M Schetz1, J Gunst, G De Vlieger, G Van den Berghe. 1. Clinical Department and Laboratory of Intensive Care Medicine, Division of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, KU Leuven University, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium, miet.schetz@scarlet.be.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Studies on recovery from acute kidney injury (AKI) in ICU patients yield variable results. We assessed the impact of different recovery definitions, of different exclusion criteria, and of imputing missing baseline creatinine on AKI recovery in a heterogeneous ICU population. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the EPaNIC database. Recovery of kidney function in patients who developed AKI in ICU was assessed at hospital discharge. We studied recovery rates of different AKI stages with different definitions of recovery after inclusion or exclusion of non-survivors and in patients with or without chronic kidney disease (CKD). In addition, the impact of imputing missing baseline creatinine was investigated. RESULTS: A total of 1310 AKI patients were studied of which 977 were discharged alive from hospital. Rate of complete recovery (absence of KDIGO criteria) was markedly higher in survivors than in all AKI patients (79.5 vs 67.0%), especially for more severe forms of AKI. For patients with CKD, only the need for renal replacement therapy worsened kidney outcome as compared with no-CKD patients. Using stricter definitions of complete recovery significantly reduced its occurrence. New or worsening CKD occurred in 30% of AKI survivors. In no-CKD patients with available baseline creatinine, using an imputed baseline did not affect recovery. Patients with unavailable baseline creatinine were different from those with known baseline and revealed different recovery patterns. CONCLUSION: These results indicate the need for rigorous description of AKI severity, the included population, definitions, and baseline creatinine handling in reports on AKI recovery.
PURPOSE: Studies on recovery from acute kidney injury (AKI) in ICU patients yield variable results. We assessed the impact of different recovery definitions, of different exclusion criteria, and of imputing missing baseline creatinine on AKI recovery in a heterogeneous ICU population. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the EPaNIC database. Recovery of kidney function in patients who developed AKI in ICU was assessed at hospital discharge. We studied recovery rates of different AKI stages with different definitions of recovery after inclusion or exclusion of non-survivors and in patients with or without chronic kidney disease (CKD). In addition, the impact of imputing missing baseline creatinine was investigated. RESULTS: A total of 1310 AKI patients were studied of which 977 were discharged alive from hospital. Rate of complete recovery (absence of KDIGO criteria) was markedly higher in survivors than in all AKI patients (79.5 vs 67.0%), especially for more severe forms of AKI. For patients with CKD, only the need for renal replacement therapy worsened kidney outcome as compared with no-CKDpatients. Using stricter definitions of complete recovery significantly reduced its occurrence. New or worsening CKD occurred in 30% of AKI survivors. In no-CKDpatients with available baseline creatinine, using an imputed baseline did not affect recovery. Patients with unavailable baseline creatinine were different from those with known baseline and revealed different recovery patterns. CONCLUSION: These results indicate the need for rigorous description of AKI severity, the included population, definitions, and baseline creatinine handling in reports on AKI recovery.
Authors: Ion D Bucaloiu; H Lester Kirchner; Evan R Norfolk; James E Hartle; Robert M Perkins Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Jason Jones; John Holmen; Jennifer De Graauw; Anna Jovanovich; Sid Thornton; Michel Chonchol Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Bnar Talabani; Soha Zouwail; Rhodri D Pyart; Soma Meran; Stephen G Riley; Aled O Phillips Journal: Nephrology (Carlton) Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Azra Bihorac; Sinan Yavas; Sophie Subbiah; Charles E Hobson; Jesse D Schold; Andrea Gabrielli; A Joseph Layon; Mark S Segal Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Donald G Harris; Michelle P McCrone; Grace Koo; Adam S Weltz; William C Chiu; Thomas M Scalea; Jose J Diaz; Matthew E Lissauer Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Melanie Meersch; Christoph Schmidt; Hugo Van Aken; Sven Martens; Jan Rossaint; Kai Singbartl; Dennis Görlich; John A Kellum; Alexander Zarbock Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Rinaldo Bellomo; Claudio Ronco; Ravindra L Mehta; Pierre Asfar; Julie Boisramé-Helms; Michael Darmon; Jean-Luc Diehl; Jacques Duranteau; Eric A J Hoste; Joannes-Boyau Olivier; Matthieu Legrand; Nicolas Lerolle; Manu L N G Malbrain; Johan Mårtensson; Heleen M Oudemans-van Straaten; Jean-Jacques Parienti; Didier Payen; Sophie Perinel; Esther Peters; Peter Pickkers; Eric Rondeau; Miet Schetz; Christophe Vinsonneau; Julia Wendon; Ling Zhang; Pierre-François Laterre Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: Julie C Fitzgerald; Michelle E Ross; Neal J Thomas; Scott L Weiss; Fran Balamuth; Marianne Chilutti; Robert W Grundmeier; Amanda Hyre Anderson Journal: Pediatr Nephrol Date: 2020-07-25 Impact factor: 3.714