Renal Resistive Index and mortality in critical patients with acute kidney injury

: To examine the effect of severity of acute kidney injury or renal recovery on risk-adjusted mortality across different intensive care unit settings. Acute kidney injury in intensive care unit patients is associated with significant mortality. : Retrospective observational study. : There were 325,395 of 617,927 consecutive admissions to all 191 Veterans Affairs ICUs across the country. : Large national cohort of patients admitted to Veterans Affairs ICUs and who developed acute kidney injury during their intensive care unit stay. : Outcome measures were hospital mortality, and length of stay. Acute kidney injury was defined as a 0.3-mg/dL increase in creatinine relative to intensive care unit admission and categorized into Stage I (0.3 mg/dL to or =2 and or =3 times increase or dialysis requirement). Association of mortality and length of stay with acute kidney injury stages and renal recovery was examined. Overall, 22% (n = 71,486) of patients developed acute kidney injury (Stage I: 17.5%; Stage II: 2.4%; Stage III: 2%); 16.3% patients met acute kidney injury criteria within 48 hrs, with an additional 5.7% after 48 hrs of intensive care unit admission. Acute kidney injury frequency varied between 9% and 30% across intensive care unit admission diagnoses. After adjusting for severity of illness in a model that included urea and creatinine on admission, odds of death increased with increasing severity of acute kidney injury. Stage I odds ratio = 2.2 (95% confidence interval, 2.17-2.30); Stage II odds ratio = 6.1 (95% confidence interval, 5.74, 6.44); and Stage III odds ratio = 8.6 (95% confidence interval, 8.07-9.15). Acute kidney injury patients with sustained elevation of creatinine experienced higher mortality risk than those who recovered. : None. : Admission diagnosis and severity of illness influence frequency and severity of acute kidney injury. Small elevations in creatinine in the intensive care unit are associated with increased risk-adjusted mortality across all intensive care unit settings, whereas renal recovery was associated with a protective effect. Strategies to prevent even mild acute kidney injury or promote renal recovery may improve survival.

Introduction Recently, the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) proposed a new definition and classification of acute kidney injury (AKI) on the basis of the RIFLE (Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of kidney function, and End-stage renal failure) and AKIN (Acute Kidney Injury Network) criteria, but comparisons of the three criteria in critically ill patients are rare. Methods We prospectively analyzed a clinical database of 3,107 adult patients who were consecutively admitted to one of 30 intensive care units of 28 tertiary hospitals in Beijing from 1 March to 31 August 2012. AKI was defined by the RIFLE, AKIN, and KDIGO criteria. Receiver operating curves were used to compare the predictive ability for mortality, and logistic regression analysis was used for the calculation of odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Results The rates of incidence of AKI using the RIFLE, AKIN, and KDIGO criteria were 46.9%, 38.4%, and 51%, respectively. KDIGO identified more patients than did RIFLE (51% versus 46.9%, P = 0.001) and AKIN (51% versus 38.4%, P <0.001). Compared with patients without AKI, in-hospital mortality was significantly higher for those diagnosed as AKI by using the RIFLE (27.8% versus 7%, P <0.001), AKIN (32.2% versus 7.1%, P <0.001), and KDIGO (27.4% versus 5.6%, P <0.001) criteria, respectively. There was no difference in AKI-related mortality between RIFLE and KDIGO (27.8% versus 27.4%, P = 0.815), but there was significant difference between AKIN and KDIGO (32.2% versus 27.4%, P = 0.006). The areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve for in-hospital mortality were 0.738 (P <0.001) for RIFLE, 0.746 (P <0.001) for AKIN, and 0.757 (P <0.001) for KDIGO. KDIGO was more predictive than RIFLE for in-hospital mortality (P <0.001), but there was no difference between KDIGO and AKIN (P = 0.12). Conclusions A higher incidence of AKI was diagnosed according to KDIGO criteria. Patients diagnosed as AKI had a significantly higher in-hospital mortality than non-AKI patients, no matter which criteria were used. Compared with the RIFLE criteria, KDIGO was more predictive for in-hospital mortality, but there was no significant difference between AKIN and KDIGO.

Introduction The RIFLE (risk, injury, failure, loss of kidney function, and end-stage renal failure) classification for acute kidney injury (AKI) was recently modified by the Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN). The two definition systems differ in several aspects, and it is not clearly determined which has the better clinical accuracy. Methods In a retrospective observational study we investigated 4,836 consecutive patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass from 2005 to 2007 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. AKI was defined by RIFLE and AKIN criteria. Results Significantly more patients were diagnosed as AKI by AKIN (26.3%) than by RIFLE (18.9%) criteria (P < 0.0001). Both definitions showed excellent association to outcome variables with worse outcome by increased severity of AKI (P < 0.001, all variables). Mortality was increased with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.5 (95% CI 3.6 to 5.6) for one class increase by RIFLE and an OR of 5.3 (95% CI 4.3 to 6.6) for one stage increase by AKIN. The multivariate model showed lower predictive ability of RIFLE for mortality. Patients classified as AKI in one but not in the other definition set were predominantly staged in the lowest AKI severity class (9.6% of patients in AKIN stage 1, 2.3% of patients in RIFLE class R). Potential misclassification of AKI is higher in AKIN, which is related to moving the 48-hour diagnostic window applied in AKIN criteria only. The greatest disagreement between both definition sets could be detected in patients with initial postoperative decrease of serum creatinine. Conclusions Modification of RIFLE by staging of all patients with acute renal replacement therapy (RRT) in the failure class F may improve predictive value. AKIN applied in patients undergoing cardiac surgery without correction of serum creatinine for fluid balance may lead to over-diagnosis of AKI (poor positive predictive value). Balancing limitations of both definition sets of AKI, we suggest application of the RIFLE criteria in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.