Etienne Macedo

Fluid accumulation, recognition and staging of acute kidney injury in critically-ill patients

IntroductionSerum creatinine concentration (sCr) is the marker used for diagnosing and staging acute kidney injury (AKI) in the RIFLE and AKIN classification systems, but is influenced by several factors including its volume of distribution. We evaluated the effect of fluid accumulation on sCr to estimate severity of AKI.MethodsIn 253 patients recruited from a prospective observational study of critically-ill patients with AKI, we calculated cumulative fluid balance and computed a fluid-adjusted sCr concentration reflecting the effect of volume of distribution during the development phase of AKI. The time to reach a relative 50% increase from the reference sCr using the crude and adjusted sCr was compared. We defined late recognition to estimate severity of AKI when this time interval to reach 50% relative increase between the crude and adjusted sCr exceeded 24 hours.ResultsThe median cumulative fluid balance increased from 2.7 liters on day 2 to 6.5 liters on day 7. The difference between adjusted and crude sCr was significantly higher at each time point and progressively increased from a median difference of 0.09 mg/dL to 0.65 mg/dL after six days. Sixty-four (25%) patients met criteria for a late recognition to estimate severity progression of AKI. This group of patients had a lower urine output and a higher daily and cumulative fluid balance during the development phase of AKI. They were more likely to need dialysis but showed no difference in mortality compared to patients who did not meet the criteria for late recognition of severity progression.ConclusionsIn critically-ill patients, the dilution of sCr by fluid accumulation may lead to underestimation of the severity of AKI and increases the time required to identify a 50% relative increase in sCr. A simple formula to correct sCr for fluid balance can improve staging of AKI and provide a better parameter for earlier recognition of severity progression.

A comparison of observed versus estimated baseline creatinine for determination of RIFLE class in patients with acute kidney injury

BACKGROUND The RIFLE classification scheme for acute kidney injury (AKI) is based on relative changes in serum creatinine (SCr) and on urine output. The SCr criteria, therefore, require a pre-morbid baseline value. When unknown, current recommendations are to estimate a baseline SCr by the MDRD equation. However, the MDRD approach assumes a glomerular filtration rate of approximately 75 mL/min/1.73 m(2). This method has not been validated. METHODS Data from the Beginning and Ending Supportive Therapy for the Kidney (BEST Kidney) study, a prospective observational study from 54 ICUs in 23 countries of critically ill patients with severe AKI, were analysed. The RIFLE class was determined by using observed (o) pre-morbid and estimated (e) baseline SCr values. Agreement was evaluated by correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. Sensitivity analysis by chronic kidney disease (CKD) status was performed. RESULTS Seventy-six percent of patients (n = 1327) had a pre-morbid baseline SCr, and 1314 had complete data for evaluation. Forty-six percent had CKD. The median (IQR) values were 97 micromol/L (79-150) for oSCr and 88 micromol/L (71-97) for eSCr. The oSCr and eSCr determined at ICU admission and at study enrolment showed only a modest correlation (r = 0.49, r = 0.39). At ICU admission and study enrolment, eSCr misclassified 18.8% and 11.7% of patients as having AKI compared with oSCr. Exclusion of CKD patients improved the correlation between oSCr and eSCr at ICU admission and study enrolment (r = 0.90, r = 0.84) resulting in 6.6% and 4.0% being misclassified, respectively. CONCLUSIONS While limited, estimating baseline SCr by the MDRD equation when pre-morbid SCr is unavailable would appear to perform reasonably well for determining the RIFLE categories only if and when pre-morbid GFR was near normal. However, in patients with suspected CKD, the use of MDRD to estimate baseline SCr overestimates the incidence of AKI and should not likely be used. Improved methods to estimate baseline SCr are needed.

Oliguria is an early predictor of higher mortality in critically ill patients

Oliguria is a valuable marker of kidney function and a criterion for diagnosing and staging acute kidney injury (AKI). However, the utility of urine output as a specific metric for renal dysfunction is somewhat controversial. To study this issue further we tested whether urine output is a sensitive, specific, and early measure for diagnosing and staging AKI in 317 critically ill patients in a prospective observational study. Urine output was assessed every hour and serum creatinine every 12 to 24  h. The sensitivity and specificity of different definitions of oliguria for the diagnosis of AKI were compared with the Acute Kidney Injury Network serum creatinine criterion. The incidence of AKI increased from 24%, based solely on serum creatinine, to 52% by adding the urine output as a diagnostic criterion. Oliguric patients without a change in serum creatinine had an intensive care unit mortality rate (8.8%) significantly higher than patients without AKI (1.3%), and similar to oliguric patients with an increase in serum creatinine (10.4%). The diagnosis of AKI occurred earlier in oliguric than in non-oliguric patients. Oliguria of more than 12  h and oliguria of 3 or more episodes were associated with an increased mortality rate. Thus, urine output is a sensitive and early marker for AKI and is associated with adverse outcomes in intensive care unit patients.

Renal recovery following acute kidney injury.

Purpose of reviewRenal recovery after acute kidney injury (AKI) is an important outcome, most commonly defined as dialysis independence at hospital discharge. This review focuses on the epidemiology of renal recovery after AKI and provides a framework for determining the relationship of a lack of renal recovery and subsequent outcomes including the development of chronic kidney disease. Recent findingsThe majority of studies addressing renal recovery includes only critically ill patients requiring dialysis and considers renal recovery as dialysis independency at hospital discharge. However, a significant proportion of AKI patients are not in the ICU, are not dialyzed, and may require alternate definitions for assessing renal recovery. There is emerging evidence that an AKI episode can lead to chronic kidney disease and can accelerate the progression to end stage renal disease. Patients that survive after AKI present a higher long-term mortality risk, especially those with partial renal recovery. SummaryPatients with incomplete renal recovery after AKI are underrepresented in most epidemiologic studies and the precise effect on the incidence and prevalence of end stage renal disease population has yet to be determined. A standardized definition for renal recovery is needed and the influence of an AKI episode on long-term outcomes needs to be better evaluated.

Acute kidney disease and renal recovery: consensus report of the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) 16 Workgroup

Consensus definitions have been reached for both acute kidney injury (AKI) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) and these definitions are now routinely used in research and clinical practice. The KDIGO guideline defines AKI as an abrupt decrease in kidney function occurring over 7 days or less, whereas CKD is defined by the persistence of kidney disease for a period of >90 days. AKI and CKD are increasingly recognized as related entities and in some instances probably represent a continuum of the disease process. For patients in whom pathophysiologic processes are ongoing, the term acute kidney disease (AKD) has been proposed to define the course of disease after AKI; however, definitions of AKD and strategies for the management of patients with AKD are not currently available. In this consensus statement, the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) proposes definitions, staging criteria for AKD, and strategies for the management of affected patients. We also make recommendations for areas of future research, which aim to improve understanding of the underlying processes and improve outcomes for patients with AKD.

Recognition and management of acute kidney injury in the International Society of Nephrology 0by25 Global Snapshot: a multinational cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND Epidemiological data for acute kidney injury are scarce, especially in low-income countries (LICs) and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to assess regional differences in acute kidney injury recognition, management, and outcomes. METHODS In this multinational cross-sectional study, 322 physicians from 289 centres in 72 countries collected prospective data for paediatric and adult patients with confirmed acute kidney injury in hospital and non-hospital settings who met criteria for acute kidney injury. Signs and symptoms at presentation, comorbidities, risk factors for acute kidney injury, and process-of-care data were obtained at the start of acute kidney injury, and need for dialysis, renal recovery, and mortality recorded at 7 days, and at hospital discharge or death, whichever came earlier. We classified countries into high-income countries (HICs), upper-middle-income countries (UMICs), and combined LICs and LMICs (LLMICs) according to their 2014 gross national income per person. FINDINGS Between Sept 29 and Dec 7, 2014, data were collected from 4018 patients. 2337 (58%) patients developed community-acquired acute kidney injury, with 889 (80%) of 1118 patients in LLMICs, 815 (51%) of 1594 in UMICs, and 663 (51%) of 1241 in HICs (for HICs vs UMICs p=0.33; p<0.0001 for all other comparisons). Hypotension (1615 [40%] patients) and dehydration (1536 [38%] patients) were the most common causes of acute kidney injury. Dehydration was the most frequent cause of acute kidney injury in LLMICs (526 [46%] of 1153 vs 518 [32%] of 1605 in UMICs vs 492 [39%] of 1260 in HICs) and hypotension in HICs (564 [45%] of 1260 vs 611 [38%%] of 1605 in UMICs vs 440 [38%] of 1153 LLMICs). Mortality at 7 days was 423 (11%) of 3855, and was higher in LLMICs (129 [12%] of 1076) than in HICs (125 [10%] of 1230) and UMICs (169 [11%] of 1549). INTERPRETATION We identified common aetiological factors across all countries, which might be amenable to a standardised approach for early recognition and treatment of acute kidney injury. Study limitations include a small number of patients from outpatient settings and LICs, potentially under-representing the true burden of acute kidney injury in these areas. Additional strategies are needed to raise awareness of acute kidney injury in community health-care settings, especially in LICs. FUNDING International Society of Nephrology.

Effluent Volume in Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy Overestimates the Delivered Dose of Dialysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Studies examining dose of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) and outcomes have yielded conflicting results. Most studies considered the prescribed dose as the effluent rate represented by ml/kg per hour and reported this volume as a surrogate of solute removal. Because filter fouling can reduce the efficacy of solute clearance, the actual delivered dose may be substantially lower than the observed effluent rate. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS Data were examined from 52 critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring dialysis. All patients were treated with predilution continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) and regional citrate anticoagulation. Filter performance was monitored during the entire course of therapy by measuring blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and dialysis fluid urea nitrogen (FUN) at initiation and every 12 hours. Filter efficacy was assessed by calculating FUN/BUN ratios every 12 hours of filter use. Prescribed urea clearance (K, ml/min) was determined from the effluent rate. Actual delivered urea clearance was determined using dialysis-side measurements. RESULTS Median daily treatment time was 1413 minutes (1260 to 1440) with a total effluent volume of 46.4 ± 17.4 L and urea mass removal of 13.0 ± 7.6 mg/min. Prescribed clearance overestimated the actual delivered clearance by 23.8%. This gap between prescribed and delivered clearance was related to the decrease in filter function assessed by the FUN/BUN ratio. CONCLUSIONS Effluent volume significantly overestimates delivered dose of small solutes in CRRT. To assess adequacy of CRRT, solute clearance should be measured rather than estimated by the effluent volume.

Comparison of methods for estimating glomerular filtration rate in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury

BACKGROUND In critically ill patients with acute kidney injury, estimates of kidney function are used to modify drug dosing, adjust nutritional therapy and provide dialytic support. However, estimating glomerular filtration rate is challenging due to fluctuations in kidney function, creatinine production and fluid balance. We hypothesized that commonly used glomerular filtration rate prediction equations overestimate kidney function in patients with acute kidney injury and that improved estimates could be obtained by methods incorporating changes in creatinine generation and fluid balance. METHODS We analysed data from a multicentre observational study of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients. We identified 12 non-dialysed, non-oliguric patients with consecutive increases in creatinine for at least 3 and up to 7 days who had measurements of urinary creatinine clearance. Glomerular filtration rate was estimated by Cockcroft-Gault, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease, Jelliffe equation and Jelliffe equation with creatinine adjusted for fluid balance (Modified Jelliffe) and compared to measured urinary creatinine clearance. RESULTS Glomerular filtration rate estimated by Jelliffe and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation correlated best with urinary creatinine clearances. Estimated glomerular filtration rate by Cockcroft-Gault, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease and Jelliffe overestimated urinary creatinine clearance was 80%, 33%, 10%, respectively, and Modified Jelliffe underestimated GFR by 2%. CONCLUSION In patients with acute kidney injury, glomerular filtration rate estimating equations can be improved by incorporating data on creatinine generation and fluid balance. A better assessment of glomerular filtration rate in acute kidney injury could improve evaluation and management and guide interventions.

Prerenal Failure: From Old Concepts to New Paradigms

Purpose of reviewPrerenal failure is used to designate a reversible form of acute renal dysfunction. However, the terminology encompasses several different conditions that vary considerably. The lack of a widely accepted definition for prerenal failure makes it impossible to determine the epidemiology, natural history, and association with adverse outcomes. Recent findingsNew diagnostic and staging criteria for acute kidney injury proposed by the Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) Network recognize that small increases in serum creatinine are associated with increased mortality. However, these criteria have not determined specific diagnostic criteria to classify prerenal conditions. As a consequence of the lack of standardized definitions and the difficulty in assessing reversibility of AKI, the concept of prerenal failure has been recently challenged. The difference in the pathophysiology and manifestations of prerenal failure suggests that our current approach needs to be reevaluated. SummaryPrerenal failure state needs to be classified depending on the underlying capacity for compensation, the nature and the timing of the insult and the adaptation to chronic comorbidities. Identification of high-risk states and high-risk processes associated with the use of new biomarkers for AKI will provide new tools to distinguish between the prerenal failure and the established AKI. This review provides an appraisal of the current status and recommendations for future research in this field.

Long-Term Follow-Up of Patients after Acute Kidney Injury: Patterns of Renal Functional Recovery

Background and Objectives Patients who survive acute kidney injury (AKI), especially those with partial renal recovery, present a higher long-term mortality risk. However, there is no consensus on the best time to assess renal function after an episode of acute kidney injury or agreement on the definition of renal recovery. In addition, only limited data regarding predictors of recovery are available. Design, Setting, Participants, & Measurements From 1984 to 2009, 84 adult survivors of acute kidney injury were followed by the same nephrologist (RCRMA) for a median time of 4.1 years. Patients were seen at least once each year after discharge until end stage renal disease (ESRD) or death. In each consultation serum creatinine was measured and glomerular filtration rate estimated. Renal recovery was defined as a glomerular filtration rate value ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2. A multiple logistic regression was performed to evaluate factors independently associated with renal recovery. Results The median length of follow-up was 50 months (30–90 months). All patients had stabilized their glomerular filtration rates by 18 months and 83% of them stabilized earlier: up to 12 months. Renal recovery occurred in 16 patients (19%) at discharge and in 54 (64%) by 18 months. Six patients died and four patients progressed to ESRD during the follow up period. Age (OR 1.09, p<0.0001) and serum creatinine at hospital discharge (OR 2.48, p = 0.007) were independent factors associated with non renal recovery. The acute kidney injury severity, evaluated by peak serum creatinine and need for dialysis, was not associated with non renal recovery. Conclusions Renal recovery must be evaluated no earlier than one year after an acute kidney injury episode. Nephrology referral should be considered mainly for older patients and those with elevated serum creatinine at hospital discharge.