RESUMO
Introduction: The aim of the study was to assess the clinical reliability of eGFR values estimated with a creatinine measurement from a point of care (StatSensor®) compared with measured GFR (mGFR) by a gold standard method. Methods: We prospectively included 113 patients undergoing renal function assessment. We compared eGFR using creatinine from capillary blood or venous blood measured by StatSensor® and measured GFR (mGFR) by Passing Bablok regression. Performance of eGFR was estimated by biais, precision and accuracy. Results: A total of 113 subjects were included. Median eGFR values were 59 (10-132), 52 (10-123) and 51 (10-131) ml/min/1.73 m2 for enzymatic, capillary and venous measurements, respectively. There was no difference between P30 and P10 for the three eGFR values (p = 0.11 and p = 0.1 respectively). StatSensor® eGFR tended to be underestimated compared to mGFR. For CKD stage 4/5 patients, concordance was 79 and 84% for eGFR with capillary creatinine and venous creatinine respectively. For mGFR< 60 ml/min/1.73 m2, concordance was 84 and 88% with capillary creatinine and venous creatinine respectively. Conclusion: The use of a handheld blood creatinine monitoring system with eGFR calculation provides a good estimation of GFR and allow to identify patients at high risk of acute kidney injury.
RESUMO
Hemodialysis is the predominant replacement therapy in the 70 year-old French population (18% in peritoneal dialysis, 72% in hemodialysis from the REIN registry). Managing older patients reaching the end stage renal disease poses many ethical questions, since outcomes balanced regarding survival and quality of life. The aim of this study was to compare the survival of patients aged over 70 years according to the ESRD treatment choice: conservative treatment without dialysis (CT), hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD). We included all patients over 70 years reaching stade IV CKD integrated in a predialysis information program between 01/01/2005 and 31/12/2010. We compared their survival from the start of their program, in function of their treatment choice: HD, PD or CT. On this period, 148 patients were included, we excluded from analysis 17 patients who had a contraindication to PD, 26 patients who did not make a choice because their kidney function was stabilized, 4 patients lost to follow-up and 12 patients who died before the treatment choice. The average age was 79±6 years, 40% of patients were women, and the mean eGFR was 16±9 mL/min/1.73 m(2) at the entry in the program. Among the 89 patients, 21 choose CT (24%), 68 accepted dialysis (76%), including 48 HD (71%) and 20 PD (29%). No significant eGFR difference at the inclusion time between the groups. The time initiation of dialysis was significantly shorter in the PD group (146 days vs 442 in the HD group; P=0.004). Survival between the groups of patients who accepted or refused dialysis was not statistically different (749 days or 2 years in the HD + PD group vs 562 days, or 1 year and 6 months in the CT group; P=0.95) and between the HD group (760 days or 2 years and 2 months) and the PD group (343 days or 11 months; P=0.32). As measured from the time they entered in the predialysis program, the survival of older patients over 70 years does not seem to depend on their choice of treatment modality. Whether they accepted or refused dialysis, whatever their choice concerning hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis, their survival was close to one year.
