4.6 Article

Validation of the CKD-EPI formula in patients after renal transplantation

Journal

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 26, Issue 12, Pages 4104-4108

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfr183

Keywords

CKD-EPI formula; diagnostic accuracy; glomerular filtration rate; kidney transplantation; precision

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Accurate calculation of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is crucial in the management of patients after kidney transplantation (KTx). Recently, the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) formula was introduced to estimate GFR in chronic kidney disease patients. However, to date the diagnostic value of this equation remains to be determined in patients after KTx. Methods. We analysed the CKD-EPI formula in comparison to the re-expressed Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation in 170 stable patients after renal transplantation. Correlation, bias, precision and accuracy within 30 and 50% of true GFR were determined. GFR was measured by technetium-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid clearance [39.6, 95% confidence interval (CI): 37.3-42.0 mL/min/1.73m(2)]. Results. The results for the MDRD and CKD-EPI equations correlated well with GFR (0.82; 0.83, respectively). GFR calculated by MDRD (44.1, 95% CI: 41.6-46.8 mL/min/1.73m(2)) and CKD-EPI (47.7, 95% CI: 44.7-50.7 mL/min/1.73m(2)) overestimated true GFR significantly (P < 0.001). Precision was not significantly different between MDRD and CKD-EPI (10.9 versus 10.0 mL/min/1.73m(2), respectively). Accuracy within 30% of true GFR was significantly higher for MDRD (71.8%) than for CKD-EPI (64.1%, P = 0.0014). Accuracy within 50% of true GFR did not differ significantly (MDRD: 89.4% versus CKD-EPI: 84.7%, P = 0.06). Conclusion. The new CKD-EPI formula did not improve the estimation of GFR in Caucasian patients after renal transplantation in this study.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available