Junichi Izawa1, Shigehiko Uchino2, Masanori Takinami2. 1. Intensive Care Unit, Department of Anesthesiology, Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-19-18, Nishi-Shinbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8471, Japan. jizawa13@gmail.com. 2. Intensive Care Unit, Department of Anesthesiology, Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-19-18, Nishi-Shinbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8471, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Two previous classifications of acute kidney injury (AKI) have shown that AKI is associated with increased mortality. In 2012, Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) created new AKI criteria by combining the two previous classifications. However, such combination might cause inconsistency among each definition in the criteria. We have investigated all the definitions in the new KDIGO criteria. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 767 adult patients whose stay in the ICU exceeded 24 h. The KDIGO criteria were applied to all patients to diagnose AKI. Hospital mortality of patients with AKI diagnosed by the ten definitions in the criteria was compared. RESULTS: AKI occurred in 51.9 % with the standard definition of KDIGO. By multivariable analysis, odds ratios were increased with AKI stage progression and AKI stage 3 was significantly associated with hospital mortality. Crude hospital mortality stratified by the ten definitions showed increasing trends with stage progression. Mortality of the three definitions in stage 1 was from 4.0 to 10.8 %. Stage 2 had two definitions and their mortality was 13.6 and 17.6 %. Stage 3 had five definitions and their mortality ranged from 27.6 to 55.6 %. CONCLUSION: AKI defined by the new KDIGO criteria was associated with increased hospital mortality. Although definitions in the KDIGO criteria seem to be appropriate because of the clear relationship between mortality and stage progression on the whole, several limitations may exist, especially in stage 3. Further research should be needed to clarify the validity of the KDIGO criteria and the detailed categories.
PURPOSE: Two previous classifications of acute kidney injury (AKI) have shown that AKI is associated with increased mortality. In 2012, Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) created new AKI criteria by combining the two previous classifications. However, such combination might cause inconsistency among each definition in the criteria. We have investigated all the definitions in the new KDIGO criteria. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 767 adult patients whose stay in the ICU exceeded 24 h. The KDIGO criteria were applied to all patients to diagnose AKI. Hospital mortality of patients with AKI diagnosed by the ten definitions in the criteria was compared. RESULTS: AKI occurred in 51.9 % with the standard definition of KDIGO. By multivariable analysis, odds ratios were increased with AKI stage progression and AKI stage 3 was significantly associated with hospital mortality. Crude hospital mortality stratified by the ten definitions showed increasing trends with stage progression. Mortality of the three definitions in stage 1 was from 4.0 to 10.8 %. Stage 2 had two definitions and their mortality was 13.6 and 17.6 %. Stage 3 had five definitions and their mortality ranged from 27.6 to 55.6 %. CONCLUSION: AKI defined by the new KDIGO criteria was associated with increased hospital mortality. Although definitions in the KDIGO criteria seem to be appropriate because of the clear relationship between mortality and stage progression on the whole, several limitations may exist, especially in stage 3. Further research should be needed to clarify the validity of the KDIGO criteria and the detailed categories.
Entities:
Keywords:
Acute kidney injury; Criteria; Critically ill; Mortality; Observational study
Authors: G R Bernard; A Artigas; K L Brigham; J Carlet; K Falke; L Hudson; M Lamy; J R Legall; A Morris; R Spragg Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1994-03 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Glenn M Chertow; Elisabeth Burdick; Melissa Honour; Joseph V Bonventre; David W Bates Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2005-09-21 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Sara Nisula; Kirsi-Maija Kaukonen; Suvi T Vaara; Anna-Maija Korhonen; Meri Poukkanen; Sari Karlsson; Mikko Haapio; Outi Inkinen; Ilkka Parviainen; Raili Suojaranta-Ylinen; Jouko J Laurila; Jyrki Tenhunen; Matti Reinikainen; Tero Ala-Kokko; Esko Ruokonen; Anne Kuitunen; Ville Pettilä Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-01-05 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Andrea Lassnigg; Daniel Schmidlin; Mohamed Mouhieddine; Lucas M Bachmann; Wilfred Druml; Peter Bauer; Michael Hiesmayr Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: V Marco Ranieri; Gordon D Rubenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Niall D Ferguson; Ellen Caldwell; Eddy Fan; Luigi Camporota; Arthur S Slutsky Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-06-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lars Englberger; Rakesh M Suri; Zhuo Li; Edward T Casey; Richard C Daly; Joseph A Dearani; Hartzell V Schaff Journal: Crit Care Date: 2011-01-13 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Ravindra L Mehta; John A Kellum; Sudhir V Shah; Bruce A Molitoris; Claudio Ronco; David G Warnock; Adeera Levin Journal: Crit Care Date: 2007 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Christian Nusshag; Markus A Weigand; Martin Zeier; Christian Morath; Thorsten Brenner Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2017-06-28 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: C J Reuß; M Bernhard; C Beynon; A Hecker; C Jungk; D Michalski; C Nusshag; M A Weigand; T Brenner Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 1.041