Acute kidney injury in a paediatric intensive care unit: comparison of the pRIFLE and AKIN criteria.
ABSTRACT The purpose of our study was to evaluate and analyse the prevalence and association of acute kidney injury (AKI) as defined by paediatric Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of kidney function and End-stage kidney disease (pRIFLE) and Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) classifications in a paediatric intensive care unit (PICU).
A prospective analysis of all patients that were admitted to our PICU between June 2009 and December 2010 was performed. Patients were classified according to AKIN and pRIFLE criteria.
One hundred and eighty-nine patients (mean age 45.9 ± 54.7 months; 110 male, 79 female) were enrolled. Sixty-three (33.3%) patients developed AKI by AKIN criteria and 68 (35.9%) patients developed AKI by pRIFLE criteria. All patients that had AKI according to AKIN criteria also had this diagnosis with pRIFLE criteria. Five patients had developed AKI only according to pRIFLE classification, four of them owing to reduction in their estimated creatinine clearance and one of them owing to changes over 1-week period. The mean length of PICU stay was longer, need for mechanical ventilation and mortality rates were higher in patients with AKI when compared to patients without AKI.
Although both pRIFLE and AKIN criteria were very helpful in the detection of patients with AKI even in the early stages of it, pRIFLE seems to be more sensitive in paediatric patients.
- SourceAvailable from: Thierry Ducruet[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In adults, small (< 50%) serum creatinine (SCr) increases predict mortality. It is unclear whether different baseline serum creatinine (bSCr) estimation methods affect findings of acute kidney injury (AKI)-outcome associations. We characterized pediatric AKI, evaluated the effect of bSCr estimation approaches on AKI-outcome associations and evaluated the use of small SCr increases to predict AKI development. We conducted a retrospective cohort database study of children (excluding postoperative cardiac or renal transplant patients) admitted to two pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) for at least one night in Montreal, QC, Canada. The AKI definition was based on the Acute Kidney Injury Network staging system, excluding the requirement of SCr increase within 48 hours, which was impossible to evaluate on the basis of our data set. We estimated bSCr two ways: (1) the lowest SCr level in the three months before admission or the average age- and gender-based norms (the standard method) or (2) by using average norms in all patients. Outcomes were PICU mortality and length of stay as well as required mechanical ventilation. We used multiple logistic regression analysis to evaluate AKI risk factors and the association between AKI and mortality. We used multiple linear regression analysis to evaluate the effect of AKI on other outcomes. We calculated diagnostic characteristics for early SCr increase (< 50%) to predict AKI development. Of 2,106 admissions (mean age ± SD = 5.0 ± 5.5 years; 47% female), 377 patients (17.9%) developed AKI (using the standard bSCr method) during PICU admission. Higher Pediatric Risk of Mortality score, required mechanical ventilation, documented infection and having a bSCr measurement were independent predictors of AKI development. AKI was associated with increased mortality (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 3.7, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 2.1 to 6.4, using the standard bSCr method; OR = 4.5, 95% CI = 2.6 to 7.9, using normative bSCr values in all patients). AKI was independently associated with longer PICU stay and required mechanical ventilation. In children with no admission AKI, the initial percentage SCr increase predicted AKI development (area under the curve = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.74). AKI is associated with increased mortality and morbidity in critically ill children, regardless of the bSCr used. Paying attention to small early SCr increases may contribute to early AKI diagnosis in conjunction with other new AKI biomarkers.Critical care (London, England) 06/2011; 15(3):R146. · 4.72 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Whether discernible advantages in terms of sensitivity and specificity exist with Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) criteria versus Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of Kidney Function, End-stage Kidney Disease (RIFLE) criteria is currently unknown. We evaluated the incidence of acute kidney injury and compared the ability of the maximum RIFLE and of the maximum AKIN within intensive care unit hospitalization in predicting inhospital mortality of critically ill patients. Patients admitted to the Department of Intensive Medicine of our hospital between January 2003 and December 2006 were retrospectively evaluated. Chronic kidney disease patients undergoing dialysis or renal transplant patients were excluded from the analysis. In total, 662 patients (mean age, 58.6 +/- 19.2 years; 392 males) were evaluated. AKIN criteria allowed the identification of more patients as having acute kidney injury (50.4% versus 43.8%, P = 0.018) and classified more patients with Stage 1 (risk in RIFLE) (21.1% versus 14.7%, P = 0.003), but no differences were observed for Stage 2 (injury in RIFLE) (10.1% versus 11%, P = 0.655) and for Stage 3 (failure in RIFLE) (19.2% versus 18.1%, P = 0.672). Mortality was significantly higher for acute kidney injury defined by any of the RIFLE criteria (41.3% versus 11%, P < 0.0001; odds ratio = 2.78, 95% confidence interval = 1.74 to 4.45, P < 0.0001) or of the AKIN criteria (39.8% versus 8.5%, P < 0.0001; odds ratio = 3.59, 95% confidence interval = 2.14 to 6.01, P < 0.0001). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve for inhospital mortality was 0.733 for RIFLE criteria (P < 0.0001) and was 0.750 for AKIN criteria (P < 0.0001). There were no statistical differences in mortality by the acute kidney injury definition/classification criteria (P = 0.72). Although AKIN criteria could improve the sensitivity of the acute kidney injury diagnosis, it does not seem to improve on the ability of the RIFLE criteria in predicting inhospital mortality of critically ill patients.Critical care (London, England) 09/2008; 12(4):R110. · 4.72 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative Group has published a consensus definition/classification system for acute kidney injury (AKI) termed the RIFLE criteria. The Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) group has recently proposed modifications to this system. It is currently unknown whether there are advantages between these criteria. We interrogated the Australian New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) Adult Patient Database (APD) for all adult admissions to 57 ICUs from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2005. We compared the performance of the RIFLE and AKIN criteria for diagnosis and classification of AKI and for robustness of hospital mortality. We included 120 123 critically ill patients, of which 27.8% had a primary diagnosis of sepsis. We found only small differences (<1%) in the number of patients classified as having some degree of kidney injury using either the AKIN or RIFLE definition or classification systems. AKIN slightly increased the number of patients classified as Stage I injury (category R in RIFLE) (from 16.2 to 18.1%) but decreased the number of patients classified as having Stage II injury (category I in RIFLE) (13.6% versus 10.1%). The area under the ROC curve for hospital mortality was 0.66 for RIFLE and 0.67 for AKIN in all patients and it was 0.65 for both in septic patients. Compared to the RIFLE criteria, the AKIN criteria do not materially improve the sensitivity, robustness and predictive ability of the definition and classification of AKI in the first 24 h after admission to ICU.Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 06/2008; 23(5):1569-74. · 3.37 Impact Factor