ArticleScientific reports2024
Impact and consequences of the error of estimated GFR in patients with heart failure.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart failure is a highly prevalent disease, which courses with frequent readmissions, mainly by Acute Heart Failure (AHF). Reduced renal function is associated with increased mortality in patients with HF. Therefore, an accurate and precise evaluation of renal function in patients with HF is crucial. The error of estimated GFR (eGFR) is wide and common, showing a ± 30% variability compared to measured GFR (mGFR). However, there is no evidence on the error of formulas in reflecting real renal function and particularly the consequences of this error in patients with AHF. This is a prospective study comparing the impact of mGFR versus eGFR in the onset of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in patients with AHF. This was tested with cox survival analysis. Measured GFR was determined by the plasma clearance of iohexol-dbs and eGFR by Cockroft-Gould, MDRD, CKD-EPI creatinine, CKD-EPI cystatin-C and CKD-EPI creatinine + cystatin-C equations formulas. Also the agreement between mGFR and eGFR was analyzed. A total of 90 patients were included. Average age was 66 (± 12 years) and 52 (58%) were male. Of them 53 patients (59%) had a cardiovascular event during follow-up, 22 fatal (41%). The agreement between mGFR and eGFR indicated moderate precision and accuracy (concordance correlation coefficient of 0.77; CI = 0.73-0.82). In multiple cox survival analysis, mGFR was significantly associated with cardiovascular events together with NTproBNP, BMI, LVEF and previous coronary artery disease (p = 0.037; HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.95-0.99). Estimated GFR by formulas was not significant. In patients with AHF the error of formulas is large, frequent and random, also, mGFR and not eGFR predicted future CV events. The error of eGFR may have clinical consequences in specific subpopulations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.