Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorErselcan, T.
dc.contributor.authorHasbek, Z.
dc.contributor.authorTandogan, I.
dc.contributor.authorGumus, C.
dc.contributor.authorAkkurt, I.
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-27T12:10:23Z
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-28T10:14:44Z
dc.date.available2019-07-27T12:10:23Z
dc.date.available2019-07-28T10:14:44Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.identifier.issn0211-6995
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12418/10250
dc.descriptionWOS: 000270523800004en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed ID: 19820751en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: Several organizations recommend using estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in kidney function monitoring, preferably calculated with Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) formula. The role of this formula is not clear in the risk stratification of contrast induced acute kidney injury (CIAKI) in nonsteady state patients. Aim: Comparative evaluation of the MDRD eGFR in risk stratification of CIAKI. Method. GFR was measured twice (pre- and post-examination) by Tc-99m-DTPA, along with serum levels of urea nitrogen and creatinine in 32 patients (mean age +/- SD, 60.1 +/- 13.2 years) needing hospital care for various reasons and underwent to x-ray examination with contrast media (mean; 90.2 +/- 16.8 ml). eGFR was calculated by the dedicated formula. Agreement between measured GFR (mGFR) and MDRD eGFR was assessed and patients were scored and stratified for CIAKI by using first mGFR, then eGFR and results were compared. Results: A moderate correlation was obtained between mGFR and eGFR (r = 0.47, p <0.001) and the difference was not significant. However, Bland&Altman analysis revealed large limits of agreement between mGFR and eGFR (-80.3 to 55.2) with a mean difference of -12.5 ml/min/1.73m(2). In ROC analysis, when mGFR values were classified as normal (>60 ml/min/1.73m(2)) and decreased (<60ml/min/1.73m(2)), AUC was 0.80 (95%CI; 0.62-0.92) for eGFR, with a sensitivity of 29% and specificity of 100%. Furthermore, the risk group categorization, using eGFR instead of mGFR was resulted in a group change for four patients (13%); from moderate to low risk group. Conclusion: It seems that MDRD eGFR differs from mGFR. In nonsteady state patients CIAKI classification using eGFR should be considered with caution.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSOC ESPANOLA NEFROLOGIA DR RAFAEL MATESANZen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectContrast nephropathen_US
dc.subjectglomerular filtration rate-risk stratificationen_US
dc.subjectTc-99m DTPAen_US
dc.subjectacute kidney injuryen_US
dc.titleModification of Diet in Renal Disease equation in the risk stratification of contrast induced acute kidney injury in hospital inpatientsen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalNEFROLOGIAen_US
dc.contributor.department[Erselcan, T. -- Hasbek, Z.] Cumhuriyet Univ, Sch Med, Dept Nucl Med, Sivas, Turkey -- [Tandogan, I.] Cumhuriyet Univ, Sch Med, Dept Cardiol, Sivas, Turkey -- [Gumus, C.] Cumhuriyet Univ, Sch Med, Dept Radiol, Sivas, Turkey -- [Akkurt, I.] Cumhuriyet Univ, Sch Med, Dept Pulm Med, Sivas, Turkeyen_US
dc.identifier.volume29en_US
dc.identifier.issue5en_US
dc.identifier.endpage403en_US
dc.identifier.startpage397en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record