1 Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and research, Amager and Hvidovre Hospital, The Capital Region of Denmark2 Gastrounit, Medical Division, Gastrounit, Amager and Hvidovre Hospital, The Capital Region of Denmark3 Gastrounit, Amager and Hvidovre Hospital, The Capital Region of Denmark4 unknown
Abstract Background and aim. In patients with fluid retention, the total plasma clearance of (51)Cr-EDTA (ClP) may overestimate the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). The present study was therefore undertaken in order to compare ClP with the urinary plasma clearance of (51)Cr-EDTA (ClU) in patients with cirrhosis with and without fluid retention. Material and methods. A total of 136 patients with cirrhosis (24 without fluid retention, 112 with ascites) received a quantitative intravenous injection of (51)Cr-EDTA followed by plasma and quantitative urinary samples for 5 hours. ClP was determined from the injected dose relative to the plasma concentration-time area, extrapolated to infinity. ClU was determined as urinary excretion relative to the plasma concentration-time area up to voiding. Results. In patients without fluid retention, the difference between ClP and ClU (ClP - ClU = ClΔ) was mean 4.5 mL/min/1.73 m(2). In patients with ascites, ClΔ was significantly higher (17.6 mL/min/1.73 m(2), p < 0.0001). ClΔ increased with lower values of GFR (r = - 0.458, p < 0.001). Repeated measurements of ClU in a subgroup of patients with fluid retention (n = 25) gave almost identical values. Different types of corrections of one-pool clearance were almost identical with ClP, except for higher clearance values, which were somewhat underestimated by the former. Conclusion. In patients with fluid retention and ascites ClP and corrected one-pool clearance overestimates GFR substantially. Although ClU may underestimate GFR slightly, patients with ascites should collect urine quantitatively in order to obtain a reliable measurement of GFR.
Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation, 2015, Vol 75, Issue 1, p. 64-72
Comparative Study; Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't