BackgroundPrevious studies have proposed different formulas of estimating glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) among clinical patients. The comprehensive comparison of eGFR formulas is not well... Show moreBackgroundPrevious studies have proposed different formulas of estimating glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) among clinical patients. The comprehensive comparison of eGFR formulas is not well established in a Japanese population. We compared eGFR values and chronic kidney disease (CKD) classification of nine different eGFR in a Japanese general population sample.MethodsWe analyzed 469 Japanese community-dwelling adults (184 men) without any self-reported kidney disease. GFR estimated using the 4- and 6-parameter Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) formulas (MDRD4 and MDRD6); the CKD-EPI formulas based on creatinine with (CKD-EPI-2009) and without race coefficient (CKD-EPI-2021), on cystatin C (CKD-EPI-Cys), on both (CKD-EPI-CreCys); the Japanese creatinine-based formula (JPN-Cre), cystatin C-based formula (JPN-Cys), and modified CKD-EPI formula (JPN-CKD-EPI). CKD stages were defined by KDIGO guidelines (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2).ResultseGFRJPN-Cre (mean = 71.2; SD = 14.3) were much lower than eGFRCKD-EPI-2021 (mean = 94.2; SD = 12.7), while eGFRJPN-Cys (mean = 102.8; SD = 24.2) was comparable to the MDRD and CKD-EPI formulas. The difference between eGFRCKD-EPI-2021 and eGFRJPN-Cre showed a V-shaped distribution across eGFR levels, indicating complex errors between these formulas. We observed very low agreement in CKD classification between eGFRJPN-Cre and the eGFRCKD-EPI-2021 (kappa = 0.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.06, 0.23).ConclusionsJPN-Cre was substantially different from the CKD-EPI formula without race term (CKD-EPI-2021), which means that it is impossible to recalibrate those with a simple coefficient. Although a comparison with measured GFR should be necessary, choice of the estimation method needs caution in clinical decision-making and academic research. Show less
Blood pressure (BP) is a leading global risk factor. Increasing age is related to changes in cardiovascular physiology that could influence cuff BP measurement, but this has never been examined... Show moreBlood pressure (BP) is a leading global risk factor. Increasing age is related to changes in cardiovascular physiology that could influence cuff BP measurement, but this has never been examined systematically and was the aim of this study. Cuff BP was compared with invasive aortic BP across decades of age (from 40 to 89 years) using individual-level data from 31 studies (1674 patients undergoing coronary angiography) and 22 different cuff BP devices (19 oscillometric, 1 automated auscultation, 2 mercury sphygmomanometry) from the Invasive Blood Pressure Consortium. Subjects were aged 64 +/- 11 years, and 32% female. Cuff systolic BP overestimated invasive aortic systolic BP in those aged 40 to 49 years, but with each older decade of age, there was a progressive shift toward increasing underestimation of aortic systolic BP (P<0.0001). Conversely, cuff diastolic BP overestimated invasive aortic diastolic BP, and this progressively increased with increasing age (P<0.0001). Thus, there was a progressive increase in cuff pulse pressure underestimation of invasive aortic PP with increasing decades of age (P<0.0001). These age-related trends were observed across all categories of BP control. We conclude that cuff BP as an estimate of aortic BP was substantially influenced by increasing age, thus potentially exposing older people to greater chance for misdiagnosis of the true risk related to BP. Show less
Nagata, T.; Matsunaga, H.; Vliet, I. van; Yamada, H.; Fukuhara, H.; Yoshimura, C.; Kiriike, N. 2011
