Accurate measurement of renal function in cirrhotic patients is still challenging. To find the best test for the determination of the true glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in cirrhotic patients this study prospectively compared measured (m)GFR, the gold standard, with estimated (e)GFR using equations based on serum levels of creatinine and cystatin C. GFR was measured by sinistrin clearance using the bolus method in 50 patients with cirrhosis (Child Turcotte Pugh score A, B and C) and 24 age-matched healthy subjects as controls. Measured (m)GFR was compared to eGFR using bias, accuracy 10 % and 30 %, as well as correlation coefficients. Creatinine-based equations generally overestimated GFR in patients with cirrhosis and showed a bias (average difference between mGFR and eGFR) of −40 (CG), −12 (MDRD) and −9 (CKD-EPI-Cr) ml/min/1.73 m2. Cystatin C-based equations underestimated GFR, especially in patients with Child Turcotte Pugh score C (bias 17 ml/min/1.73 m2for CKD-EPI-CysC). Of these equations, the CKD-EPI equation that combines creatinine and cystatin C (CKD-EPI-Cr-CysC) showed a bias of 0.12 ml/min/1.73 m2 as compared to measured GFR. The CKD-EPI equation that combines serum creatinine and cystatin C measurements shows the best performance for accurate estimation of GFR in cirrhosis, especially at advanced stages.

The measurement of kidney function after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is still a clinical challenge. Cystatin C (CysC) has been proposed as a more accurate marker of renal function than serum creatinine (sCr). The aim of this study was to evaluate sCr- and CysC-based equations including the Chronic kidney disease (CKD)-EPI to determine renal function in liver transplant recipients. CysC and sCr were measured in 49 patients 24 months after OLT. The glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was calculated using the MDRD 4, the Cockroft-Gault, Hoek, Larsson, and the CKD-EPI equations based on sCr and/or CysC. As reference method, inulin clearance (IC) was estimated. Bias, precision, and accuracy of each equation were assessed and compared with respect to IC. Forty-five percent had a GFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2) according to the IC. The Larsson, the Hoek and the CKD-EPI-CysC formula identified the highest percentage of patients with CKD correctly (88%, 88%, and 84%, respectively). The sCr-based equations showed less bias than CysC-based formulas with a similar precision. All CysC-based equations were superior as compared with sCr-based equations in the assessment of renal function in patients with an IC < 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2).

In renal patients estimation of GFR is routinely done by means of population-based formulae using serum creatinine levels. For GFR determination in the creatinine-blind regions or in cases of reno-hepatic syndrome as well as in critical cases of live kidney donors individualized measurements of GFR (mGFR) employing the kinetics of exogenous filtration markers such as the inulin-like polyfructosan sinistrin are necessary. The goal of this study is to compare mGFR values with the eGFR values gained by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD4) and Chronic Kidney Disease-Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) formulae. In 170 subjects comprising persons with normal renal function or with various stages of kidney diseases (CKD 1-4) GFR was measured by application of intravenous bolus of sinistrin and assessment of temporal plasma concentration profiles by means of pharmacokinetic methods (mGFR). Comparisons of mGFR with MDRD4- and CKD-EPI-derived eGFR values were performed by means of linear regression and Bland-Altman analyses. Reasonable agreement of mGFR and eGFR values was observed in patients with poor renal function [GFR below 60 (ml/min)/1.73 m2]. In cases of normal or mildly impaired renal function, GFR determination by MDRD4 or CKD-EPI tends to underestimate GFR. Notably, there is practically no difference between the two eGFR methods. For routine purposes or for epidemiological studies in cases of poor renal function eGFR methods are generally reliable. But in creatinine-blind ranges [GFR above 60 (ml/min)/1.73 m2] eGFR values are unreliable and should be replaced by clinically and physiologically suitable methods for mGFR determination. http://www.consort-statement.org/index.aspx?o=1190