COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Cockcroft-Gault is better than the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease study formula at predicting outcome after a myocardial infarction: data from the Swedish Web-system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART).

BACKGROUND: The aim was to examine whether the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) or the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) formula is better at predicting prognosis in myocardial infarction (MI) patients.

METHODS: All consecutive MI patients entered in a nationwide registry between 2003 and 2006 with glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) estimated by both the MDRD and CG formula (N = 36,137) were analyzed.

RESULTS: Cockcroft-Gault classified a larger proportion of patients as having at least a moderate (39.8% vs 31.1%, P < .001) or at least a severe renal dysfunction (7.6% vs 4.4%, P < .001) compared with the MDRD. The largest difference between the estimations was seen when patients were divided according to gender, age, and weight, where CG estimated a lower eGFR in women, the elderly, and those with low body weight. In a receiver operating characteristic analysis, CG had a stronger association to 1-year mortality (area under the curve 0.78, 95% CI 0.77-0.79) than MDRD (area under the curve 0.73, 95% CI 0.72-0.74). Within each renal function stage classified with the MDRD, there were patients identified with the CG as having both a worse renal function and a higher mortality. After multivariable adjustment, CG predicted 1-year mortality better than the MDRD (renal failure vs normal renal function: hazard ratio 3.00, 95% CI 2.42-3.71 with the CG; hazard ratio 2.56, 95% CI 2.10-3.11 with the MDRD).

CONCLUSION: Cockcroft-Gault is better than the MDRD equation at predicting mortality after a MI. This is mainly explained by differences in the coefficients and variables included in the eGFR equations, and less to differences in various subgroups of patients.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app