Am J Health-Syst Pharm
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Order Full text via Infotrieve
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Davis, G.
Right arrow Articles by Chandler, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Davis, G.
Right arrow Articles by Chandler, M.
American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, Vol 53, Issue 9, 1028-1032
Copyright © 1996 by American Society of Health-System Pharmacists


Articles

Comparison of creatinine clearance estimation methods in patients with trauma

GA Davis and MH Chandler


The abilities of a modified Cockcroft-Gault equation and the standard equation to estimate creatinine clearance (CLcr) in trauma patients were compared. The medical records of patients with stable renal function who had been treated for trauma and had had a 24-hour urine collection for creatinine measurement were reviewed. Creatinine concentrations in urine and serum were used to calculate the actual CLcr, which was normalized to 1.73 sq m. CLcr was estimated by the modified equation (which normalized body weight to 72 kg) and by the standard equation using ABW, IBW, and dosing body weight (DBW). Values derived with the standard equation were normalized to 1.73 sq m. The predictive performances of the modified and standard equations in estimating the actual CLcr were then compared. Fifty patients were enrolled. The standard equation using IBW or DBW produced estimates that differed significantly from the actual CLcr. The modified equation and the standard equation using ABW did not differ significantly in bias or precision, but both were significantly less biased than the standard equation using IBW or DBW. The only significant difference among equations in precision was between the modified equation (the more precise) and the standard equation using IBW. There were no clinically significant differences among methods in gentamicin dosing simulations. The modified Cockcroft-Gault equation can be used to estimate CLcr in trauma patients with stable renal function.
 



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
A. Zahran, M. Qureshi, and A. Shoker
Comparison between creatinine and cystatin C-based GFR equations in renal transplantation
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., September 1, 2007; 22(9): 2659 - 2668.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
S. G. Poole, M. J. Dooley, and D. Rischin
A comparison of bedside renal function estimates and measured glomerular filtration rate (Tc99mDTPA clearance) in cancer patients
Ann. Onc., June 1, 2002; 13(6): 949 - 955.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.