Effect of creatinine assay calibration on glomerular filtration rate prediction by MDRD equation
Background: The evaluation of renal function should be performed with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation employing the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study equation, which includes age, gender, ethnicity and serum creatinine. However, creatinine methods require trac...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2009 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) |
| Repositorio: | Clinical and Biomedical Research |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:seer.ufrgs.br:article/7242 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://seer.ufrgs.br/index.php/hcpa/article/view/7242 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Taxa de filtração glomerular TFG creatinina sérica Modification of Diet in Renal Disease MDRD Endocrinologia |
| Sumario: | Background: The evaluation of renal function should be performed with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation employing the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study equation, which includes age, gender, ethnicity and serum creatinine. However, creatinine methods require traceability with standardized methods. Objective: To analyse the impact of creatinine calibration on MDRD calculated GFR. Methods: 140 samples of plasma with creatinine values <2,0 mg/dl were analysed by Jaffé’s reaction with Creatinina Modular P (Roche ®; method A; reference) and Creatinina Advia 1650 (Bayer ®; method B; non-standardized). The results with the different methods were compared and aligned with standardized method through a conversion formula. MDRD GFR was estimated. Results: Values were higher for method B (1.03 ± 0.29 vs. 0.86 ± 0.32 mg/dl, P<0.001). This difference declined when methods were aligned with the equation y=1.07x -0.249, and the aligned values were 0,9 ± 0,31 mg/dl. Non-traceable creatinine methods misclassificaed chronic kidney disease in 10% more (false positive). This disagreement disappeared after the regression alignment. Conclusion: Creatinine method calibration has a large impact over the final results of serum creatinine and GFR. The alignment of the non-standardized results through conversion formulas is a reasonable alternative to harmonize serum creatinine results while waiting for the full implementation of international standardization programs. |
|---|