4.6 Article

Monitoring of renal function in patients with spinal cord injury

期刊

BJU INTERNATIONAL
卷 85, 期 9, 页码 1014-1018

出版社

BLACKWELL SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2000.00680.x

关键词

neurogenic bladder; glomerular filtration; renal function; spinal cord injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To assess the sensitivity of serum creatinine level in detecting clinically important and early deterioration of renal function in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI), and to evaluate the optimal method of determining creatinine clearance in these patients. Patients and methods The serum creatinine level of 36 patients (25 paraplegics and 11 quadriplegics) was evaluated and compared with the corresponding measured creatinine clearance rate. Correlations were also assessed between the creatinine clearance measured by 24-h endogenous clearance, single-shot Tc-99m-labelled diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Tc-99m-DTpA) clearance technique, and the Cockcroft-Gault formula, to test their validity. Results Of the 36 patients 11 (31%) had a measured creatinine clearance of <100 mL/min (mean 84.8) and a corresponding normal serum creatinine level. Creatinine clearance calculated by the Cockcroft-Gault formula did not correlate well with that measured by the 24-h endogenous clearance (r=0.426) and Tc-99m-DTPA clearance (r=0.366), overestimating creatinine clearance in all but three patients. The mean (sD) difference between the creatinine clearance measured by the 24-h and DTPA clearance technique was 17.7 (16.5)% and the correlation between these techniques was good (r=0.71). Conclusion Serum creatinine level is not sensitive in detecting early deterioration of renal function in patients with SCI. The Cockcroft-Gault formula generally significantly overestimates the true creatinine clearance and is not recommended. The 24-h endogenous creatinine clearance measured on appropriately collected urine samples is an acceptable accurate and practical method of determining glomerular filtration rate in patients with SCI.

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

4.6
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