Renal markers of organ damage include serum creatinine levels (sCr), estimates of creatinine clearance by the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) formula or of glomerular filtration rate by the MDRD formula. These estimated values are a more precise index of the cardiovascular risk accompanying renal dysfunction. A new equation, the CKD-EPI equation, has been validated. The aim of our study was to show the impact of the difference methods used to identify renal damage (RD). Methods: We analysed data from 1.847 patients in Nephrology care. 1.766 (95.6%) have the complete data to calculate the different estimation formulae. RD was study using sCr levels, estimated glomerular filtration rate using MDRD and CKD-EPI formulae, and estimated creatinine clearance using CG and body surface corrected CG formulae. We considered RD when 4 or 5 methods were positive, while we considered no RD when one or none method shows RD. Results: RD prevalence according to the different methods was: a) sCr levels 53.3%, b) MDRD 63.1%, c)CKD-EPI 61.3%, d) CG 57.9%, and e) body-surface corrected CG 60%. Distribution of patients according to the number of RD methods resulting in RD was: none 34%, one 2.2%, two 3.6%, three 2.8%, four 8.8%, and five 48.5%. So, for our analysis we consider without RD 36.2% of patients and with RD 57.3%, 6.4% of patients were excluded because they have 2 or 3 RD positive methods. Sensibility and specificity of the difference methods used was: a) to sCr levels 88.4% and 99.7%, b) to MDRD 100% and 97%, c) to CKD-EPI 100% and 100%, d) to CG 96.4% and 98%, and to body-surface corrected CG 99.4% and 99.1%. Conclusions: RD prevalence depends on the method used, existing a variability near to 10% between methods. Use of sCr levels to determinate the presence of RD have a high specificity but the lower sensibility. The best formula according to our study was CKD-EPI, followed by body-surface corrected CG. MDRD and CG equations showed intermediate specificity and sensibility.
Read full abstract