Acute kidney injury classification: comparison of AKIN and RIFLE criteria.

Department of Nephrology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan.
Shock (Augusta, Ga.) (Impact Factor: 3.05). 06/2009; 33(3):247-52. DOI: 10.1097/SHK.0b013e3181b2fe0c
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) group has recently proposed modifications to the risk of renal failure, injury to kidney, failure of kidney function, loss of kidney function, and end-stage renal failure (RIFLE) classification system. The few studies that have compared the two classifications have revealed no substantial differences. This study aimed to compare the AKIN and RIFLE classifications for predicting outcome in critically ill patients. This retrospective study investigated the medical records of 291 critically ill patients who were treated in medical intensive care units of a tertiary care hospital between March 2003 and February 2006. This study compared performance of the RIFLE and AKIN criteria for diagnosing and classifying AKI and for predicting hospital mortality. Overall mortality rate was 60.8% (177/291). Increased mortality was progressive and significant (chi-square for trend; P < 0.001) based on the severity of AKIN and RIFLE classification. Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test results demonstrated good fit in both systems. The AKIN and RIFLE scoring systems displayed good areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (0.720 + or - 0.030, P = 0.001; 0.738 + or - 0.030, P = 0.001, respectively). Compared with RIFLE criteria, this study indicated that AKIN classification does not improve the sensitivity and ability of outcome prediction in critically ill patients.

Download full-text


Available from: Yung-Chang Chen, Apr 20, 2015
140 Reads
  • Source
    • "The present study was developed from a cohort of patients with a high median age. This finding corroborates other studies conducted in the ICU setting that have also evaluated parameters related to the development of kidney disorders.(5,7,8) "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Acute kidney injury is a common complication in critically ill patients, and the RIFLE, AKIN and KDIGO criteria are used to classify these patients. The present study's aim was to compare these criteria as predictors of mortality in critically ill patients. Methods: Prospective cohort study using medical records as the source of data. All patients admitted to the intensive care unit were included. The exclusion criteria were hospitalization for less than 24 hours and death. Patients were followed until discharge or death. Student's t test, chi-squared analysis, a multivariate logistic regression and ROC curves were used for the data analysis. Results: The mean patient age was 64 years old, and the majority of patients were women of African descent. According to RIFLE, the mortality rates were 17.74%, 22.58%, 24.19% and 35.48% for patients without acute kidney injury (AKI) in stages of Risk, Injury and Failure, respectively. For AKIN, the mortality rates were 17.74%, 29.03%, 12.90% and 40.32% for patients without AKI and at stage I, stage II and stage III, respectively. For KDIGO 2012, the mortality rates were 17.74%, 29.03%, 11.29% and 41.94% for patients without AKI and at stage I, stage II and stage III, respectively. All three classification systems showed similar ROC curves for mortality. Conclusion: The RIFLE, AKIN and KDIGO criteria were good tools for predicting mortality in critically ill patients with no significant difference between them.
    03/2013; 25(4):290-296. DOI:10.5935/0103-507X.20130050
  • Source
    • "Existing comparative studies [4-10] are limited for different reasons. The main focus of comparison is most often the ability of both definition systems to predict outcome [4-10]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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. 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. 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. 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.
    Critical care (London, England) 01/2011; 15(1):R16. DOI:10.1186/cc9960 · 4.48 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is a high risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) in the elderly population. The demand for intensive care unit (ICU) admission from older patients is rising, and with it community and hospital acquired AKI are becoming more frequent. Several age-related changes render elderly patients prone to AKI development. The most frequent aetiologies for renal impairment in these patients are recent surgery, sepsis and dehydration. It is sometimes difficult to achieve an early diagnosis in the elderly ICU patient, and new biomarkers such as neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin may offer a new approach. AKI treatment in this age group may be even more complex than in the general population. There are data on differences in renal recovery and mortality between the young and the old with renal injury which indicate a higher risk in fragile elderly individuals. Furthermore, it is crucial to establish all possible measures for AKI prevention in the elderly critically ill patient, since once AKI is established, mortality increases significantly.
    Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio 09/2011; 7(3). DOI:10.1007/s13631-011-0025-y
Show more