We have located links that may give you full text access.
Serum cystatin C as a marker of renal function in critically ill patients with normal serum creatinine.
Nephro-urology Monthly 2014 March
BACKGROUND: Serum creatinine as a classic marker of renal function has several limitations in the detection of renal dysfunction.
OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the validity of serum cystatin C as a marker of renal function in critically ill patients with normal serum creatinine.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty adult patients referred to intensive care units with serum creatinine levels < 1.5 mg/dL and without hemodynamic instability were chosen and their serum creatinine and cystatin C levels were measured. A 24-hour urine sample was collected to calculate creatinine clearance (Ccr). Renal dysfunction was defined as Ccr < 80 mL/min/1.73 m(2).
RESULTS: There were significant correlations between measured Ccr and 1/serum creatinine (R = 0.51, P < 0.001) and 1/serum cystatin C (R = 0.25, P = 0.028). The difference between false negative rates of serum creatinine (93.33%) and cystatin C (80%) in the detection of renal dysfunction was significant (P = 0.032). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis illustrated that area under the curve of serum creatinine and cystatin C for detecting renal dysfunction were 0.711 and 0.607, respectively; however, this difference was not significant (P = 0.222).
CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrated that serum cystatin C is not superior to serum creatinine in the early detection of renal dysfunction in critically ill patients.
OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the validity of serum cystatin C as a marker of renal function in critically ill patients with normal serum creatinine.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty adult patients referred to intensive care units with serum creatinine levels < 1.5 mg/dL and without hemodynamic instability were chosen and their serum creatinine and cystatin C levels were measured. A 24-hour urine sample was collected to calculate creatinine clearance (Ccr). Renal dysfunction was defined as Ccr < 80 mL/min/1.73 m(2).
RESULTS: There were significant correlations between measured Ccr and 1/serum creatinine (R = 0.51, P < 0.001) and 1/serum cystatin C (R = 0.25, P = 0.028). The difference between false negative rates of serum creatinine (93.33%) and cystatin C (80%) in the detection of renal dysfunction was significant (P = 0.032). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis illustrated that area under the curve of serum creatinine and cystatin C for detecting renal dysfunction were 0.711 and 0.607, respectively; however, this difference was not significant (P = 0.222).
CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrated that serum cystatin C is not superior to serum creatinine in the early detection of renal dysfunction in critically ill patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
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
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