Key result
Creatinine clearance outperforms eGFR for predicting mortality and thromboembolism in NVAF.
Why the study?
The predictive ability of CrCl versus eGFR for clinical outcomes in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation remains controversial.
Does creatinine clearance (CrCl) predict adverse outcomes better than estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?
Observational (n=6,004)
Yes
Does creatinine clearance (CrCl) predict adverse outcomes better than estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Creatinine clearance is superior to estimated glomerular filtration rate for predicting thromboembolism and all-cause death in Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.
BACKGROUND: Renal impairment is a risk factor for various adverse events, especially for death. In general, creatinine clearance (CrCl) is used for dose-adjustments of many drugs including oral anticoagulants, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is adopted for the diagnosis of chronic kidney disease. Predictive ability of CrCl versus eGFR for outcomes in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) remains controversial; therefore, this was compared using data from the J-RHYTHM Registry. C-statistics (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve) of CrCl and eGFR for events were compared by DeLong's test. RESULTS: Thromboembolism, major hemorrhage, and all-cause death occurred in 107 (1.8%), 117 (1.9%), and 154 (2.6%) patients during the 2-year follow-up period. C-statistics of CrCl for each event were 0.609 (95% confidence interval, 0.559-0.658), 0.599 (0.548-0.657), and 0.746 (0.706-0.786); and those of eGFR were 0.542 (0.487-0.597), 0.573 (0.519-0.626), and 0.677 (0.631-0.723), respectively. C-statistics of CrCl for thromboembolism and all-cause death were significantly higher than those of eGFR (P < 0.001 for both). These results were consistent when BSA-unadjusted eGFR was used instead of eGFR (P = 0.002 for thromboembolism and P < 0.001 for all-cause death). CONCLUSIONS: CrCl was superior to eGFR in the prediction of adverse outcomes, i.e., thromboembolism and all-cause death in Japanese patients with NVAF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kodani et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (n=6,004). Creatinine clearance (CrCl, Cockcroft-Gault formula) vs. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR, Japanese Society of Nephrology equation) was evaluated on Predictive ability (c-statistic) for composite events of thromboembolism, major hemorrhage, and all-cause death (Difference in c-statistics 0.057, 95% CI 0.640-0.697, p=<0.001). Creatinine clearance showed superior predictive ability compared to eGFR for all-cause death and thromboembolism in NVAF patients.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: