Accuracy of GFR estimating equations in a large Swedish cohort: implications for radiologists in daily routine and research

Abstract

Background

Guidelines recommend estimation of glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) prior to iodine contrast media (CM) examinations. It is also recommended that absolute eGFR in mL/min, not commonly used relative GFR (adjusted to body surface area; mL/min/1.73 m²), should be preferred when dosing and evaluating toxicity of renally excreted drugs.

Purpose

To validate the absolute Lund–Malmö equation (LM-ABS) in comparison with the absolute Cockcroft–Gault (CG) equation and the relative equations, revised Lund–Malmö (LM-REV), MDRD, and CKD-EPI, after converting relative estimates to absolute values, and to analyze change in eGFR classification when absolute instead of relative eGFR was used.

Material and Methods

A total of 3495 plasma clearance of iohexol to measure GFR (mGFR) served as reference test. Bias, precision, and accuracy (percentage of estimates ±30% of mGFR; P₃₀) were compared overall and after stratification for various mGFR, eGFR, age, and BMI subgroups.

Results

The overall P₃₀ results of CG/LM-ABS/LM-REV/MDRD/CKD-EPI were 62.8%/84.9%/83.7%/75.3%/75.6%, respectively. LM-ABS was the most stable equations across subgroups and the only equation that did not exhibit marked overestimation in underweight patients. For patients with relative eGFR 30–44 and 45–59 mL/min/1.73 m², 36% and 58% of men, respectively, and 24% and 32% of women, respectively, will have absolute eGFR values outside these relative eGFR intervals.

Conclusion

Choosing one equation to estimate GFR prior to contrast medium examinations, LM-ABS may be preferable. Unless absolute instead of relative eGFR are used, systematic inaccuracies in assessment of renal function may occur in daily routine and research on CM nephrotoxicity may be flawed.