Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparison of methods for determination of glomerular filtration rate: Tc-99m-DTPA renography, predicted creatinine clearance method and plasma sample method.
Ann Nucl Med. 2003 Oct; 17(7):561-5.AN

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The gamma camera uptake method with Tc-99m-DTPA is simple and less time consuming for the determination of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). However, its diagnostic accuracy is debated. Gates' method and predicted creatinine clearance method were compared with plasma clearance method with Tc-99m-DTPA for the measurement of GFR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Tc-99m-DTPA renography was performed on 133 patients (69 males and 64 females; age range being 24 to 84 years) with a wide range of renal function. The GFR was determined simultaneously by 3 methods; (1) gamma camera uptake method (modified Gates, Gates); (2) predicted creatinine clearance method (Cockcroft-Gault, CG); (3) single- or two-plasma clearance method (plasma sample clearance method, PSC). The PSC was chosen as a reference.

RESULTS

The regression equation of the Gates and the CG against the PSC was Y = 11.89 + 1.041X (r = 0.790, p < 0.001, RMSE = 23.55 ml/min/1.73 m2) and Y = 8.845 + 0.7899X (r = 0.8270, p < 0.001, RMSE = 16.27 ml/min/1.73 m2), respectively. In comparison with the GFR by PSC, the Gates tended to overestimate the GFR, and contrarily the CG tended to underestimate the GFR.

CONCLUSION

The Gates correlates well with the PSC. However, the Gates is even less precise than the CG. The Gates' method in Tc-99m-DTPA renography is not suitable for the estimation of GFR in routine practice.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Radiology, JR Sapporo General Hospital, Japan. itohka51@ra2.so-net.ne.jp

Pub Type(s)

Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Controlled Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Validation Study

Language

eng

PubMed ID

14651355

Citation

Itoh, Kazuo. "Comparison of Methods for Determination of Glomerular Filtration Rate: Tc-99m-DTPA Renography, Predicted Creatinine Clearance Method and Plasma Sample Method." Annals of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 17, no. 7, 2003, pp. 561-5.
Itoh K. Comparison of methods for determination of glomerular filtration rate: Tc-99m-DTPA renography, predicted creatinine clearance method and plasma sample method. Ann Nucl Med. 2003;17(7):561-5.
Itoh, K. (2003). Comparison of methods for determination of glomerular filtration rate: Tc-99m-DTPA renography, predicted creatinine clearance method and plasma sample method. Annals of Nuclear Medicine, 17(7), 561-5.
Itoh K. Comparison of Methods for Determination of Glomerular Filtration Rate: Tc-99m-DTPA Renography, Predicted Creatinine Clearance Method and Plasma Sample Method. Ann Nucl Med. 2003;17(7):561-5. PubMed PMID: 14651355.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of methods for determination of glomerular filtration rate: Tc-99m-DTPA renography, predicted creatinine clearance method and plasma sample method. A1 - Itoh,Kazuo, PY - 2003/12/4/pubmed PY - 2004/7/17/medline PY - 2003/12/4/entrez SP - 561 EP - 5 JF - Annals of nuclear medicine JO - Ann Nucl Med VL - 17 IS - 7 N2 - BACKGROUND: The gamma camera uptake method with Tc-99m-DTPA is simple and less time consuming for the determination of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). However, its diagnostic accuracy is debated. Gates' method and predicted creatinine clearance method were compared with plasma clearance method with Tc-99m-DTPA for the measurement of GFR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tc-99m-DTPA renography was performed on 133 patients (69 males and 64 females; age range being 24 to 84 years) with a wide range of renal function. The GFR was determined simultaneously by 3 methods; (1) gamma camera uptake method (modified Gates, Gates); (2) predicted creatinine clearance method (Cockcroft-Gault, CG); (3) single- or two-plasma clearance method (plasma sample clearance method, PSC). The PSC was chosen as a reference. RESULTS: The regression equation of the Gates and the CG against the PSC was Y = 11.89 + 1.041X (r = 0.790, p < 0.001, RMSE = 23.55 ml/min/1.73 m2) and Y = 8.845 + 0.7899X (r = 0.8270, p < 0.001, RMSE = 16.27 ml/min/1.73 m2), respectively. In comparison with the GFR by PSC, the Gates tended to overestimate the GFR, and contrarily the CG tended to underestimate the GFR. CONCLUSION: The Gates correlates well with the PSC. However, the Gates is even less precise than the CG. The Gates' method in Tc-99m-DTPA renography is not suitable for the estimation of GFR in routine practice. SN - 0914-7187 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/14651355/Comparison_of_methods_for_determination_of_glomerular_filtration_rate:_Tc_99m_DTPA_renography_predicted_creatinine_clearance_method_and_plasma_sample_method_ L2 - http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&amp;PAGE=linkout&amp;SEARCH=14651355.ui DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -