Key result
In patients with acute pulmonary embolism, eGFR calculated by the Cockcroft-Gault formula tended to have a higher AUC for predicting 30-day mortality than the MDRD formula (0.658 vs 0.631, p=0.12).
Why the study?
Renal dysfunction predicts outcome and can improve risk assessment in acute pulmonary embolism, but the comparative prognostic utility of the MDRD versus Cockcroft-Gault eGFR formulas was unclear.
Does eGFR calculated by Cockcroft-Gault vs MDRD formula better predict 30-day mortality in hospitalized patients with acute pulmonary embolism?
Cohort (n=2,274)
Yes
Does eGFR calculated by Cockcroft-Gault vs MDRD formula better predict 30-day mortality in hospitalized patients with acute pulmonary embolism?
Both MDRD and Cockcroft-Gault eGFR formulas assessed on admission are significant predictors of short- and long-term mortality in patients with acute pulmonary embolism, with CG trending towards better prediction in the elderly.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Suggests Cockcroft-Gault may offer slight prognostic advantages over MDRD in acute PE; leaves.
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 prospectively included in a multicenter, observational, cohort study were analysed. A serum creatinine measurement as a routine laboratory parameter at the cooperating centers and eGFR calculation were performed on admission. Patients were followed for 180 days. The primary outcome was death from any cause within 30 days. Results. The eGFR levels assessed by both, MDRD (eGFRMDRD) and CG formula (eGFRCG), were highest in patients with low-risk APE and lowest in high-risk APE. The eGFR (using both methods) was significantly lower in nonsurvivors compared to survivors. Using a threshold of <60 ml/min/1.73 m2, eGFRMDRD revealed the primary outcome with sensitivity 67%, specificity 52%, PPV 8%, and NPV 97%, while eGFRCG had a sensitivity 62%, specificity 62%, PPV 8.6%, and NPV 96%. The area under the ROC curve for eGFRCG tended to be higher than that for eGFRMDRD: 0.658 (95% CI: 0.608-0.709) vs. 0.631 (95% CI: 0.578-0.683), p = 0.12 . A subanalysis of ROC curves in a population above 65 yrs showed a higher AUC for eGFRCG than based on MDRD. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a worse long-term outcome in patients with impaired renal function. Conclusion. eGFRMDRD and eGFRCG assessed on admission significant short- and long-term mortality predictors in patients with APE. The eGFRCG seems to be a slightly better 30-day mortality predictor than eGFRMDRD in the elderly.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pływaczewska et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Acute pulmonary embolism (n=2,274). eGFR calculated by Cockcroft-Gault formula vs. eGFR calculated by MDRD formula was evaluated on Death from any cause within 30 days (AUC 0.658 vs 0.631, p=0.12). In patients with acute pulmonary embolism, eGFR calculated by the Cockcroft-Gault formula tended to have a higher AUC for predicting 30-day mortality than the MDRD formula (0.658 vs 0.631, p=0.12).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: