Thorough evaluation for the new acute kidney injury criteria by Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes

Izawa, Junichi; Uchino, Shigehiko; Fujii, T; Arii, T.; Fukushima, Takashi; Kawano, Sayaka

doi:10.1186/cc12348

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The diagnosis of AKI in patients with TBI has significant clinical relevance, given the requirements for prompt medical intervention for AKI patients. Similar to the results of a previous study[ 23 ], this study suggested that the incidence of AKI varied depending on the criteria used, which may lead to confusion during criteria selection and may negatively affect the efficiency of clinical treatment. Some studies showed that KDIGO is more sensitive than AKIN and RIFLE in AKI diagnosis in patients with myocardial infarction and acute decompensated heart failure[ 9 , 10 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Acute kidney injury in traumatic brain injury intensive care unit patients

Huang¹,

Liu²,

Huang³

et al. 2022

WJCC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND The exact definition of Acute kidney injury (AKI) for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) is unknown. AIM To compare the power of the “Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of kidney function, and End-stage kidney disease” (RIFLE), Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN), Creatinine kinetics (CK), and Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) to determine AKI incidence/stage and their association with the in-hospital mortality rate of patients with TBI. METHODS This retrospective study collected the data of patients admitted to the intensive care unit for neurotrauma from 2001 to 2012, and 1648 patients were included. The subjects in this study were assessed for the presence and stage of AKI using RIFLE, AKIN, CK, and KDIGO. In addition, the propensity score matching method was used. RESULTS Among the 1648 patients, 291 (17.7%) had AKI, according to KDIGO. The highest incidence of AKI was found by KDIGO (17.7%), followed by AKIN (17.1%), RIFLE (12.7%), and CK (11.5%) ( P = 0.97). Concordance between KDIGO and RIFLE/AKIN/CK was 99.3%/99.1%/99.3% for stage 0, 36.0%/91.5%/44.5% for stage 1, 35.9%/90.6%/11.3% for stage 2, and 47.4%/89.5%/36.8% for stage 3. The in-hospital mortality rates increased with the AKI stage in all four definitions. The severity of AKI by all definitions and stages was not associated with in-hospital mortality in the multivariable analyses (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSION Differences are seen in AKI diagnosis and in-hospital mortality among the four AKI definitions or stages. This study revealed that KDIGO is the best method to define AKI in patients with TBI.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%