Cystatin C is a more sensitive marker than creatinine for the estimation of GFR in type 2 diabetic patients

BACKGROUND: Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is the best overall index of renal function in health and disease. Inulin and 51Cr-EDTA plasma clearances are considered the gold standard methods for estimating GFR. Unfortunately, these methods require specialized technical personnel over a period of several hours and high costs. In clinical practice, serum creatinine is the most widely used index for the noninvasive assessment of GFR. Despite its specificity, serum creatinine demonstrates an inadequate sensitivity, particularly in the early stages of renal impairment. Recently, cystatin C, a low molecular mass plasma protein freely filtered through the glomerulus and almost completely reabsorbed and catabolized by tubular cells, has been proposed as a new and very sensitive serum marker of changes in GFR. This study was designed to test whether serum cystatin C can replace serum creatinine for the early assessment of nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: The study was performed on 52 Caucasian type 2 diabetic patients. Patients with an abnormal albumin excretion rate (AER) were carefully examined to rule out non-diabetic renal diseases by ultrasonography, urine bacteriology, microscopic urine analysis, and kidney biopsy. Serum creatinine, serum cystatin C, AER, serum lipids, and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) were measured. GFR was estimated by the plasma clearance of 51Cr-EDTA. In addition the Cockcroft and Gault formula (Cockcroft and Gault estimated GFR) was calculated. RESULTS: Cystatin C serum concentration progressively increased as GFR decreased. The overall relationship between the reciprocal cystatin C and GFR was significantly stronger (r = 0.84) than those between serum creatinine and GFR (r = 0.65) and between Cockcroft and Gault estimated GFR and GFR (r = 0.70). As GFR decreased from 120 to 20 mL/min/1.73 m2, cystatin C increased more significantly that serum creatinine, giving a stronger signal in comparison to that of creatinine over the range of the measured GFR. The maximum diagnostic accuracy of serum cystatin C (90%) was significantly better than those of serum creatinine (77%) and Cockcroft and Gault estimated GFR (85%) in discriminating between type 2 diabetic patients with normal GFR (>80 mL/min per 1.73 m2) and those with reduced GFR (<80 mL/min/1.73 m2). In particular, the cystatin C cut-off limit of 0.93 mg/L corresponded to a false-positive rate of 7.7% and to a false-negative rate of 1.9%; the serum creatinine cut-off limit of 87.5 micromol/L corresponded to a false-positive rate of 5.8% and to a false-negative rate of 17.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Cystatin C may be considered as an alternative and more accurate serum marker than serum creatinine or the Cockcroft and Gault estimated GFR in discriminating type 2 diabetic patients with reduced GFR from those with normal GFR.     

Estimating glomerular filtration rate in kidney transplantation: a comparison between serum creatinine and cystatin C-based methods

Accurate measurement of GFR is critical for the evaluation of new therapies and the care of renal transplant recipients. Although not accurate in renal transplantation, GFR is often estimated using creatinine-based equations. Cystatin C is a marker of GFR that seems to be more accurate than creatinine. Equations to predict GFR based on the serum cystatin C concentration have been developed, but their accuracy in transplantation is unknown. GFR was estimated using four equations (Filler, Le Bricon, Larsson, and Hoek) that are based on serum cystatin C and seven equations that are based on serum creatinine in 117 adult renal transplant recipients. GFR was measured using radiolabeled diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (99mTc-DTPA), and the bias, precision, and accuracy of each equation were determined. The mean (99m)Tc-DTPA GFR was 58 +/- 23 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). The cystatin C-based equations of Filler and Le Bricon had the lowest bias (-1.7 and -3.8 ml/min per 1.73 m2), greatest precision (11.4 and 11.8 ml/min per 1.73 m2), and highest accuracy (87 and 89% within 30% of measured GFR, respectively). The cystatin C equations remained accurate even when the measured GFR was >60 ml/min per 1.73 m2. The creatinine-based equations were not as accurate, with only 53 to 80% of estimates within 30% of measured GFR. Cystatin C-based equations are more accurate at predicting GFR in renal transplant recipients than traditional creatinine-based equations. Further prospective studies with repetitive measurement of cystatin C are needed to determine whether cystatin C-based estimates of GFR will be sufficiently accurate to monitor long-term allograft function.     

Serum cystatin C as an index of renal function in kidney transplant patients

Management of renal transplant patients requires periodic measurement of renal function, which is usually assessed by measuring the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). The most commonly used marker for GFR is serum creatinine, although muscle wasting and tubular secretion may lead to overestimation of the actual GFR. Serum concentrations of the low-molecular-weight proteins, cystatin C and beta(2)-microglobulin (B(2)M), may afford useful markers to determine a reduced GFR. We investigated whether these molecules provide reliable indicators of renal function in 75 renal transplant patients. Cystatin C and B(2)M correlated significantly with creatinine (r =.648, P <.05 and r =.578, P <.05, respectively). Inverse serum creatinine was superior to inverse cystatin C and inverse B(2)M when renal function equations were used (r =.95, P <.05, according to MDRD; r =.87, P <.05, according to Cockroft-Gault). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to quantitate the accuracy of the different markers to detect reduced GFR using a cutoff value of 70 mL/min. No significant difference between the areas under the ROC curves comparing cystatin C and B(2)M was observed; however, serum creatinine demonstrated a significantly greater value than cystatin C (.981 vs.724, P =.001). We conclude that serum creatinine is a more efficacious marker than serum cystatin C to assess renal function.     

Serum cystatin C as a reliable marker of changes in glomerular filtration rate in children with urinary tract malformations

PURPOSE: Cystatin C has been suggested as a simple method of estimating GFR more accurately than creatinine in children. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of cystatin C with serum creatinine and the Schwartz formula for estimating GFR in patients with UTMs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively compared 72 patients with UTMs (20 days to 36 months old, 58 males and 14 females) with a group of 72 healthy controls (10 days to 48 months old, 53 males and 19 females). All patients underwent nuclear medicine clearance investigations with (99m)Tc DTPA. RESULTS: Serum concentration of cystatin C revealed a higher correlation with (99m)Tc DTPA (r = 0.62, p <0.001) than serum concentration of creatinine (r = 0.30, p <0.01) or Schwartz formula (r = 0.51, p <0.001). These results were more evident in patients with uropathy (19) with mild renal impairment. Agreement between methods was assessed using Bland Altman analysis. Mean differences between GFR calculated with (99m)Tc DTPA and cystatin C based GFR estimation or Schwartz formula were -2.6% +/- 46.7% and -73.4% +/- 53.6%, respectively. Diagnostic accuracy in identifying decreased GFR measured as AUC was always highest for cystatin C but hardly sufficient for the 3 variables. Cystatin C performed better in the 0 to 6-month-olds (0.70 +/- 0.08 for cystatin C, 0.58 +/- 0.07 for Schwartz estimate) and patients older than 12 months (0.82 +/- 0.09 for cystatin C, 0.65 +/- 0.11 for Schwartz estimate). CONCLUSIONS: Cystatin C proved to be a superior marker rate over serum creatinine in estimating glomerular filtration in children younger than 3 years with UTMs and mild renal impairment, thus, offering a more specific and practical measure for monitoring GFR.     

胱抑素C对评价慢性肾脏病患者代谢指标的应用价值

目的 研究胱抑素C对慢性肾脏病患者代谢指标及心脏疾病患病率的评价作用.方法 制作慢性肾脏病患者估算肾小球滤过率、血清肌酐、胱抑素C分别与血红蛋白、血钾、碳酸氢根、血磷散点图,并行直线回归相关分析.使用完全随机设计的单因素ANOVA分析胱抑素C与慢性肾脏病患者心脏疾病关系.结果 胱抑素C在评价慢性肾脏病患者贫血程度、高钾血症、高磷血症中的作用优于估算肾小球滤过率及血清肌酐.胱抑素C及血清肌酐在评价慢性肾脏病患者代谢性酸中毒的作用优于估算肾小球滤过率.胱抑素C水平高低与慢性肾脏病患者的心脏疾病的患病率成正相关(P＜0.05).结论 通过估算肾小球滤过率和血清肌酐,胱抑素C在评价慢性肾脏病患者代谢指标方面及评估患者心脏疾病患病率方面存在优势.     

Serum cystatin C as an endogenous parameter of the renal function in patients with normal to moderately impaired kidney function

BACKGROUND: Cystatin C is a proteinase inhibitor with a low molecular weight. The serum levels of cystatin C are mainly dependent on glomerular filtration rate (GFR) making cystatin C an endogenous parameter of GFR. The aim of the study was to elucidate the applicability of serum cystatin C as a parameter of GFR in patients with normal to moderately impaired kidney function and to estimate a reference interval for serum cystatin C. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-six patients (25 males and 21 females) aged 22 to 83 years with various kidney diseases and 250 blood donors (164 males and 86 females) aged 19 to 64 years were included. Cystatin C was measured by an automated particle-enhanced nephelometric immunoassay, serum creatinine by an enzymatic and by Jaffé method, urine creatinine by an enzymatic method, and GFR by 99mTc-DTPA clearance. RESULTS: Serum levels ofcystatin C and creatinine showed increments with decreasing values of 99mTc-DTPA clearance and a linear relationship was found between 99mTc-DTPA clearance and l/serum cystatin C, l/serum creatinine (enzymatic method), and creatinine clearance. Comparison of the non-parametric receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots for serum cystatin C (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.996; SE = 0.005), serum creatinine (enzymatic method) (AUC = 0.899; SE = 0.044), serum creatinine (Jaffé method) (AUC = 0.870; SE = 0.051), measured creatinine clearance (AUC = 0.959; SE = 0.025), and estimated creatinine clearance (0.950; SE = 0.029) revealed significant differences for serum cystatin C and serum creatinine (enzymatic and Jaffé method) (p values: 0.03 and 0.01). No significant differences were demonstrated between serum cystatin C and measured and estimated creatinine clearance (p value: 0.14 and 0.12). The non-parametric reference interval for serum cystatin C was calculated to be 0.51-1.02 mg/l (median: 0.79 mg/l; range: 0.33 - 1.07 mg/l). CONCLUSION: Serum cystatin C seems to be a better parameter of GFR than serum creatinine in adults with various types of kidney disease with normal to moderately impaired kidney function.     

Understanding estimated glomerular filtration rate: implications for identifying chronic kidney disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) can be estimated using serum markers such as serum creatinine (SCr) or cystatin C. This review presents new insights into estimated GFR based on theory, validation studies, SCr assay standardization, cystatin C, and longitudinal comparison with measured GFR. RECENT FINDINGS: The estimation of GFR by SCr differs in health and in chronic kidney disease (CKD) due to differences in GFR range and in creatinine production between these two populations. Among populations with normal baseline GFR, there is a more rapid decline in measured GFR than in SCr-based estimated GFR. While elevated SCr is specific for CKD, other disease processes may lead to elevated cystatin C. Validation is improved by refitting equation coefficients to compare populations, recognizing the asymmetry between estimated GFR and measured GFR, and using residual plots instead of Bland-Altman plots to assess bias. SUMMARY: As a screening test, SCr should be interpreted as a marker of CKD probability in the context of the patient's clinical presentation. Measured GFR or creatinine clearance may be helpful in high-risk patients with normal SCr levels. GFR estimating equations should be reserved for patients with identified CKD. Standardized SCr and cystatin C assays are needed.     

Changes in dietary protein intake has no effect on serum cystatin C levels independent of the glomerular filtration rate

Cystatin C is being considered as a replacement for serum creatinine in the estimation of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR); however, its plasma levels might be affected by factors other than the GFR, such as protein intake. We performed a post hoc analysis of the data in the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease study, in which we compared serum creatinine and cystatin C levels in 741 patients with available estimates of protein intake at baseline prior to their randomization to diets containing various amounts of protein, and at 2 years of follow-up in 426 of these patients in whom a cystatin C measurement was available. The 503 patients in study A (GFR 25-55?ml/min per 1.73?m(2)) had been assigned a low (0.58 g/kg per day) or a usual (1.3?g/kg per day) protein intake, and the 238 participants in study B (GFR 13-24?ml/min per 1.73?m(2)) were assigned a very low (0.28?g/kg per day) or the low protein intake. In either study group, lowering the dietary protein intake reduced the change in creatinine, but did not have a significant change in cystatin C. Thus, in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease, serum cystatin C unlike serum creatinine was not affected by dietary protein intake independent of changes in GFR. Hence, cystatin C may allow more accurate estimates of GFR than creatinine for patients with reduced protein intake. Further study of other non-GFR determinants of cystatin C is needed before the widespread adoption.     

Inaccuracy of GFR predictions by plasma cystatin C in patients without kidney dysfunction and in advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice there is need for a simple and reliable test for determination of impaired renal function. With reductions in GFR, the plasma cystatin C concentration (C, mg/l) will increase earlier than serum creatinine, and it is generally agreed that plasma cystatin C is only little affected by body weight, age or sex. However, some reports indicate that cystatin C may be influenced not only by GFR, but also by malignancy, inflammation and high doses of corticosteroids. The aim of the present study was to investigate how plasma cystatin C predicts GFR in distinct subcategories of patients with various disorders as well as in organ transplant patients. METHODS: Plasma cystatin C was measured in 536 patients (age range 0.3-96 years, 262 females, 274 males), consecutively referred to our hospital for determination of GFR by iohexol clearance. Correlations of log GFR vs. log cystatin C were used to compare plasma cystatin C and measured GFR for the following categories: individuals with no known kidney disease (No-KD), malignant patients with (mostly) normal GFR, solid organ-transplanted patients, and patients with native chronic kidney disease (CKD). RESULTS: In patients with normal kidney function and cystatin C level GFR>30 ml/min(-1) (1.73 m2)(-1)) or solid organ transplantation (GFR=84.55 C(1.7666) and GFR=83.95(C-1.5968), respectively). CONCLUSION: Therefore, for these categories, a common equation for all patients with increased cystatin C, irrespective of cause of renal impairment, could be used, namely that presented by Grubb et al. [2005] (GFR=83.93(C-1.676)). However, at marked reductions of renal function (GFR<30 or cystatin C>2), i.e. for CKD Stages 4 and 5, the Grubb prediction equation is less accurate. Based on our data, we suggest the equation GFR=50.52 C(-1.26) for this category of patients.     

Cystatin C is not superior to creatinine-based models in estimating glomerular filtration rate in former kidney donors

BACKGROUND: The long-term renal consequences of kidney donation need to be accurately quantitated. Cystatin C is a freely filtered glycoprotein that may not have the limitations of creatinine as a measure of glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Whether cystatin C is superior to creatinine-based estimates of GFR in those who have donated a kidney in the past has not been tested. METHODS: We assessed the performance of seven cystatin C and two creatinine-based GFR prediction equations in 187 former kidney donors against iohexol GFR for measuring GFR. We calculated bias, precision, and relative accuracy of these models. RESULTS: The majority of former donors had a GFR >60 mL/min/1.73 m(2). All cystatin C models, except the Rule model, overestimated GFR (range 5.3-31.4 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). Among the cystatin C models, the Hoek and Rule formulas were least biased at 5.3 and -3.8 mL/min/1.73 m(2), most precise at 0.41, and were within 30% of iohexol GFR, 89.3 and 96% of the time, respectively. The Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) formula underestimated GFR by 7.2 mL/min/1.73 m(2), was most precise (R(2)=0.47) and fell within 30% of measured GFR at the highest frequency of 96%. When all models were given a rank based on their performance in the bias, precision and accuracy domains, the MDRD model was clearly superior. CONCLUSION: The MDRD equation is superior to cystatin C-based equations for estimating GFR in former kidney donors. Creatinine measurement is cheaper and the MDRD GFR is given out by most laboratories and therefore it should be the preferred model in this population.     

Cystatin C--a marker for assessment of the glomerular filtration rate in patients with cisplatin chemotherapy

BACKGROUND: Cystatin C has recently been proposed as an ideal marker for glomerular filtration rate (GFR). In this study, cystatin C serum levels were evaluated in comparison to serum creatinine concentrations and inulin clearances in patients with normal kidney function receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy to assess the validity of cystatin C as an alternative endogenous marker of GFR. METHODS: Blood samples for the assessment of cystatin C, creatinine and inulin clearances were collected in patients before and after application of cisplatin in a clinical trial. Overall, 41 patients were included in the study, 35 of them were eligible receiving cisplatin in two different cisplatin-based chemotherapy schedules. RESULTS: A 21% increase of cystatin C serum levels was demonstrated in the placebo group after application of cisplatin. Analysis of inulin clearances revealed a 23% loss of inulin clearance in patients of the placebo arm. In contrast, significant changes could not be detected by analysis of serum creatinine levels. CONCLUSIONS: Cystatin C represents a more sensitive clinical marker than serum creatinine for the early assessment of GFR damage caused by cisplatin. Changes in cystatin C serum concentrations correlate well to GFR decrease as measured by inulin clearance.     

Serum cystatin C--a superior marker of rapidly reduced glomerular filtration after uninephrectomy in kidney donors compared to creatinine

AIMS: Acute renal failure (ARF), defined by a rapid decrease of glomerular filtration rate (GFR), is associated with high mortality. Early and accurate detection of decreasing GFR is critical to prevent the progression of ARF and to potentially improve its outcome. Serum creatinine, the conventional GFR marker, has major limitations. We prospectively evaluated whether serum cystatin C detected a rapid GFR decrease earlier and more accurately than serum creatinine. METHODS: In ten patients undergoing nephrectomy for living related kidney transplantation, serum creatinine and cystatin C were determined daily. The decrease of GFR was quantitated preoperatively by creatinine clearance and MAG3 scintigraphy. The GFR decrease was defined by a 50-100% increase of cystatin C or creatinine from preoperative values. Ten patients without renal impairment served as controls. RESULTS: Initially, patients had a creatinine clearance of 105 +/- 14 ml/min/1.73 m2. Due to nephrectomy, patients lost 45 +/- 3% of their renal function. Serum cystatin C significantly increased already one, serum creatinine two days after nephrectomy. Cystatin C demonstrated an increase by 50-100% 1.4 +/- 0.9 days earlier than creatinine (p = 0.009). Serum cystatin C performed well detecting the GFR decrease with higher diagnostic values compared to creatinine. This was indicated by a sensitivity of 50, 70 and 80% of cystatin C to detect the GFR decrease on the three days following nephrectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Serum cystatin C detects rapid GFR decreases one to two days earlier than creatinine. Cystatin C is an early and accurate marker to detect rapid GFR decreases as in ARF.     

Performance of cystatin C-based equations in a pediatric cohort at high risk of kidney injury

Background

Limited data exist on the performance of cystatin C-based glomerular filtration rate (GFR) equations in pediatric transplant recipients and other high-risk patients. The aim of our study was therefore to evaluate the performance of current cystatin C-based equations in this population.

Methods

This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study of 141 consecutive patients (58 % post-transplant) who received a nuclear medicine GFR (NucGFR) examination using ^99mTc- diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid at our institution. Subjects included children receiving liver, kidney or hematopoietic stem cell transplants and patients with oncologic or urologic disease. GFR estimates using published GFR estimating equations, including those based on cystatin C (Filler, Zappitelli, Larsson, Hoek, Rule and Le Bricon equations, respectively) and on both cystatin C and creatinine (Zappitelli, Bouvet and Schwartz equations, respectively), were evaluated and compared to the NucGFR measurement using Bland–Altman analysis.

Results

The mean NucGFR was 95 (interquartile range 76–111)  ml/min/1.73 m². Of the cystatin C-based equations, the Rule, Hoek, Zappitelli and Schwartz (2009 CKiD equation) formulas provided the closest agreement to the NucGFR estimate. All other formulas overestimated the GFR in our cohort.

Conclusion

Cystatin C-based GFR formulas can provide an accurate estimation of NucGFR in a pediatric population with a high proportion of transplant recipients and oncology patients.     

Association of cystatin C and estimated GFR with inflammatory biomarkers: the Heart and Soul Study.

BACKGROUND: Cystatin C is a marker of kidney function that may also be associated with inflammation. In this study, we compared the relative strengths of association of cystatin C and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) with inflammatory biomarkers. METHODS: We measured serum cystatin C and creatinine in 990 outpatients with coronary artery disease enrolled in the Heart and Soul Study. GFR was estimated (eGFR) by the abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation. We compared the associations of serum cystatin C and eGFR with C-reactive protein (CRP) and fibrinogen, after adjustment for 24 h creatinine clearance. RESULTS: Cystatin C concentrations had moderate correlations with CRP (r=0.15, P<0.001) and fibrinogen (r=0.26, P<0.0001); eGFR had similar correlations with CRP (r=-0.17, P=0.01) and fibrinogen (r=-0.25, P<0.001) among persons with eGFR60 ml/min (r=0.04, P=0.32; r=-0.03, P=0.38). Quartiles of cystatin C were strongly and directly associated with CRP (P=0.02) and fibrinogen (P<0.007) after multivariate adjustment. However, these associations disappeared after adjustment for creatinine clearance (P=0.26 and 0.23, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Cystatin C concentrations have moderate associations with CRP and fibrinogen that are not independent of creatinine clearance. Although a gold standard of kidney function is lacking, this analysis suggests that cystatin C captures an association of mildly impaired kidney function with increased inflammation.     

Cystatin C-based equations in renal transplantation: moving toward a better glomerular filtration rate prediction?

Creatinine-based glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimators perform poorly in renal transplant recipients. Cystatin C might be a better alternative to serum creatinine in assessing renal graft function. We compared several cystatin C-based equations with the modification diet renal disease (MDRD) equation in 120 adult renal transplant recipients for whom the GFR was measured by the gold standard inulin clearance. Mean inulin-measured GFR was 52.6 mL/min/1.73 m (range, 13-119). The Hoek, Rule, Le Bricon, and Filler cystatin C-based formulas showed significantly better performances (accuracy 30% of 82%, 81%, 78%, and 71%), than the MDRD equation (58%, Mac Nemar test, P<0.01). Sensitivity to detect a GFR below 60 mL/min/1.73 m was significantly higher for the Hoek and the Rule equations (0.95, 95% CI 0.91-1) than for the MDRD equation (0.76, 95% CI 0.67-0.85). These data confirm that cystatin C as a GFR marker offers significant advantages over creatinine in renal transplantation.     

Serum cystatin C-immunoglobulin high-molecular-weight complexes in kidney and liver transplant patients

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested recently that the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in renal transplant patients is underestimated by serum cystatin C due to an impaired filtration of complexed cystatin C with immunoglobulins. Consequently, serum cystatin C may not be a reliable marker of GFR in these patients. Our study was designed to determine whether this supposition is correct. METHODS: In 87 serum samples from patients with various kidney diseases, 182 samples from renal transplant patients, and 72 samples from liver transplant patients, the concentrations of cystatin C and creatinine were determined, as well as the residual concentration of cystatin C after precipitation of macromolecules with polyethylene glycol (PEG; 6000 molecular weight). RESULTS: The residual concentration of serum cystatin C after precipitation with PEG in all cases was much higher (70 to 100%) than that expected in the case of the existence of cystatin C-immunoglobulin complexes. In the kidney and liver transplant patients, there was no significant correlation between the residual concentration of cystatin C and the postoperative time (r = -0.098). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that in renal or liver transplant patients there is no formation of high molecular weight serum cystatin C-immunoglobulin complexes, regardless of the post-transplant period.     

尿Cystatin C在慢性肾脏病中的诊断价值

目的：探讨尿CystatinC在慢性肾脏病（CKD）中的诊断价值。方法：选择2006年12月～2007年12月我院住院CKD患者118例作为病例组,健康体检者20人为对照组,测定尿Cystatin C、24h尿蛋白定量、尿α1-微球蛋白（α1-MG）、尿白蛋白、尿转铁蛋白、尿IgG、血、尿β2-微球蛋白（β2-MG）,并检测血清肌酐、白蛋白,计算MDRD-GFR。结果：尿Cys-tatin C与MDRD、血β2-MG、转铁蛋白、尿白蛋白、尿IgG没有相关性（P〉0.05）;尿Cystatin C与尿β2-MG、α1-MG、24h尿蛋白量有相关性;尿Cystatin C的受试者工作特征曲线下面积（AUCROC）〉尿β2-MG的AUCROC。结论：尿Cystatin C不能反映GFR的减退,是肾小管损伤的敏感指标,在反映肾小管损伤方面优于尿β2-MG。     

Prediction of glomerular filtration rate in renal transplant recipients: cystatin C or Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation?

BACKGROUND: To overcome disadvantages of serum creatinine two strategies have been suggested to identify patients with reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR). On the one hand, the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation is now recommended to classify the stage of chronic kidney disease. On the other hand, cystatin C (Cys C) has been investigated in numerous studies, finding a higher sensitivity than creatinine in detecting diminished GFR. To date, no comparison of both strategies in patients after renal transplantation has been performed. METHODS: One hundred and five consecutive renal transplant recipients underwent (99m)Tc-DTPA-- clearance measurement. Simultaneously, MDRD estimates were calculated and Cys C serum levels were determined. ROC analyses were performed at different decision points from 20 to 70 mL/min/1.73 m(2). RESULTS: Although the area under the curve did not differ significantly between MDRD and Cys C within the tested GFR range, the AUC for Cys C tended to be higher when GFR exceeded 55 mL/min/1.73 m(2). A significantly higher diagnostic accuracy for Cys C compared with MDRD (p = 0.045 at 65 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) was found when investigating the subgroup of patients with well-functioning grafts (GFR>40 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). CONCLUSION: MDRD equation is equivalent to Cys C measurement in renal transplant recipients. As availability of MDRD is superior to Cys C, we recommend GFR estimation using the MDRD equation. Nevertheless, Cys C may serve as a confirmation test of high MDRD estimates in patients with well-functioning grafts because of superior accuracy in these patients.     

Is cystatin C useful for the detection and the estimation of low glomerular filtration rate in heart transplant patients?

Although previously studied in patients with chronic kidney disease, there is less data for the use of cystatin C and cystatin C-based formulas in heart transplant recipients. The ability of creatinine and cystatin C to detect renal failure (glomerular filtration rate [GFR] below 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) in heart transplant patients has been compared. The accuracy and precision of a creatinine-based formula (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease [MDRD]) versus a cystatin C-based formula (Rule's formula) to estimate GFR have also been studied. GFR was measured using the (51)Cr-ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid tracer in 27 patients. There was no significant difference between GFR and the reciprocal of creatinine or cystatin C. Receiver operating characteristic curves for cystatin C and creatinine were similar. Both formulas were well correlated with the GFR. The bias of the cystatin C-based was significantly better than one of the MDRD formula, but the standard deviation appeared better for the MDRD formula (bias of +3.9 mL/min/1.73 m(2) versus +12 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and SD of 8.5 versus 11.6, respectively). Plasma cystatin C has no clear advantage over serum creatinine to detect renal failure in heart transplanted patients.     

Chronic kidney disease stage in renal transplantation classification using cystatin C and creatinine-based equations.

BACKGROUND: Current clinical guidelines recommend that renal transplant recipients (RTRs) be classified into chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage using a creatinine-based estimate of glomerular filtration rate (GFR). However, creatinine-based equations are inaccurate in RTRs leading to frequent CKD stage misclassification. It is not known whether the classification of CKD stage would be improved using a cystatin C-based estimate of GFR. METHODS: We measured (99m)Tc-DTPA GFR, cystatin C and creatinine in 198 stable RTRs. GFR was estimated using cystatin C-based equations (Filler, Le Bricon and Rule) and four creatinine-based equations. We determined the proportion, overall and by CKD stage, that were classified correctly by each equation as compared to the (99m)Tc-DTPA GFR. RESULTS: The Filler equation correctly classified 76% of patients compared to only 65% with the abbreviated modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD) equation and 69% with the Cockcroft-Gault equation. In CKD stages two and four, the Filler equation correctly classified 77% and 60% of patients whereas the abbreviated MDRD equation correctly classified 46% and 93% of patients. The area under the curve by receiver operating curve analysis for overall stage classification was uniformly poor for all equations (0.52-0.56). CONCLUSIONS: The cystatin C-based Filler and Le Bricon GFR estimates classified slightly more patients into the correct CKD stage than the standard creatinine-based equations in stable RTRs although the overall diagnostic accuracies were similar. The differences are modest and prospective studies will be needed to determine if the adoption of these equations for classification would lead to improved recognition of CKD complications or patient care.