English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Aim: To compare serum creatinine (SCr) and serum cystatin C as early marker of acute kidney dysfunction.  Methodology: The present cross sectional observation study consisted of eighty- four ICU admitted patients (critical ill). A randomization of patients into 2 groups was done. Patients with normal kidney functions were put in group 1 while those with impaired kidney functions were in group 2. The estimation of serum creatinine (SCr) and serum cystatin C was done. Mann Whitney U and ch- square test was used for statistical inference.  Results: In group 1 patients, mean serum creatinine (SCr) was 0.30± 0.21 mg/dl and in group 2 was 0.56±0.41 mg/dl. Serum cystatin C level in group 1patients found to be 0.42±0.17 mg/l and 1.5±0.68 mg/l in group 2 patients. Accuracy for Cys- C was better than SCr (90% vs 67%). Specificity for SCr was 97% whereas for Cys- C was 95%. Sensitivity for Cys-C was 80% while for SCr was 25%. SCr had PPV of 92% and NPV of 61% and for Cys- C it was 93% and 83% respectively.  Conclusion: Serum cystatin C found to be better than serum creatinine for the identification of impairment of kidney functions in critically ill patients. Hence, assessment of Cys-C is of great concern in AKI.  Key words: Acute renal failure, serum creatinine, serum, renal impairment

Serum Serum Cystatin C vs Creatinine (SCr) as early marker of acute renal dysfunction- A comparative study