4.1 Article

New Method for the Approximation of Corrected Calcium Concentrations in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients

Journal

THERAPEUTIC APHERESIS AND DIALYSIS
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages 46-52

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1744-9987.12351

Keywords

Acid-base; Albumin; Corrected calcium; Chronic renal disease; Phosphate

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The following conventional calcium correction formula (Payne) is broadly applied for serum calcium estimation: corrected total calcium (TCa) (mg/dL)=TCa (mg/dL)+(4 - albumin (g/dL)); however, it is inapplicable to chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. A total of 2503 venous samples were collected from 942 all-stage CKD patients, and levels of TCa (mg/dL), ionized calcium ([iCa(2+)] mmol/L), phosphate (mg/dL), albumin (g/dL), and pH, and other clinical parameters were measured. We assumed corrected TCa (the gold standard) to be equal to eight times the iCa(2+) value (measured corrected TCa). Then, we performed stepwise multiple linear regression analysis by using the clinical parameters and derived a simple formula for corrected TCa approximation. The following formula was devised from multiple linear regression analysis: Approximatedcorrected TCa (mg/dL) = TCa + 0.25 x (4 - albumin) + 4 x (7.4 - p H) + 0.1 x (6 - phosphate) + 0.3. Receiver operating characteristic curves analysis illustrated that area under the curve of approximated corrected TCa for detection of measured corrected TCa8.4mg/dL and10.4mg/dL were 0.994 and 0.919, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient demonstrated superior agreement using this new formula compared to other formulas (new formula: 0.826, Payne: 0.537, Jain: 0.312, Portale: 0.582, Ferrari: 0.362). In CKD patients, TCa correction should include not only albumin but also pH and phosphate. The approximated corrected TCa from this formula demonstrates superior agreement with the measured corrected TCa in comparison to other formulas.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available