Objective: Several new equations (GFRCKD-EPI-cr, GFRCKD-EPI-CysC, GFRCKD-EPI Cr+CysC) are used for the calculation of estimated GFR (eGFR) to evaluate renal function. These equations explicitly demonstrate the association of coronary artery disease (CAD) and severe renal impairment cases. However, these equations are considered insufficient to explain the relation with normal or mildly impaired eGFR and CAD. Our hypothesis was to indicate the inversely proportional relationship of eGFR values, calculated by the different equations, with the presence of CAD in patients with normal or mildly impaired renal function.
Methods: Eighty-eight patients who underwent elective coronary angiographic intervention were enrolled into the study. The study population was divided into two groups based on angiographic documents: patients with normal coronary arteries (CAD-) and patients with CAD (CAD +). These patients were stable and decided to implement angiography for the purpose of suspicion about CAD and control. Since it is thought that eGFR equations based on creatinine are inadequate to determine chronic kidney disease (CKD) and overestimate CKD diagnosis, cystatin C-based equations are considered an alternative. Due to the potential effects of inflammatory events of the markers used in equations, patients with diabetes mellitus, severe CKD, and inflammatory bowel disease were excluded from the study.
Results: The average age of all participants was 51.93±9.31 (32-65 years); 80.7% (n=71) was male. A statistical difference was found between the CAD (-) group and the CAD (+) group in terms of the variables of age (45.46±8.48 vs. 54.95±8.11, p<0.001), gender (67.9% vs. 86.7%, male, p=0.037), cystatin C values (1.37±0.34 vs. 0.85±0.39, p<0.001), and GFR equations defined by the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology: GFRCKD-EPI-cr (85.86±14.20 vs. 79.45±10.25, p=0.018), GFRCKD-EPI-CysC (58.61±21.87 vs. 100.82±32.00, p<0.001), and GFRCKD-EPI Cr+CysC (68.29±13.49 vs. 90.75±18.34, p<0.001). After adjustment of the variables in multiple regression analyses, only age (OR, 1.199; 95% CI, 1.077 to 1.335, p=0.001), gender (OR, 8.252; 95% CI, 0.223 to 55.659, p=0.030), and the GFRCKD-EPI-CysC equation (OR, 1.059; 95% CI, 1.028 to 1.090, p<0.001) were detected as predictors for presence of CAD.
Conclusion: GFR equations based on cystatin C or combined with creatinine may have superiority to GFR equations based on creatinine alone in CAD patients. However, the impact of different variables on the GFRCKD-EPI-CysC equation should not be ignored in specific groups, such as CAD.