Circulation. Heart failure · 2025
Performance of Creatinine and Cystatin C-Based Equations to Estimate Glomerular Filtration Rate Among Patients With Heart Failure.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Roth John, Lieske John C, Herrmann Sandra M, Arruda-Olson A M, Herrmann Joerg, McCallum Wendy, Larson Timothy S, Rule Andrew D, Titan Silvia M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The performance of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) among patients with heart failure (HF) may be worse than in the general population due to a higher prevalence of confounding factors affecting creatinine and cystatin C. Studies in this area are scarce and not stratified by type of HF. We evaluated the performance of current creatinine and cystatin C equations (eGFRcr, eGFRcys, and eGFRcrcys) compared with measured GFR (mGFR) among patients with HF stratified by ejection fraction.
METHODS: We pulled data on Mayo Clinic patients with an mGFR performed for clinical indications from 2011 to 2023, with serum creatinine and cystatin C measured within 7 days and an echocardiogram performed up to 1 year before the mGFR date. HF was identified by the presence of International Classification of Diseases codes within 1 year before the mGFR and subgrouped into ejection fraction (EF) ≥50% (HFEF≥50%, n=182) or <50% (HFEF<50%, n=115) and compared with no-HF controls (n=1871). CKD-EPI (and EKFC) eGFRcr, eGFRcys, and eGFRcrcys equations were calculated and compared for bias (mGFR minus eGFR) and accuracy (1-P30, proportion of people with ≥30% difference between eGFR and mGFR). CIs were generated by bootstrapping.
RESULTS: The HF groups were characterized by older age, higher proportion of males, more diabetes, higher creatinine, and higher cystatin C than controls. In terms of bias, eGFRcr overestimated mGFR to a greater extent in both HF groups compared with controls, whereas eGFRcys and eGFRcrcys showed similar bias in both HF groups and controls. In the HF groups, cystatin C-based equations were more accurate than eGFRcr, particularly within HFEF<50% (1-P30 of 28% and 34% for CKD-EPI eGFRcys and eGFRcrcys, respectively, versus 60% for eGFRcr), whereas eGFRcrcys was more accurate in controls. The CKD-EPI and EKFC equations were overall convergent, showing similar results.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HF, eGFRcr demonstrates inferior performance (more bias and less accuracy) compared with cystatin C-based eGFRs, with this effect being more pronounced in those with HFEF<50%.
METHODS: We pulled data on Mayo Clinic patients with an mGFR performed for clinical indications from 2011 to 2023, with serum creatinine and cystatin C measured within 7 days and an echocardiogram performed up to 1 year before the mGFR date. HF was identified by the presence of International Classification of Diseases codes within 1 year before the mGFR and subgrouped into ejection fraction (EF) ≥50% (HFEF≥50%, n=182) or <50% (HFEF<50%, n=115) and compared with no-HF controls (n=1871). CKD-EPI (and EKFC) eGFRcr, eGFRcys, and eGFRcrcys equations were calculated and compared for bias (mGFR minus eGFR) and accuracy (1-P30, proportion of people with ≥30% difference between eGFR and mGFR). CIs were generated by bootstrapping.
RESULTS: The HF groups were characterized by older age, higher proportion of males, more diabetes, higher creatinine, and higher cystatin C than controls. In terms of bias, eGFRcr overestimated mGFR to a greater extent in both HF groups compared with controls, whereas eGFRcys and eGFRcrcys showed similar bias in both HF groups and controls. In the HF groups, cystatin C-based equations were more accurate than eGFRcr, particularly within HFEF<50% (1-P30 of 28% and 34% for CKD-EPI eGFRcys and eGFRcrcys, respectively, versus 60% for eGFRcr), whereas eGFRcrcys was more accurate in controls. The CKD-EPI and EKFC equations were overall convergent, showing similar results.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HF, eGFRcr demonstrates inferior performance (more bias and less accuracy) compared with cystatin C-based eGFRs, with this effect being more pronounced in those with HFEF<50%.