Estimation of Glomerular Filtration Rate Based on Serum Cystatin C versus Creatinine in a Uruguayan Population.

Background. Estimation of glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from biomarkers has evolved and multiple equations are available to estimate renal function at bedside. Methods. In a random sample of 119 Uruguayans (54.5% women; 56.2 years (mean)), we used Bland and Altman's method and Cohen's kappa statistic to assess concordance on a continuous or categorical (eGFR < 60 versus ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) scale between eGFRcys (reference) and eGFR derived from serum creatinine according to the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (eGFRmdrd) or the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equations (eGFRepi) or from both serum cystatin C and creatinine (eGFRmix). Results. In all participants, eGFRmdrd, eGFRepi, and eGFRmix were, respectively, 9.7, 11.5, and 5.6 mL/min/1.73 m(2) higher (P < 0.0001) than eGFRcys. The prevalence of eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) was the highest for eGFRcys (21.8%), intermediate for eGFRmix (11.8%), and the lowest for eGFRmdrd (5.9%) and eGFRepi (3.4%). Using eGFRcys as reference, we found only fair agreement with the equations based on creatinine (Cohen's kappa statistic 0.15 to 0.23). Conclusion. Using different equations we reached clinically significant differences in the estimation of renal function. eGFRcys provides lower estimates, resulting in higher prevalence of eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2).

Quality of the blood pressure phenotype in the GEnotipo, Fenotipo y Ambiente de la hipertensión arterial en UruguaY (GEFA-HT-UY) study.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing GEnotipo, Fenotipo y Ambiente de la HiperTensión Arterial en UruguaY (GEFA-HT-UY) study, we applied standardized epidemiological methods to determine complex phenotypes including blood pressure (BP). In this report, we present the quality control of the conventionally measured BP. METHODS: Three trained observers measured BP five times consecutively in the seated position at each of two home visits and one clinic visit according to the guidelines of the European Society of Hypertension. On 1 December 2013, 4379 single BP readings in 170 participants were available for analysis. RESULTS: Fewer BP readings than the five planned per contact occurred only at one home visit. Among observers, the frequency of identical consecutive readings for systolic or diastolic BP varied from 0 to 4.2%. The occurrence of odd readings ranged from 0.1 to 0.6%. Only 21.6% of the systolic and diastolic BP readings ended on zero (expected 20%). At home visits, there was a progressive decline in BP from the first to the fifth reading. The average of the five BP readings also decreased from the first to the second home visit (-5.63/-2.34 mmHg). CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlighted the necessity to implement a stringent quality control of the conventionally measured BP. The procedures set up in the GEFA-HT-UY study are resulting in a well-defined BP phenotype, which is consistent with that in other population studies.

24-h ambulatory recording of aortic pulse wave velocity and central systolic augmentation: a feasibility study.

We assessed the feasibility of ambulatory pulse wave analysis by comparing this approach with an established tonometric technique. We investigated 35 volunteers (45.6 years; 51.0% women) exclusively at rest (R study) and 83 volunteers (49.9 years; 61.4% women) at rest and during daytime (1000-2000 h) ambulatory monitoring (R+A study). We recorded central systolic (cSP), diastolic (cDP) and pulse (cPP) pressures, augmentation index (cAI) and pulse wave velocity (PWV) by brachial oscillometry (Mobil-O-Graph 24h PWA Monitor) and radial tonometry (SphygmoCor). We applied the Bland and Altman's statistics. In the R study, tonometric and oscillometric estimates of cSP (105.6 vs. 106.9 mm Hg), cDP (74.6 vs. 74.7 mm Hg), cPP (31.0 vs. 32.1 mm Hg), cAI (21.1 vs. 20.6%) and PWV (7.3 vs. 7.0 m s(-1)) were similar (P0.11). In the R+A study, tonometric vs. oscillometric assessment yielded similar values for cSP (115.4 vs. 113.9 mm Hg; P=0.19) and cAI (26.5 vs. 25.3%; P=0.54), but lower cDP (77.8 vs. 81.9 mm Hg; P<0.0001), so that cPP was higher (37.6 vs. 32.1 mm Hg; P<0.0001). PWV (7.9 vs. 7.4 m s(-1)) was higher (P=0.0002) on tonometric assessment. The differences between tonometric and oscillometric estimates increased (P0.004) with cSP (r=0.37), cAI (r=0.39) and PWV (r=0.39), but not (P0.17) with cDP (r=0.15) or cPP (r=0.13). Irrespective of measurement conditions, brachial oscillometry compared with an established tonometric method provided similar estimates for cSP and systolic augmentation, but slightly underestimated PWV. Pending further validation, ambulatory assessment of central hemodynamic variables is feasible.