations were 8.19 ± 13.80, 5.30 ±13.61, 11.54 ± 16.86, 8.66± 18.64, 17.25 ± 19.98, 10.86 ± 22.48, 14.60 ± 17.92, 12.18 ± 16.42, 39.86 ± 21.96 and 20.47 ± 20.49 mL/min/1.73m2 higher than GFR, （P 〈 0.001）. The precision （r2） of eGFRs were 0.7114, 0.6924, 0.6431, 0.4802, 0.5048, 0.5921, 0.6286, 0.6158, 0.1635, and 0.5586 for CKD-EPI, MDRD4, Cockcroft-Gault, Jelliffe 1, Jelliffe 2, Mawer, Bjornsson, Gates, Apollo-Chennai and Mayo Clinic prediction equations, respectively. The area under receiver-operating characteristic curve was the lowest for MDRD4 equation. This study revealed that GFR estimated by standardized MDRD4 variables equation is closer to creatinine clearance rate in the study population.展开更多
Objective To evaluate the value of renal parenchymal volume and thickness by non-contrast spiral CT in evaluating the differential glomerular filtration rate ( GFR) for chronic obstructed kidneys,and to compare the co...Objective To evaluate the value of renal parenchymal volume and thickness by non-contrast spiral CT in evaluating the differential glomerular filtration rate ( GFR) for chronic obstructed kidneys,and to compare the correlations between two morphologic indices of renal parenchyma and GFR for chronic obstructed kidneys.展开更多
目的探讨改良MDRD方程、基于血清CysC方程以及血清CysC与SCr联合方程等三个全国eGFR协作组推荐方程对本地区2型糖尿病患者肾功能评估的适用性,为临床选择提供依据。方法选取我院2014-2015年确诊的2型糖尿病患者76例,分别测定患者血清Cys...目的探讨改良MDRD方程、基于血清CysC方程以及血清CysC与SCr联合方程等三个全国eGFR协作组推荐方程对本地区2型糖尿病患者肾功能评估的适用性,为临床选择提供依据。方法选取我院2014-2015年确诊的2型糖尿病患者76例,分别测定患者血清CysC与SCr浓度,以及2 d内测定Ccr。分别以改良MDRD方程、基于血清CysC方程以及血清CysC与SCr联合方程计算e GFR,比较与Ccr的偏差、精密度;用Spearman相关分析评价与Ccr的相关性;比较各方程e GFR的15%和25%准确性,及以Ccr=60 m L/(min·1.73 m2)为界值时的15%准确性;比较各方程对肾功能评价的一致性。结果 76例2型糖尿病患者Ccr为77.5~111.5 m L/(min·1.73 m2),平均97.5 m L/(min·1.73 m2)。Spearman相关分析显示各方程e GFR均与Ccr显著相关(r值在0.873~0.953之间,P值均<0.01)。联合方程最佳,CysC方程次之。CysC方程在偏差和精密度方面略好于联合方程,改良MDRD方程最差。三个方程15%和25%准确度比较差异均有显著统计学意义(P<0.01),两两比较,联合方程和CysC方程的15%和25%准确度比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.0125),均优于改良MDRD方程(P均<0.012 5)。对各方程的15%准确度分组比较差异亦有统计学意义(P<0.05),两两比较,Ccr<60 m L/(min·1.73 m2)组,CysC方程高于MDRD方程(P<0.015),其余方程之间比较差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.0125);Ccr≥60 m L/(min·1.73 m2)组,联合方程和CysC方程之间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.012 5),均明显高于改良MDRD方程(P均<0.012 5)。联合方程评价肾功能的一致性最佳(Kappa值为0.808),高于单CysC方程(Kappa值为0.549)和MDRD方程(Kappa值为0.475)。结论 CysC联合SCr方程较之单纯基于SCr或CysC的方程更适合用来评价糖尿病患者的肾功能。但如果被评价者存在影响SCr的因素,或是短期内SCr很不稳定,这时选用单CysC方程可能更好。展开更多
文摘Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and effective renal plasma flow (ERPF) were measured by SPECT in 172 patients (192 times) with renal impairment due to various diseases and also in 18 normal controls. The results suggest that GFR and ERPF are sensitive and efficient renal function indicators in monitoring the change of the disease and assessing therapeutic effect. However, they should be checked carefully because of many factors affect the resutls of the measurement.
文摘Glomerular filtration rate （GFR） is considered as the best marker of kidney function. Evaluation of various prediction equations to estimate GFR is rare in our population. The aim of this study was to compare GFR estimated by various prediction equations with GFR by creatinine clearance （GFRer） in Bangladeshi population. Serum creatinine and 24 hours urinary creatinine concentrations were measured in 216 adult Bangladeshi subjects （100 males and 116 females）. Creatinine clearance rate was calculated and adjusted for body surface area to obtain GFRcr. GFR was also calculated by CKD-EPI, MDRD4, Cockcroft-Gault, Jelliffe, Mawer, Bjornsson, Gates, Apollo-Chennai and Mayo Clinic prediction equations and compared with GFRcr. Results were expressed as mean ＋ SD and compared by two-tailed paired t-test, precision （r2） and receiver-operating characteristic curve. Mean ± SD of age of the total subjects was 57.15 ±10.96 years. The mean GFILzr was 42.41 ± 22.95 mL/min/1.73m2. Estimated GFR （eGFR） by CKD-EPI, MDRD4, Cockcroft-Gault, Jelliffc 1, Jelliffe 2, Mawer, Bjornsson, Gates, Apollo-Chennai and Mayo Clinic prediction equations were 8.19 ± 13.80, 5.30 ±13.61, 11.54 ± 16.86, 8.66± 18.64, 17.25 ± 19.98, 10.86 ± 22.48, 14.60 ± 17.92, 12.18 ± 16.42, 39.86 ± 21.96 and 20.47 ± 20.49 mL/min/1.73m2 higher than GFR, （P 〈 0.001）. The precision （r2） of eGFRs were 0.7114, 0.6924, 0.6431, 0.4802, 0.5048, 0.5921, 0.6286, 0.6158, 0.1635, and 0.5586 for CKD-EPI, MDRD4, Cockcroft-Gault, Jelliffe 1, Jelliffe 2, Mawer, Bjornsson, Gates, Apollo-Chennai and Mayo Clinic prediction equations, respectively. The area under receiver-operating characteristic curve was the lowest for MDRD4 equation. This study revealed that GFR estimated by standardized MDRD4 variables equation is closer to creatinine clearance rate in the study population.
文摘Objective To evaluate the value of renal parenchymal volume and thickness by non-contrast spiral CT in evaluating the differential glomerular filtration rate ( GFR) for chronic obstructed kidneys,and to compare the correlations between two morphologic indices of renal parenchyma and GFR for chronic obstructed kidneys.
文摘目的探讨改良MDRD方程、基于血清CysC方程以及血清CysC与SCr联合方程等三个全国eGFR协作组推荐方程对本地区2型糖尿病患者肾功能评估的适用性,为临床选择提供依据。方法选取我院2014-2015年确诊的2型糖尿病患者76例,分别测定患者血清CysC与SCr浓度,以及2 d内测定Ccr。分别以改良MDRD方程、基于血清CysC方程以及血清CysC与SCr联合方程计算e GFR,比较与Ccr的偏差、精密度;用Spearman相关分析评价与Ccr的相关性;比较各方程e GFR的15%和25%准确性,及以Ccr=60 m L/(min·1.73 m2)为界值时的15%准确性;比较各方程对肾功能评价的一致性。结果 76例2型糖尿病患者Ccr为77.5~111.5 m L/(min·1.73 m2),平均97.5 m L/(min·1.73 m2)。Spearman相关分析显示各方程e GFR均与Ccr显著相关(r值在0.873~0.953之间,P值均<0.01)。联合方程最佳,CysC方程次之。CysC方程在偏差和精密度方面略好于联合方程,改良MDRD方程最差。三个方程15%和25%准确度比较差异均有显著统计学意义(P<0.01),两两比较,联合方程和CysC方程的15%和25%准确度比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.0125),均优于改良MDRD方程(P均<0.012 5)。对各方程的15%准确度分组比较差异亦有统计学意义(P<0.05),两两比较,Ccr<60 m L/(min·1.73 m2)组,CysC方程高于MDRD方程(P<0.015),其余方程之间比较差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.0125);Ccr≥60 m L/(min·1.73 m2)组,联合方程和CysC方程之间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.012 5),均明显高于改良MDRD方程(P均<0.012 5)。联合方程评价肾功能的一致性最佳(Kappa值为0.808),高于单CysC方程(Kappa值为0.549)和MDRD方程(Kappa值为0.475)。结论 CysC联合SCr方程较之单纯基于SCr或CysC的方程更适合用来评价糖尿病患者的肾功能。但如果被评价者存在影响SCr的因素,或是短期内SCr很不稳定,这时选用单CysC方程可能更好。
