Dataset Information

The RIFLE versus AKIN classification for incidence and mortality of acute kidney injury in critical ill patients: A meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: The sensitivity and accuracy of the Risk/Injury/Failure/Loss/End-stage (RIFLE) versus acute kidney injury Network (AKIN) criteria for acute kidney injury (AKI) in critically ill patients remains uncertain. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the incidence and prognostic value of the RIFLE versus AKIN criteria for AKI in critically ill patients. Literatures were identified by searching Medline, Embase, PubMed, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database. Nineteen studies with 171,889 participants were included. The pooled estimates of relative risk (RR) were analyzed. We found that the RIFLE and AKIN criteria is different for the incidence of AKI in intensive care unit (ICU) patients (P?=?0.02, RR?=?0.88), while not for cardiac surgery patients (P?=?0.30, RR?=?0.93). For AKI-related hospital mortality, the AKIN criteria did not show a better ability in predicting hospital mortality in either ICU (P?=?0.19, RR?=?1.01) or cardiac surgery patients (P?=?0.61, RR?=?0.98) compared to RIFLE criteria. Our findings supported that the AKIN criteria can identify more patients in classifying AKI compared to RIFLE criteria, but not showing a better ability in predicting hospital mortality. Moreover, both RIFLE and AKIN criteria for AKI in cardiac surgery patients had better predictive ability compared with the ICU patients.

SUBMITTER: Xiong J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4671151 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The RIFLE versus AKIN classification for incidence and mortality of acute kidney injury in critical ill patients: A meta-analysis.

Xiong Jiachuan J Tang Xi X Hu Zhangxue Z Nie Ling L Wang Yiqin Y Zhao Jinghong J

Scientific reports 20151207

The sensitivity and accuracy of the Risk/Injury/Failure/Loss/End-stage (RIFLE) versus acute kidney injury Network (AKIN) criteria for acute kidney injury (AKI) in critically ill patients remains uncertain. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the incidence and prognostic value of the RIFLE versus AKIN criteria for AKI in critically ill patients. Literatures were identified by searching Medline, Embase, PubMed, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (C ...[more]

PMID: 26639440

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionLittle information exists about the impact of acute kidney injury (AKI) in critically ill patients with the pandemic 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus infection.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, observational, multicenter study in 148 Spanish intensive care units (ICUs). Patients with chronic renal failure were excluded. AKI was defined according to Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) criteria.ResultsA total of 661 patients were analyzed. One hundred eighteen (17.7%) patients developed AKI; of these, 37 (31.4%) of the patients with AKI were classified as AKI I, 15 (12.7%) were classified as AKI II and 66 (55.9%) were classified as AKI III, among the latter of whom 50 (75.7%) required continuous renal replacement therapy. Patients with AKI had a higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (19.2 ± 8.3 versus 12.6 ± 5.9; P < 0.001), a higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (8.7 ± 4.2 versus 4.8 ± 2.9; P < 0.001), more need for mechanical ventilation (MV) (87.3% versus 56.2%; P < 0.01, odds ratio (OR) 5.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0 to 9.4), a greater incidence of shock (75.4% versus 38.3%; P < 0.01, OR 4.9, 95% CI, 3.1 to 7.7), a greater incidence of multiorgan dysfunction syndrome (92.4% versus 54.7%; P < 0.01, OR 10.0, 95% CI, 4.9 to 20.21) and a greater incidence of coinfection (23.7% versus 14.4%; P < 0.01, OR 1.8, 95% CI, 1.1 to 3.0). In survivors, patients with AKI remained on MV longer and ICU and hospital length of stay were longer than in patients without AKI. The overall mortality was 18.8% and was significantly higher for AKI patients (44.1% versus 13.3%; P < 0.01, OR 5.1, 95% CI, 3.3 to 7.9). Logistic regression analysis was performed with AKIN criteria, and it demonstrated that among patients with AKI, only AKI III was independently associated with higher ICU mortality (P < 0.001, OR 4.81, 95% CI 2.17 to 10.62).ConclusionsIn our cohort of patients with H1N1 virus infection, only those cases in the AKI III category were independently associated with mortality.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Mortality rates associated with acute kidney injury (AKI) vary among critically ill patients. Outcomes are often not corrected for severity or duration of AKI. Our objective was to analyse whether a new variable, AKI burden, would outperform 1) presence of AKI, 2) highest AKI stage, or 3) AKI duration in predicting 90-day mortality. METHODS:Kidney Diseases: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria using creatinine, urine output and renal replacement therapy were used to diagnose AKI. AKI burden was defined as AKI stage multiplied with the number of days that each stage was present (maximum five), divided by the maximum possible score yielding a proportion. The AKI burden as a predictor of 90-day mortality was assessed in two independent cohorts (Finnish Acute Kidney Injury, FINNAKI and Simple Intensive Care Studies I, SICS-I) by comparing four multivariate logistic regression models that respectively incorporated either the presence of AKI, the highest AKI stage, the duration of AKI, or the AKI burden. RESULTS:In the FINNAKI cohort 1096 of 2809 patients (39%) had AKI and 90-day mortality of the cohort was 23%. Median AKI burden was 0.17 (IQR 0.07-0.50), 1.0 being the maximum. The model including AKI burden (area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) 0.78, 0.76-0.80) outperformed the models using AKI presence (AUROC 0.77, 0.75-0.79, p = 0.026) or AKI severity (AUROC 0.77, 0.75-0.79, p = 0.012), but not AKI duration (AUROC 0.77, 0.75-0.79, p = 0.06). In the SICS-I, 603 of 1075 patients (56%) had AKI and 90-day mortality was 28%. Median AKI burden was 0.19 (IQR 0.08-0.46). The model using AKI burden performed better (AUROC 0.77, 0.74-0.80) than the models using AKI presence (AUROC 0.75, 0.71-0.78, p = 0.001), AKI severity (AUROC 0.76, 0.72-0.79. p = 0.008) or AKI duration (AUROC 0.76, 0.73-0.79, p = 0.009). CONCLUSION:AKI burden, which appreciates both severity and duration of AKI, was superior to using only presence or the highest stage of AKI in predicting 90-day mortality. Using AKI burden or other more granular methods may be helpful in future epidemiological studies of AKI.

Dataset Information

The RIFLE versus AKIN classification for incidence and mortality of acute kidney injury in critical ill patients: A meta-analysis.

Publications

The RIFLE versus AKIN classification for incidence and mortality of acute kidney injury in critical ill patients: A meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets