IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0226509.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Creatinine versus cystatin C for renal function-based mortality prediction in an elderly cohort: The Northern Manhattan Study

Author

Listed:
  • Joshua Z Willey
  • Yeseon Park Moon
  • S Ali Husain
  • Mitchell S V Elkind
  • Ralph L Sacco
  • Myles Wolf
  • Ken Cheung
  • Clinton B Wright
  • Sumit Mohan

Abstract

Background: Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is routinely utilized as a measure of renal function. While creatinine-based eGFR (eGFRcr) is widely used in clinical practice, the use of cystatin-C to estimate GFR (eGFRcys) has demonstrated superior risk prediction in various populations. Prior studies that derived eGFR formulas have infrequently included high proportions of elderly, African-Americans, and Hispanics. Objective: Our objective as to compare mortality risk prediction using eGFRcr and eGFRcys in an elderly, race/ethnically diverse population. Design: The Northern Manhattan Study (NOMAS) is a multiethnic prospective cohort of elderly stroke-free individuals consisting of a total of 3,298 participants recruited between 1993 and 2001, with a median follow-up of 18 years. Participants: We included all Northern Manhattan Study (NOMAS) participants with concurrent measured creatinine and cystatin-C. Main measures: The eGFRcr was calculated using the CKD-EPI 2009 equation. eGFRcys was calculated using the CKD-EPI 2012 equations. The performance of each eGFR formula in predicting mortality risk was tested using receiver-operating characteristics, calibration and reclassification. Net reclassification improvement (NRI) was calculated based on the Reynolds 10 year risk score from adjusted Cox models with mortality as an outcome. The primary hypothesis was that eGFRcys would better predict mortality than eGFRcr. Results: Participants (n = 2988) had a mean age of 69±10.2 years and were predominantly Hispanic (53%), overweight (69%), and current or former smokers (53% combined). The mean eGFRcr (74.68±18.8 ml/min/1.73m2) was higher than eGFRcys (51.72±17.2 ml/min/1.73m2). During a mean of 13.0±5.6 years of follow-up, 53% of the cohort had died. The AUC of eGFRcys (0.73) was greater than for eGFRcr (0.67, p for difference

Suggested Citation

  • Joshua Z Willey & Yeseon Park Moon & S Ali Husain & Mitchell S V Elkind & Ralph L Sacco & Myles Wolf & Ken Cheung & Clinton B Wright & Sumit Mohan, 2020. "Creatinine versus cystatin C for renal function-based mortality prediction in an elderly cohort: The Northern Manhattan Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-26, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0226509
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226509
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0226509
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0226509&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0226509?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0226509. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.