scholarly journals Comparison of the Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR) in Diabetic Patients, Non-Diabetic Patients and Living Kidney Donors

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akihiro Tsuda ◽  
Eiji Ishimura ◽  
Hideki Uedono ◽  
Mari Yasumoto ◽  
Mitsuru Ichii ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Glomerular Filtration Rate ◽  
Glomerular Filtration ◽  
Filtration Rate ◽  
Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Kidney Donors ◽  
Living Kidney Donors

scholarly journals The 1-year decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) after radical nephrectomy in patients with renal masses and matched living kidney donors is the same

2013 ◽  
Vol 113 (5b) ◽  
pp. E49-E55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miki N. Hew ◽  
Dedan Opondo ◽  
Ernesto R. Cordeiro ◽  
Karlijn A.M.I. van Donselaar-van der Pant ◽  
Frederike J. Bemelman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Glomerular Filtration Rate ◽  
Glomerular Filtration ◽  
Radical Nephrectomy ◽  
Filtration Rate ◽  
Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate ◽  
Renal Masses ◽  
Kidney Donors ◽  
Living Kidney Donors

scholarly journals MP799CAN WE TRUST ESTIMATED GLOMERULAR FILTRATION RATE N THE EVALUATION OF LIVING KIDNEY DONORS?

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (suppl_3) ◽  
pp. iii727-iii727
Author(s):  
Ana González-Rinne ◽  
Sergio Luis-Lima ◽  
Alejandra González-Delgado ◽  
Natalia Negrín-Mena ◽  
Federico González-Rinne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Glomerular Filtration Rate ◽  
Glomerular Filtration ◽  
Filtration Rate ◽  
Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate ◽  
Kidney Donors ◽  
Living Kidney Donors

scholarly journals Estimated glomerular filtration rate for longitudinal follow-up of living kidney donors

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 1054-1064 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco van Londen ◽  
Anthony B Wijninga ◽  
Jannieta de Vries ◽  
Jan-Stephan F Sanders ◽  
Margriet F C de Jong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Glomerular Filtration Rate ◽  
Glomerular Filtration ◽  
Filtration Rate ◽  
Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate ◽  
Kidney Donors ◽  
Living Kidney Donors

P1718COMPARISON OF MEASURED GLOMERULAR FILTRATION RATE USING 24-HOUR URINE CREATININE CLEARANCE WITH 51-CHROMIUM EDTA IN A MALAYSIAN COHORT OF LIVING KIDNEY DONOR CANDIDATES

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chee Keong Thye ◽  
Yee Wan Lee ◽  
Maisarah Jalalonmuhali ◽  
Soo Kun Lim ◽  
Kok Peng Ng
Keyword(s):  
Glomerular Filtration Rate ◽  
Creatinine Clearance ◽  
Glomerular Filtration ◽  
Filtration Rate ◽  
Urine Volume ◽  
Kidney Donor ◽  
Living Kidney Donor ◽  
Kidney Donors ◽  
Living Kidney Donors ◽  
51Cr Edta

Abstract Background and Aims All living kidney donors undergo assessment of renal function by evaluation of Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR). 51Cr-EDTA is one of the most widely used marker for measuring GFR but it is hampered by cost and laboriousness as well as not being widely available in Malaysia. Measuring 24-hour urine for creatinine clearance (Ccr) is a common alternative when exogenous filtration markers are not available. Ccr suffers from over/underestimation of measured GFR (mGFR) due to errors in urine collection and tubular secretion of creatinine. This is a study to compare the correlation of Ccr against 51Cr-EDTA in measuring GFR among the living donors in Malaysian population. Method This is a cross-sectional, single-centre study of a cohort of living kidney donor candidates from January 2007 to March 2019. All candidates who had mGFR done with both 51Cr-EDTA and Ccr in University Malaya Medical Centre were enrolled. Special consideration was taken to account for adequate urine sampling for Ccr. Clinical data was analysed for correlation, bias, precision and accuracy between Ccr and 51Cr-EDTA. Results A total of 83 living kidney donors with a mean age of 45.60 ± 11.06 years and body mass index (BMI) of 24.36 ± 4.03 were enrolled. Female comprised 74.7% of the donors while Chinese, Malay and Indian accounted for 67.5%, 20.5% and 7.2% of the donors respectively. The study group had a mean serum creatinine of 63.37 ± 16.00 umol/L with a urine volume of 2.03 ± 0.81 L (range 0.70 – 3.82). mGFR from 51Cr-EDTA was 125.56 ± 27.64 ml/min/1.73m2 (range 77.0 – 194.3) whereas calculated Ccr was 136.05 ± 36.15 ml/min/1.73m2 (range 75.32 – 280.06). The correlation coefficient between Ccr and 51Cr-EDTA is moderate (r = 0.43) (p < 0.01). Mean absolute bias between Ccr and 51Cr-EDTA was 10.59 ± 37.99 ml/min/1.73m2 (p < 0.05). The accuracy of Ccr within 30% of 51Cr-EDTA was 77.11%. Conclusion Our study showed that Ccr significantly overestimates mGFR compared to 51Cr-EDTA. However, there is a significantly moderate positive correlation between Ccr and 51Cr-EDTA. Thus, in the absence of 51Cr-EDTA, Ccr is a clinically acceptable alternative if utilized with care and understanding its limitations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document