4.6 Article

Serum Cystatin C in Elderly Cardiac Surgery Patients

Journal

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
Volume 89, Issue 3, Pages 689-695

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2009.11.018

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Elderly cardiac surgery patients are more prone to develop postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI). The common clinical glomerular filtration marker, plasma creatinine, is considered to be inadequate to discover AKI in its early stage. The aim of this study was to determine if serum cystatin C can detect mild renal failure earlier than plasma creatinine. Methods. From 110 cardiac surgery patients aged 70 or greater years, serum cystatin C and plasma creatinine samples were collected preoperatively and on postoperative days 1 to 5. Their urine output, creatinine, and estimated glomerular filtration rate were calculated and AKI was determined by the risk-injury-failure-loss-end-stage kidney disease criteria (RIFLE). The correlation of plasma creatinine and serum cystatin C to AKI was calculated. Results. After cardiac surgery, 62 of the 110 patients (56.4%) developed AKI according to the RIFLE classification. In this group, both serum cystatin C and plasma creatinine peaked on postoperative day 3. Cystatin C and creatinine correlated equally with AKI at different time points calculated with receiver operating characteristic curves. On postoperative day 1 the area under the curve (AUC) for creatinine was 0.66 (0.55 to 0.76) and for cystatin C 0.71 (0.61 to 0.81); Delta AUC 0.05 (0.01 to 0.12), p = 0.11. On postoperative day 2 the AUC for creatinine was 0.74 (0.64 to 0.83) and for cystatin was C 0.77 (0.68 to 0.86); Delta AUC-0.03 (-0.09 to 0.03), p = 0.32. Conclusions. Elderly cardiac surgery patients have a high incidence of AKI, as defined by the RIFLE criteria. After cardiac surgery serum cystatin C and plasma creatinine detected AKI similarly.

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