Effect of multiple episodes of acute kidney injury on mortality: an observational study

Mortality Prediction in Patients with Severe Acute Kidney Injury Requiring Renal Replacement Therapy

Background and Objective: Acute kidney injury (AKI) remains a serious health condition around the world, and is related to high morbidity, mortality, longer hospitalization duration and worse long-term outcomes. The aim of our study was to estimate the significant related factors for poor outcomes of patients with severe AKI requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from patients (n = 573) with severe AKI requiring RRT within a 5-year period and analyzed the outcomes on discharge from the hospital. We also compared the clinical data of the surviving and non-surviving patients and examined possible related factors for poor patient outcomes. Logistic regression was used to analyze the odds ratio for patient mortality and its related factors. Results: In 32.5% (n = 186) of the patients, the renal function improved and RRT was stopped, 51.7% (n = 296) of the patients died, and 15.9% (n = 91) of the patients remained dialysis-dependent on the day of discharge from the hospital. During the period of 5 years, the outcomes of the investigated patients did not change statistically significantly. Administration of vasopressors, aminoglycosides, sepsis, pulmonary edema, oliguria, artificial pulmonary ventilation (APV), patient age ≥ 65 y, renal cause of AKI, AKI after cardiac surgery, a combination of two or more RRT methods, dysfunction of three or more organs, systolic blood pressure (BP) ≤ 120 mmHg, diastolic BP ≤ 65 mmHg, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score on the day of the first RRT procedure ≥ 7.5 were related factors for lethal patient outcome. Conclusions: The mortality rate among patients with severe AKI requiring RRT is very high—52%. Patient death was significantly predicted by the causes of AKI (sepsis, cardiac surgery), clinical course (oliguria, pulmonary edema, hypotension, acidosis, lesion of other organs) and the need for a continuous renal replacement therapy.

Developing an AKI Consensus Definition for Database Research: Findings From a Scoping Review and Expert Opinion Using a Delphi Process

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

The KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) definition of acute kidney injury (AKI) is frequently used in studies to examine the epidemiology of AKI. This definition is variably interpreted and applied to routinely collected health care data. The aim of this study was to examine this variation and to achieve consensus in how AKI should be defined for research using routinely collected health care data.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE AND STUDY DESIGN

Scoping review via searching Medline and EMBASE for studies using health care data to examine AKI by using the KDIGO creatinine-based definition. An international panel of experts formed to participate in a modified Delphi process to attempt to generate consensus about how AKI should be defined when using routinely collected laboratory data.

CHARTING METHODS AND ANALYTICAL APPROACH

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews was followed. For the Delphi process, 2 rounds of questions were distributed via internet-based questionnaires to all participants with a prespecified cutoff of 75% agreement used to define consensus.

RESULTS

The scoping review found 174 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The KDIGO definition was inconsistently applied, and the methods for application were poorly described. We found 58 (33%) of papers did not provide a definition of how the baseline creatinine value was determined, and only 34 (20%) defined recovery of kidney function. Of 55 invitees to the Delphi process, 35 respondents participated in round 1, and 25 participated in round 2. Some consensus was achieved in areas related to how to define the baseline creatinine value, which patients should be excluded from analysis of routinely collected laboratory data, and how persistent chronic kidney disease or nonrecovery of AKI should be defined.

LIMITATIONS

The Delphi panel members predominantly came from the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada, and there were low response rates for some questions in round 1.

CONCLUSIONS

The current methods for defining AKI using routinely collected data are inconsistent and poorly described in the available literature. Experts could not achieve consensus for many aspects of defining AKI and describing its sequelae. The KDIGO guidelines should be extended to include a standardized definition for how AKI should be defined when using routinely collected data.