Plasma Iohexol Clearance for Assessing Residual Kidney Function in Dialysis Patients

Residual Kidney Function in Hemodialysis: Its Importance and Contribution to Improved Patient Outcomes

Individuals afflicted with advanced kidney dysfunction who require dialysis for medical management exhibit different degrees of native kidney function, called residual kidney function (RKF), ranging from nil to appreciable levels. The primary focus of this manuscript is to delve into the concept of RKF, a pivotal yet under-represented topic in nephrology. To begin, we unpack the definition and intrinsic nature of RKF. We then juxtapose the efficiency of RKF against that of hemodialysis in preserving homeostatic equilibrium and facilitating physiological functions. Given the complex interplay of RKF and overall patient health, we shed light on the extent of its influence on patient outcomes, particularly in those living with advanced kidney dysfunction and on dialysis. This manuscript subsequently presents methodologies and measures to assess RKF, concluding with the potential benefits of targeted interventions aimed at preserving RKF.

Predicting Residual Function in Hemodialysis and Hemodiafiltration-A Population Kinetic, Decision Analytic Approach

In this study, we introduce a novel framework for the estimation of residual renal function (RRF), based on the population compartmental kinetic behavior of beta 2 microglobulin (B2M) and its dialytic removal. Using this model, we simulated a large cohort of patients with various levels of RRF receiving either conventional high-flux hemodialysis or on-line hemodiafiltration. These simulations were used to estimate a novel population kinetic (PK) equation for RRF (PK-RRF) that was validated in an external public dataset of real patients. We assessed the performance of the resulting equation(s) against their ability to estimate urea clearance using cross-validation. Our equations were derived entirely from computer simulations and advanced statistical modeling and had extremely high discrimination (Area Under the Curve, AUC 0.888–0.909) when applied to a human dataset of measurements of RRF. A clearance-based equation that utilized predialysis and postdialysis B2M measurements, patient weight, treatment duration and ultrafiltration had higher discrimination than an equation previously derived in humans. Furthermore, the derived equations appeared to have higher clinical usefulness as assessed by Decision Curve Analysis, potentially supporting decisions for individualizing dialysis prescriptions in patients with preserved RRF.

Single- versus multiple-sample method to measure glomerular filtration rate

Background

There are many different ways to measure glomerular filtration rate (GFR) using various exogenous filtration markers, each having their own strengths and limitations. However, not only the marker, but also the methodology may vary in many ways, including the use of urinary or plasma clearance, and, in the case of plasma clearance, the number of time points used to calculate the area under the concentration-time curve, ranging from only one (Jacobsson method) to eight (or more) blood samples.

Methods

We collected the results obtained from 5106 plasma clearances (iohexol or 51Cr-ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA)) using three to four time points, allowing GFR calculation using the slope-intercept method and the Bröchner-Mortensen correction. For each time point, the Jacobsson formula was applied to obtain the single-sample GFR. We used Bland-Altman plots to determine the accuracy of the Jacobsson method at each time point.

Results

The single-sample method showed within 10% concordances with the multiple-sample method of 66.4%, 83.6%, 91.4% and 96.0% at the time points 120, 180, 240 and ≥300 min, respectively. Concordance was poorer at lower GFR levels, and this trend is in parallel with increasing age. Results were similar in males and females. Some discordance was found in the obese subjects.

Conclusion

Single-sample GFR is highly concordant with a multiple-sample strategy, except in the low GFR range (<30 mL/min).

Creatinine clearance after cimetidine administration in a new short procedure: comparison with plasma and renal clearances of iohexol

Background

Creatinine clearance after cimetidine administration (Cim-CreatClr) was once proposed as a method of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) measurement, but has been largely abandoned. We investigated whether a new short procedure for Cim-CreatClr determination could be considered an appropriate method for GFR measurement.

Methods

A 150-min protocol involving oral cimetidine administration was developed to determine Cim-CreatClr. In total, 168 patients underwent simultaneous assessments of creatinine clearance before and after cimetidine administration [basal creatinine clearance (Basal-CreatClr) and Cim-CreatClr, respectively], renal iohexol clearance and plasma iohexol clearance (R-iohexClr and P-iohexClr, respectively). We compared the agreement between the various methods of GFR measurement, using Bland–Altman plots to determine biases, precisions (standard deviation of the biases) and accuracy (proportions of GFR values falling within 10, 15 and 30% of the mean: P10, P15 and P30, respectively).

Results

After cimetidine administration, Basal-CreatClr decreased by 19.8% [95% reference limits of agreement (95% LoA): −2.2 to 41.7%]. The bias between Cim-CreatClr and P-iohexClr was −0.6% (95% LoA −26.8 to 28%); the precision was 14.0%; P10, P15 and P30 were 57.1% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 49.3 to 64.7%], 73.2% (95% CI 65.8 to 79.7%) and 97.0% (95% CI 93.2 to 99.0%), respectively. Due to the positive bias (16.7%; 95% LoA −3.6 to 36.9%) of Cim-CreatClr relative to R-iohexClr, accuracy of Cim-CreatClr relative to R-iohexClr was poor despite a good precision (10.3%).

Conclusions

Our study shows a high level of agreement between Cim-CreatClr and P-iohexClr. These results suggest that this short Cim-CreatClr procedure is a valid method for GFR measurement, which might be useful, in particular, in situations in which P-iohexClr is not suitable or not available.

Development and Validation of Residual Kidney Function Estimating Equations in Dialysis Patients

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Measurement of residual kidney function is recommended for the adjustment of the dialysis prescription, but timed urine collections are difficult and prone to errors. Equations to calculate residual kidney function from serum concentrations of endogenous filtration markers and demographic parameters would simplify monitoring of residual kidney function. However, few equations to estimate residual kidney function using serum concentrations of small solutes and low-molecular-weight proteins have been developed and externally validated.

STUDY DESIGN

Study of diagnostic test accuracy.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

823 Chinese peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients (development cohort) and 826 PD and hemodialysis patients from the Netherlands NECOSAD study (validation cohort).

TESTS COMPARED

Equations to estimate residual kidney function (estimated clearance [eCl]) using serum creatinine, urea nitrogen, cystatin C, β2-microglobulin (B2M), β-trace protein (BTP), and combinations, as well as demographic variables (age, sex, height, and weight). Equations were developed using multivariable linear regression analysis in the development cohort and then tested in the validation cohort. Equations were compared with published validated equations.

OUTCOMES

Residual kidney function measured as urinary clearance (mCl) of urea nitrogen (mClUN) and average of creatinine and urea nitrogen clearance (mClUN-cr).

RESULTS

In external validation, bias (difference between mCl and eCl) was within ± 1.0 unit for all equations. Accuracy (percent of differences within ± 2.0 units) was significantly better for eClBTP, eClB2M, and eClBTP-B2M than eClUN-cr for both mClUN (78%, 80%, and 81% vs 72%; P < 0.05 for all) and mClUN-cr (72%, 78%, and 79% vs 68%; P < 0.05 for all). The area under the curve for predicting mClUN > 2.0 mL/min was highest for eClB2M (0.853) and eClBTP-B2M (0.848). Results were similar for other validated equations.

LIMITATIONS

Development cohort only consisted of PD patients, no gold-standard method for residual kidney function measurement.

CONCLUSIONS

These results confirm the validity and extend the generalizability of residual kidney function estimating equations from serum concentrations of low-molecular-weight proteins without urine collection.

Measurement and Estimation of Residual Kidney Function in Patients on Dialysis

Residual kidney function (RKF) in patients on dialysis is strongly associated with survival and better quality of life. Assessment of kidney function underlies the management of patients with chronic kidney disease before dialysis initiation. However, methods to assess RKF after dialysis initiation are just now being refined. In this review, we discuss the definition of RKF and methods for measurement and estimation of RKF, highlighting the unique aspects of dialysis that impact these assessments.

Residual Kidney Function: Implications in the Era of Personalized Medicine

The association of residual kidney function (RKF) with improved outcomes in peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis patients is now widely recognized. RKF provides substantial volume and solute clearance even after dialysis initiation. In particular, RKF provides clearance of nonurea solutes, many of which are potential uremic toxins and not effectively removed by conventional hemodialysis. The presence of RKF provides a distinct advantage to incident dialysis patients and is an opportunity for nephrologists to individualize dialysis treatments tailored to their patients' unique solute, volume, and quality of life needs. The benefits of RKF present the opportunity to personalize the management of uremia.

Iohexol plasma clearance for measuring glomerular filtration rate in clinical practice and research: a review. Part 1: How to measure glomerular filtration rate with iohexol?

While there is general agreement on the necessity to measure glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in many clinical situations, there is less agreement on the best method to achieve this purpose. As the gold standard method for GFR determination, urinary (or renal) clearance of inulin, fades into the background due to inconvenience and high cost, a diversity of filtration markers and protocols compete to replace it. In this review, we suggest that iohexol, a non-ionic contrast agent, is most suited to replace inulin as the marker of choice for GFR determination. Iohexol comes very close to fulfilling all requirements for an ideal GFR marker in terms of low extra-renal excretion, low protein binding and in being neither secreted nor reabsorbed by the kidney. In addition, iohexol is virtually non-toxic and carries a low cost. As iohexol is stable in plasma, administration and sample analysis can be separated in both space and time, allowing access to GFR determination across different settings. An external proficiency programme operated by Equalis AB, Sweden, exists for iohexol, facilitating interlaboratory comparison of results. Plasma clearance measurement is the protocol of choice as it combines a reliable GFR determination with convenience for the patient. Single-sample protocols dominate, but multiple-sample protocols may be more accurate in specific situations. In low GFRs one or more late samples should be included to improve accuracy. In patients with large oedema or ascites, urinary clearance protocols should be employed. In conclusion, plasma clearance of iohexol may well be the best candidate for a common GFR determination method.

Estimating residual kidney function in dialysis patients without urine collection

Residual kidney function contributes substantially to solute clearance in dialysis patients but cannot be assessed without urine collection. We used serum filtration markers to develop dialysis-specific equations to estimate urinary urea clearance without the need for urine collection. In our development cohort, we measured 24-hour urine clearances under close supervision in 44 patients and validated these equations in 826 patients from the Netherlands Cooperative Study on the Adequacy of Dialysis. For the development and validation cohorts, median urinary urea clearance was 2.6 and 2.4 ml/min, respectively. During the 24-hour visit in the development cohort, serum β-trace protein concentrations remained in steady state but concentrations of all other markers increased. In the validation cohort, bias (median measured minus estimated clearance) was low for all equations. Precision was significantly better for β-trace protein and β2-microglobulin equations and the accuracy was significantly greater for β-trace protein, β2-microglobulin, and cystatin C equations, compared with the urea plus creatinine equation. Area under the receiver operator characteristic curve for detecting measured urinary urea clearance by equation-estimated urinary urea clearance (both 2 ml/min or more) were 0.821, 0.850, and 0.796 for β-trace protein, β2-microglobulin, and cystatin C equations, respectively; significantly greater than the 0.663 for the urea plus creatinine equation. Thus, residual renal function can be estimated in dialysis patients without urine collections.