Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 1991 Jun;52(6):961-4.

Comparison of four methods of estimating glomerular filtration rate in cats

Affiliations
  • PMID: 1883102
Comparative Study

Comparison of four methods of estimating glomerular filtration rate in cats

K S Rogers et al. Am J Vet Res. 1991 Jun.

Erratum in

  • Am J Vet Res 1991 Oct;52(10):1742

Abstract

Four methods of evaluating renal function were performed in 6 cats anesthetized with halothane in oxygen. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was measured simultaneously in each cat by exogenous creatinine clearance (ECC), bolus inulin clearance, and 99mTc(Sn)-diethylene-triaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA) clearance determined by 2 different methods. In the first DTPA clearance method (DTPA-1), we measured radioactivity in serial blood specimens to construct plasma disappearance curves for calculation of GFR. In the second DTPA clearance method (DTPA-2), we used serial external head counts of radioactivity and a single blood specimen to construct plasma disappearance curves for calculation of GFR. Bolus inulin clearance was calculated from plasma disappearance curves using a 1-compartment open pharmacokinetic model (IN-1) and a 2-compartment open pharmacokinetic model (IN-2). Glomerular filtration rates were measured over 3 hours, for creatinine and DTPA methods, and over 4 hours for the inulin methods. The GFR obtained with the reference method (ECC) was 2.56 +/- 0.61 ml/min/kg of body weight (mean +/- SD). Values for GFR determined by ECC and DTPA-1 were significantly correlated (r = 0.852; P less than or equal to 0.05). Correlation between ECC and DTPA 2 was not as good (r = 0.783; P less than or equal to 0.10), but the 2 DTPA methods significantly correlated with one another (r = 0.897; P less than or equal to 0.05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources