Iohexol plasma clearance for measuring glomerular filtration rate: effect of different ways to calculate the area under the curve.
Iohexol plasma clearance
Measured GFR
Multiple samples
One sample
Journal
BMC nephrology
ISSN: 1471-2369
Titre abrégé: BMC Nephrol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967793
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 05 2021
05 05 2021
Historique:
received:
24
02
2021
accepted:
20
04
2021
entrez:
6
5
2021
pubmed:
7
5
2021
medline:
12
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Measuring glomerular filtration rate (GFR) using iohexol plasma clearance has been proposed as the preferred way for GFR determination. The extended multiple-sample protocol is based on fitting the full concentration-time decay-curve, and from the obtained fit-parameters, the area under the curve (AUC) and GFR (the injected dose divided by the AUC) were calculated. The goal of the current study is to evaluate the impact of different fitting procedures on the precision of GFR-results obtained from the full concentration-time curve, and compare these results with those obtained with simplified multiple-samples and single-sample protocols. The concentration-time curves of 8 samples at times 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 240 and 300 min after bolus injection of iohexol of 570 adults, aged 70+, from the Berlin Initiative Study (BIS), were analysed. The fit-parameters for the two-compartment model (double-exponential decay curve), and from these, the AUC and GFR were obtained with 8 different fitting procedures. The two-compartmental non-linear least squares fitting procedure showed the best accuracy (541 out of 570 reported GFR-results were within 5% of the majority of the 8 fitting methods). The two-compartmental slope-intercept fitting procedure was not always applicable and the non-compartmental fitting procedures did not always allow to calculate the GFR. All correction formulas for the simplified late multiple-samples methods showed acceptable accuracy and precision with a preference for Ng's correction formula (Lin's CCC = 0.992, bias = 0.5 ± 2.5). Jacobsson's iterative method was the best one-sample method, with Lin's CCC = 0.983 and bias = - 0.6 ± 3.4. The fitting procedure has an important impact on the precision of the calculated AUC and GFR. The simplified late-sample protocols and one-sample methods did not suffer from fitting problems and showed acceptable equivalence when compared to the full compartment GFR-results. The "Berlin Initiative Study" is officially registered with the German Register for Clinical Studies ("Deutschen Register Klinischer Studien"(DRKS)) under registration number DRKS00017058 , since April 12, 2019, and it is also visible on the WHO clinical trials registry platform (within the next 4 weeks after the registration date).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Measuring glomerular filtration rate (GFR) using iohexol plasma clearance has been proposed as the preferred way for GFR determination. The extended multiple-sample protocol is based on fitting the full concentration-time decay-curve, and from the obtained fit-parameters, the area under the curve (AUC) and GFR (the injected dose divided by the AUC) were calculated. The goal of the current study is to evaluate the impact of different fitting procedures on the precision of GFR-results obtained from the full concentration-time curve, and compare these results with those obtained with simplified multiple-samples and single-sample protocols.
METHODS
The concentration-time curves of 8 samples at times 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 240 and 300 min after bolus injection of iohexol of 570 adults, aged 70+, from the Berlin Initiative Study (BIS), were analysed. The fit-parameters for the two-compartment model (double-exponential decay curve), and from these, the AUC and GFR were obtained with 8 different fitting procedures.
RESULTS
The two-compartmental non-linear least squares fitting procedure showed the best accuracy (541 out of 570 reported GFR-results were within 5% of the majority of the 8 fitting methods). The two-compartmental slope-intercept fitting procedure was not always applicable and the non-compartmental fitting procedures did not always allow to calculate the GFR. All correction formulas for the simplified late multiple-samples methods showed acceptable accuracy and precision with a preference for Ng's correction formula (Lin's CCC = 0.992, bias = 0.5 ± 2.5). Jacobsson's iterative method was the best one-sample method, with Lin's CCC = 0.983 and bias = - 0.6 ± 3.4.
CONCLUSION
The fitting procedure has an important impact on the precision of the calculated AUC and GFR. The simplified late-sample protocols and one-sample methods did not suffer from fitting problems and showed acceptable equivalence when compared to the full compartment GFR-results.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The "Berlin Initiative Study" is officially registered with the German Register for Clinical Studies ("Deutschen Register Klinischer Studien"(DRKS)) under registration number DRKS00017058 , since April 12, 2019, and it is also visible on the WHO clinical trials registry platform (within the next 4 weeks after the registration date).
Identifiants
pubmed: 33952185
doi: 10.1186/s12882-021-02376-0
pii: 10.1186/s12882-021-02376-0
pmc: PMC8101203
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Iohexol
4419T9MX03
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
166Références
Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 1972 Nov;30(3):271-4
pubmed: 4629674
Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 1974 Apr;33(2):140-3
pubmed: 4211765
Clin Biochem. 1991 Jun;24(3):261-4
pubmed: 1908359
Pediatr Nephrol. 2018 Apr;33(4):683-696
pubmed: 29134449
Nutrition. 1989 Sep-Oct;5(5):303-11; discussion 312-3
pubmed: 2520314
Nucl Med Commun. 2004 Aug;25(8):759-69
pubmed: 15266169
Clin Kidney J. 2016 Oct;9(5):682-99
pubmed: 27679715
Sci Rep. 2018 Dec 7;8(1):17723
pubmed: 30531802
Nucl Med Commun. 2016 Jul;37(7):743-55
pubmed: 26626551
Am J Kidney Dis. 2020 Jul;76(1):54-62
pubmed: 31879216
Nucl Med Commun. 2005 Aug;26(8):743-8
pubmed: 16000995
J Am Soc Nephrol. 1996 Dec;7(12):2689-93
pubmed: 8989750
Ann Intern Med. 2012 Oct 2;157(7):471-81
pubmed: 23027318
Nucl Med Commun. 2016 Jul;37(7):756-66
pubmed: 27100963
Kidney Int. 2006 Jun;69(11):2070-7
pubmed: 16612328
Nucl Med Commun. 2015 Mar;36(3):297-300
pubmed: 25622117
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2015 Aug;30(8):1307-14
pubmed: 26044836
Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2009;69(3):305-13
pubmed: 19048437
Am J Kidney Dis. 2014 Sep;64(3):411-24
pubmed: 24840668
Nucl Med Commun. 2007 Apr;28(4):315-20
pubmed: 17325596
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014 Aug;78(2):384-92
pubmed: 24472092
Clin Kidney J. 2016 Oct;9(5):700-4
pubmed: 27679716
Kidney Int. 2010 Jan;77(1):65-71
pubmed: 19847157
Arch Dis Child. 1972 Aug;47(254):613-7
pubmed: 4625784
Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2009;69(3):314-22
pubmed: 19191067
Clin Physiol. 1983 Aug;3(4):297-305
pubmed: 6684515
Pediatr Nephrol. 2017 Feb;32(2):311-320
pubmed: 27369694
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2018 Oct 1;33(10):1778-1785
pubmed: 29319814
J Am Soc Nephrol. 1995 Aug;6(2):257-63
pubmed: 7579093
Kidney Int. 2011 Aug;80(4):423-30
pubmed: 21654718