• Citer

Which single blood sample method should be used to estimate 51Cr-EDTA clearance in adolescents?

par Ham, Hamphrey ;De Sadeleer, Carlos;Hall, Michelle ;Piepsz, Amnon
Référence Nuclear medicine communications, 25, 2, page (155-157)
Publication Publié, 2004-02

Article révisé par les pairs

• Détails
• Contenu

Résumé :

Single blood sample methods are widely used for the estimation of the glomerular filtration rate, but the methods recommended for adults are not the same as those for children. The question arises, therefore, as to which method should be used in an adolescent or young adult The aim of this study was to compare the performance of two methods, a specific paediatric converting equation and an adult algorithm, in a group of adolescent and young adult patients. From a large database of 51Cr-ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (51Cr-EDTA) renal clearance determinations using the two blood sample method, 598 patients, aged 1 week to 90 years, were selected. The results of the 51Cr-EDTA slope intercept clearance of the two blood sample method were used as reference. Using the paediatric algorithm, no bias was observed until the age of 40 years. Then, an increasing positive bias occurred. The standard deviation of the difference was generally less than 4 ml/min until the age of 25 years and increased gradually to reach 7 ml/min at the age of 80 years. Using the Christensen and Groth adult algorithm, the best results were observed in patients older than 50 years. With the exception of children aged less than 5 years, no systematic bias was observed. The standard deviation, however, increased gradually and reached a value of around 8 ml/min in young children. For individuals aged 15-25 years, the mean of the difference between the paediatric algorithm and the slope intercept method was -1.1 ml/min, with a standard deviation of the difference of 3.3 ml/min. For the adult algorithm, the mean of the difference was 0.3 ml/ min, with a standard deviation of the difference of 7.7 ml/ min. It can be concluded that, for individuals aged 15-25 years, both methods performed correctly. In this series, the paediatric method gave better results than the adult algorithm, and its use is therefore recommended. © 2004 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.