4.7 Article

Cystatin C predicts long term mortality better than creatinine in a nationwide study of intensive care patients

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-85370-8

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Uppsala University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the long-term mortality risk prediction by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) using different equations in critically ill patients and found that the cystatin C equation performed better in predicting death risk compared to the creatinine or combined equations.
Decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is linked to poor survival. The predictive value of creatinine estimated GFR (eGFR) and cystatin C eGFR in critically ill patients may differ substantially, but has been less studied. This study compares long-term mortality risk prediction by eGFR using a creatinine equation (CKD-EPI), a cystatin C equation (CAPA) and a combined creatinine/cystatin C equation (CKD-EPI), in 22,488 patients treated in intensive care at three University Hospitals in Sweden, between 2004 and 2015. Patients were analysed for both creatinine and cystatin C on the same blood sample tube at admission, using accredited laboratory methods. During follow-up (median 5.1 years) 8401 (37%) patients died. Reduced eGFR was significantly associated with death by all eGFR-equations in Cox regression models. However, patients reclassified to a lower GFR-category by using the cystatin C-based equation, as compared to the creatinine-based equation, had significantly higher mortality risk compared to the referent patients not reclassified. The cystatin C equation increased C-statistics for death prediction (p<0.001 vs. creatinine, p=0.013 vs. combined equation). In conclusion, this data favours the sole cystatin C equation rather than the creatinine or combined equations when estimating GFR for risk prediction purposes in critically ill patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available