Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of two glomerular filtration rate (GFR)-estimating equations in predicting the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in type 2 diabetic patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We followed 2,823 type 2 diabetic outpatients for a period of 6 years for the occurrence of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. GFR was estimated using the four-variable Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study equation and the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation. RESULTS: At baseline, an estimated GFR (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) was present in 22.0 and 20.2% of patients using the MDRD study equation and the CKD-EPI equation, respectively. A total of 309 patients died during the follow-up (152 patients from cardiovascular causes). Both creatinine-based equations were associated with an increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. However, the CKD-EPI equation provided a more accurate risk prediction of mortality than the MDRD study equation. Receiving operating characteristic curves showed that the areas under the curve (AUCs) for all-cause mortality (AUC 0.712 [95% CI 0.682-0.741]) and cardiovascular mortality (0.771 [0.734-0.808]) using eGFR(CKD-EPI) were significantly greater (P < 0.0001 by the z statistic) than those obtained by using eGFR(MDRD) (0.679 [0.647-0.711] for all-cause mortality and 0.739 [0.698-0.783] for cardiovascular mortality). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the estimation of GFR using the CKD-EPI equation more appropriately stratifies patients with type 2 diabetes according to the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared with the MDRD study equation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Targher et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: