A comparison of CKD-EPI estimated glomerular filtration rate and measured creatinine clearance in recently admitted critically ill patients with normal plasma creatinine concentrations

Andrew A. Udy, Fraser J A Morton, Sallyanne Nguyen-Pham, Paul Jarrett, Melissa Lassig-Smith, Janine Stuart, Rachel Dunlop, Therese Starr, Robert J. Boots, Jeffrey Lipman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

34 Citations (Scopus)


Background: The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) has been widely integrated into clinical practice. Although useful in screening for CKD, its' application in critically ill patients with normal plasma creatinine concentrations remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of CKD-EPI eGFR in comparison to creatinine clearance (CLCR) in this setting. Methods. This prospective observational study was performed in a tertiary level, university affiliated intensive care unit (ICU). Study participants had to have an expected ICU length of stay > 24 hours, a plasma creatinine concentration < 121 μmol/L, and no history of prior renal replacement therapy or CKD. CKD-EPI eGFR was compared against 8-hour measured urinary CLCR. Data capture occurred within 48 hours of admission. Results: One hundred and ten patients (n = 110) were enrolled in the study. 63.6% were male, the mean age was 50.9 (16.9) years, 57.3% received invasive mechanical ventilation, and 30% required vasopressor support. The mean CLCR was 125 (45.1) ml/min/1.73 m2, compared to a CKD-EPI eGFR of 101 (23.7) ml/min/1.73 m2 (P < 0.001). Moderate correlation was evident (r = 0.72), although there was significant bias and imprecision (24.4 +/-32.5 ml/min/1.73 m2). In those patients with a CKD-EPI eGFR between 60-119 ml/min/1.73 m2 (n = 77), 41.6% displayed augmented renal clearance (CL CR ≥ 130 ml/min/1.73 m2), while 7.8% had a CL CR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Conclusions: These data suggest CKD-EPI eGFR and measured CLCR produce significantly disparate results when estimating renal function in this population. Clinicians should consider carefully which value they employ in clinical practice, particularly drug dose modification.

Original languageEnglish
Article number250
JournalBMC Nephrology
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2013
Externally publishedYes

Cite this