uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Comparison of Cardiovascular Prognosis by 3 Serum Cystatin C Methods in the Heart and Soul Study
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Sciences, Clinical Chemistry. (biologisk struktur och funktion)
Show others and affiliations
2011 (English)In: Clinical Chemistry, ISSN 0009-9147, E-ISSN 1530-8561, Vol. 57, no 5, 737-745 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND: Cystatin C is a promising new biomarker to estimate glomerular filtration (eGFR). However, the Siemens' cystatin C assay (Siemens), used in many longitudinal studies, has had limited clinical applicability because it requires a specific, dedicated instrument. Other companies, including Gentian and Roche, have developed cystatin C assays that can be used with most routine clinical chemistry analyzers. METHODS: We compared the agreement of Gentian and Roche with Siemens in 948 participants at the baseline visit of the Heart and Soul Study, a cohort of participants with established coronary artery disease who were followed for an average of 8 years. We then compared associations of all 3 cystatin C measures and eGFR-Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) with clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The Gentian assay had higher correlation with Siemens (r = 0.96) than did Roche (r = 0.93, P < 0.001). After cross-tabulating quartiles of each cystatin C measure, agreements (Îș statistic) were higher for Siemens and Gentian (0.73, 95% CI 0.72-0.75) than for Roche and Siemens (0.64, 0.63-0.66) or for Roche and Gentian (0.69, 0.65-0.71). These differences in agreement had minimal impact on associations with clinical outcomes; the hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality comparing the high vs low quartiles were 3.2 (95% CI 2.1-4.8) for Siemens, 3.1 (CI 2.1-4.7) for Gentian, 3.1 (CI 2.1-4.7) for Roche, and 1.6 (CI 1.1-2.3) for eGFR-MDRD, after multivariate adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, agreement with the Siemens' assay was modestly higher for the Gentian compared with the Roche assay, although all 3 methods for cystatin C measurement had similar utility as predictors of clinical outcomes.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2011. Vol. 57, no 5, 737-745 p.
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-149738DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2010.158915ISI: 000289985100014PubMedID: 21310869OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-149738DiVA: diva2:405329
Available from: 2011-03-22 Created: 2011-03-22 Last updated: 2011-05-16Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed
By organisation
Clinical Chemistry
In the same journal
Clinical Chemistry
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 160 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link