2021
DOI: 10.1155/2021/6655958
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Comparison of GFR Calculated by Cockcroft-Gault vs. MDRD Formula in the Prognostic Assessment of Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Abstract: Introduction. Risk stratification is mandatory for optimal management of patients with acute pulmonary embolism (APE). Previous studies indicated that renal dysfunction predicts outcome and can improve risk assessment in APE. Aim. The aim of the study was a comparison of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) formulas, MDRD, and Cockcroft-Gault (CG), in the prognostic assessment of patients with APE. Materials and Methods. Data from 2274 (1147 M/1127 F, median 71 years) hospitalised patients with APE pros… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 30 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…compared MDRD formula and Cockcroft-Gault (C-G) in the prognostic assessment of patients with acute PE: using threshold of < 60 ml/min/1.73m 2 , eGFR MDRD reported a sensitivity 67%, speci city 52%, PPV 8%, and NPV 97%, while eGFR CG had a sensitivity 62%, speci city 62%, PPV 8.6%, and NPV 96%. The area under the ROC curve for eGFR CG tended to be higher than that for eGFR MDRD 19 . The comparison of various methods of GFR estimation (C-G vs. CKD-EPI) was recently performed on data from the RIETE registry 20 : among the 4676 patients with GFR ≤ 30 mL/min according to at least one of the formulas, the result was not con rmed in 40.7% individuals by the other equation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…compared MDRD formula and Cockcroft-Gault (C-G) in the prognostic assessment of patients with acute PE: using threshold of < 60 ml/min/1.73m 2 , eGFR MDRD reported a sensitivity 67%, speci city 52%, PPV 8%, and NPV 97%, while eGFR CG had a sensitivity 62%, speci city 62%, PPV 8.6%, and NPV 96%. The area under the ROC curve for eGFR CG tended to be higher than that for eGFR MDRD 19 . The comparison of various methods of GFR estimation (C-G vs. CKD-EPI) was recently performed on data from the RIETE registry 20 : among the 4676 patients with GFR ≤ 30 mL/min according to at least one of the formulas, the result was not con rmed in 40.7% individuals by the other equation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 77%