4.2 Article

Evaluation of cystatin C with iohexol clearance in cardiac surgery

Journal

ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
Volume 55, Issue 2, Pages 196-202

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2010.02361.x

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Post-operative renal dysfunction after cardiac surgery is not uncommon and can lead to adverse outcome. The ability to accurately monitor renal function is therefore important. Cystatin C is known to be a sensitive marker of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR), but it has not been fully evaluated in cardiac surgery. Iohexol clearance is considered a reliable reference method for the determination of GFR. The aim of this study is to, for the first time, evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of plasma cystatin C compared with iohexol clearance in cardiac surgery. Methods Twenty-one patients scheduled for elective coronary artery bypass grafting were prospectively enrolled in the study. Before surgery and on the second post-operative day, an iohexol clearance was performed. Plasma cystatin C, plasma creatinine and plasma C-reactive protein were determined before surgery and on the first, second, third and fifth post-operative day. Estimated creatinine and cystatin C clearances were determined. Results Post-operative cystatin C and 1/cystatin C correlated strongly to iohexol clearance (r=-0.90 and 0.86) and so did creatinine and 1/creatinine (r=-0.83 and 0.78). Estimated creatinine clearance differed from iohexol clearance (P < 0.01), whereas estimated cystatin C clearance did not differ from iohexol clearance (P=0.81). No correlation was found between C-reactive protein and cystatin C. Conclusion This study indicates that clearance estimations based on cystatin C are more accurate compared with estimations based on creatinine in determining GFR in cardiac surgery. Cystatin C has, in this study population, a stronger correlation to iohexol clearance than creatinine.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available