Had a blood test
16 March 2017, 05:17 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had a blood test
My GP ordered some blood tests and a ECG after I had complained of feeling nauseous for a while and had some arrhythmia.
All good apart from some kidney function.
Serum Creatinine was 106 or so and GFR was 67.
They said have another test this time it is 97 and 76 respectively, so 'ok', but from my research the GFR could be better for my age (I'm 38).
After the first test I was worried I'd damaged my kidneys from taking too many NSAID over a long period a few years ago.
Still doesn't explain the nausea, but it tends to be only when I travel or watch TV, and it isn't that bad recently, although had been real bad towards the end of last year.
All good apart from some kidney function.
Serum Creatinine was 106 or so and GFR was 67.
They said have another test this time it is 97 and 76 respectively, so 'ok', but from my research the GFR could be better for my age (I'm 38).
After the first test I was worried I'd damaged my kidneys from taking too many NSAID over a long period a few years ago.
Still doesn't explain the nausea, but it tends to be only when I travel or watch TV, and it isn't that bad recently, although had been real bad towards the end of last year.
16 March 2017, 09:15 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Our lab just report eGFR>60 and don't give a number if it is. This may miss subclinical kidney disease, but progression is more important and seeing 67 rising to 97 is encouraging. A higher cutoff for normality would be unlikely to do more good than harm in terms of investigating. Would avoid NSAIDs now if you can especially with nausea.
16 March 2017, 09:34 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our lab just report eGFR>60 and don't give a number if it is. This may miss subclinical kidney disease, but progression is more important and seeing 67 rising to 97 is encouraging. A higher cutoff for normality would be unlikely to do more good than harm in terms of investigating. Would avoid NSAIDs now if you can especially with nausea.
I've not been taking NSAIDs for a couple to three years now, and I'm much more suspect about them given the health risks that have been published.
16 March 2017, 09:46 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yes, 67 rising to 76 is still encouraging. In our area, a value of >60 would never have been mentioned as anything other than normal and would not trigger concern or investigation, but the physiology textbooks say GFR of 125ml/min is considered normal. However, physiological parameters have a wide variation and there is not really a sharp cutoff of what is normal and what is not, but often lab tests show "abnormal" when they are two standard deviations from the mean, which is crude but a handy reference. The other thing with eGFR is that it has loads of assumptions, it is in there with BMI unless wildly abnormal. There is some literature criticising the medicalisation of those with eGFR 45-59 on repeated tests.
)
17 March 2017, 11:28 PM
#6
I just get brassed off with the medical profession calling them 'your bloods' and ' your meds'.
Its like everyone goes to 'Uni ' now.
Sorry.. OT
Its like everyone goes to 'Uni ' now.
Sorry.. OT