4.4 Article

Iohexol plasma clearance in children: validation of multiple formulas and two-point sampling times

期刊

PEDIATRIC NEPHROLOGY
卷 32, 期 2, 页码 311-320

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00467-016-3436-z

关键词

Glomerular filtration rate; Child; Chronic kidney disease; Renal function; Method

资金

  1. Health Trust of Western Norway
  2. Norwegian Society of Nephrology
  3. Haukeland University Hospital
  4. Oslo University Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In children, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) methods are hampered by inaccuracy, hence there is an obvious need for safe, simplified, and accurate measured GFR (mGFR) methods. The aim of this study was to evaluate different formulas and determine the optimal sampling points for calculating mGFR based on iohexol clearance measurements on blood samples drawn at two time points (GFR2p). The GFR of 96 children with different stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD) (median age 9.2 years, range 3 months to 17.5 years) was determined using the iohexol plasma clearance, with blood sampling at seven time points within 5 h (GFR7p) as the reference method. Median GFR7p was 65.9 (range 6.3-153) mL/min/1.73 m(2). The performance of seven different formulas with early and late normalization to body surface area (BSA) was validated against the reference. The highest percentage (95.8 %) of GFR2p within 10 % of the reference was calculated using the formula of Jodal and Brochner-Mortensen (JBM) from 2009, with sampling at 2 and 5 h. Normalization to BSA before correction of the distribution phase improved the performance of the original Brochner-Mortensen method from 1972; P10 of 92.7 % compared to P10 of 82.3 % with late normalization, and a similar result was obtained with other formulas. GFR2p performed well across a wide spectrum of GFR levels with the JBM formula. Several other formulas tested performed well provided that early BSA normalization was performed. Blood sampling at 2 and 5 h is recommended for an optimal GFR2p assessment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据