Copyright
©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Hepatol. Jan 28, 2017; 9(3): 131-138
Published online Jan 28, 2017. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v9.i3.131
Published online Jan 28, 2017. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v9.i3.131
Table 1 Different methods of estimating creatinine-clearance (A): Equations I-IV were evaluated in the original Cockcroft-Gault study, Equation V is a modified Cockcroft-Gault that only incorporates age and serum creatinine into the equation; B: Different body weight equations tested in the Cockcroft-Gault equation to compensate for various body types
A: Formula = CrCl (mL/min) | B: Formula = weight (kg) | ||
I1 | [(140 - age)(weight in kg)] (72 × SCr) | IBWmale | 50 + (2.3 kg × inches > 60) |
II | (100/SCr) - 12 | IBWfemale | 45.5 + (2.3 kg × inches > 60) |
III | 98 - 16 × [(age - 20)/20] SCr | AdjBW | IBW + [(TBW - IBW) × C2] |
IV | (94.3/SCr) - 1.8 | LBWmale | 9270 × TBW 6680 + (216 × BMI) |
V | (140 - age) SCr | LBWfemale | 9270 × TBW |
VI | 100 SCr | FFW | Calculated using BIA[15] |
Table 2 Estimating creatinine clearance in morbidly obese patients by Demirovic et al[15] showed that using fat free weight and lean body weight provided the closest estimate to the control 24-h urine creatinine clearance
Method1 | Mean estimated CrCl ± SD | Mean bias (mL/min) | ± 30% of measured CrCl | ± 50% of measured CrCl |
Measured CrCl | 109.5 ± 44.4 | |||
ActBW | 217 ± 113 | -107 | 13% | 30% |
IBW | 85 ± 29 | +24 | 48% | 89% |
AdjBW0.3 | 129 ± 55 | -20 | 54% | 76% |
AdjBW0.4 | 142 ± 63 | -33 | 52% | 67% |
FFW | 103 ± 48 | +7 | 61% | 83% |
LBW | 102 ± 43 | +8 | 56% | 87% |
MDRD4 | 96.3 ± 29.4 | +13.3 | 51.90% | 87% |
Salazar-Corcoran | 155.2 ± 65.1 | -45.7 | 46.20% | 55.60% |
Table 3 Results from Dooley et al[21] illustrated that rounding of serum creatinine to 0.6 mg/dL underestimated creatinine clearance by 7%; of note, the majority of clinicians round low serum creatinine values to 0.8 or 1.0 mg/dL
Mean ± SD (mL/min) | Range (mL/min) | Mean % error | P value | ||
DTPA | All | 111 ± 46 | 45-256 | ||
≤ 100 mL/min | 77 ± 14 | 45-96 | |||
> 100 mL/min | 140 ± 45 | 103-256 | |||
CG (no rounding) | All | 117 ± 38 | 55-207 | 12.9 | 0.352 |
≤ 100 mL/min | 98 ± 28 | 55-152 | 29.2 | 0.024 | |
> 100 mL/min | 135 ± 38 | 86-207 | -0.1 | 0.631 | |
CG (rounding SCr to 0.6 mg/dL) | All | 97 ± 30 | 46-172 | -7.0 | 0.029 |
≤ 100 mL/min | 82 ± 23 | 46-127 | 7.9 | 0.543 | |
> 100 mL/min | 110 ± 29 | 72-172 | -18.9 | 0.003 |
Table 4 Results from Smythe et al[22] showed that rounding of serum creatinine to 1.0 in elderly patients was less accurate than using the patients actual serum creatinine
Method | Bias = CrClmeas - CrClcalc (CI) | Precision |
CG using IBW without gender adjustment | ||
Actual SCr | 2.3 (-10.3-14.8) | 22.5 |
Rounded SCr | 28.8 (19.1-38.4) | 17.4 |
CG using ActBW without gender adjustment | ||
Actual SCr | -13.6 [-26.8-(-0.43)] | 23.6 |
Rounded SCr | 16.3 (4.5-28.1) | 21.2 |
CG using ActBW with gender adjustment | ||
Actual SCr | -5.2 (-17.2-7.1) | 22.1 |
Rounded SCr | 22.6 (11.5-33.7) | 19.9 |
- Citation: Scappaticci GB, Regal RE. Cockcroft-Gault revisited: New de-liver-ance on recommendations for use in cirrhosis. World J Hepatol 2017; 9(3): 131-138
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5182/full/v9/i3/131.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v9.i3.131