Premium
Sinistrin Clearance for Determination of Glomerular Filtration Rate: A Reappraisal of Various Approaches Using a New Analytical Method
Author(s) -
Buclin Thierry,
PechèreBertschi Antoinette,
Séchaud Romain,
Décosterd Laurent A.,
Munafo Alain,
Burnier Michel,
Biollaz Jérôme
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
the journal of clinical pharmacology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.92
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1552-4604
pISSN - 0091-2700
DOI - 10.1002/j.1552-4604.1997.tb04355.x
Subject(s) - bolus (digestion) , renal function , urine , urology , pharmacokinetics , volume of distribution , urinary system , intravenous bolus , medicine , chemistry , chromatography , anesthesia
Several approaches are available to estimate the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) from the sinistrin clearance. To compare such approaches, GFR was estimated in six healthy volunteers, both after a bolus injection and a bolus dose followed by a 6‐hour infusion. A recently developed high‐performance liquid chromatography method was used for the determination of sinistrin levels, enabling precise measurements in plasma and urine samples with high sensitivity. Blood and urine were sampled up to 6 hours. Four calculation methods for estimating GFR were applied: 1) classical ratio of urinary excretion rate over plasma concentration (UV/P); 2) two‐point (log‐linear regression slope times monocompartmental volume of distribution) after bolus; 3) ratio of dose over area under the curve (D/AUC) after bolus; and 4) ratio of infusion rate over steady‐state concentration during infusion (R inf /P). The results obtained by fitting a pharmacokinetic model to all the plasma and urine data served as the standard against which the performance of the respective calculation methods were examined. The UV/P method performed poorly on bolus data, mainly by underestimating GFR at late times; on both bolus and infusion data, it suffered from important imprecisions on the urinary volume. The two‐point method appeared applicable only between 2 and 4 hours after the bolus dose. The D/AUC method with extrapolation to infinity was highly reliable when integrating the concentrations up to 3 hours or more after the bolus dose. The R inf /P method was satisfactory if applied later than 2 to 3 hours after the loading dose. The advantages and drawbacks of each method have to be evaluated in relation to the particular clinical setting in which GFR is to be estimated.