Alerting to Acute Kidney Injury - Challenges, benefits, and strategies

Recognition patterns of acute kidney injury in hospitalized patients

Background

Acute kidney injury (AKI) during hospitalization is associated with increased complications and mortality. Despite efforts to standardize AKI management, its recognition in clinical practice is limited.

Methods

To assess and characterize different patterns of AKI diagnosis, we collected clinical data, serum creatinine (sCr) levels, comorbidities and outcomes from adult patients using the Hospital Discharge Form (HDF). AKI diagnosis was based on administrative data and according to Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria by evaluating sCr variations during hospitalization. Additionally, patients were categorized based on the timing of AKI onset.

Results

Among 56 820 patients, 42 900 (75.5%) had no AKI, 1893 (3.3%) had AKI diagnosed by sCr changes and coded in the HDF (full-AKI), 2529 (4.4%) had AKI reported on the HDF but not meeting sCr-based criteria (HDF-AKI) and 9498 (16.7%) had undetected AKI diagnosed by sCr changes but not coded in the HDF (KDIGO-AKI). Overall, AKI incidence was 24.5%, with a 68% undetection rate. Patients with KDIGO-AKI were younger and had a higher proportion of females, lower comorbidity burden, milder AKI stages, more frequent admissions to surgical wards and lower mortality compared with full-AKI patients. All AKI groups had worse outcomes than those without AKI, and AKI, even if undetected, was independently associated with mortality risk. Patients with AKI at admission had different profiles and better outcomes than those developing AKI later.

Conclusions

AKI recognition in hospitalized patients is highly heterogeneous, with a significant prevalence of undetection. This variability may be affected by patients' characteristics, AKI-related factors, diagnostic approaches and in-hospital patient management. AKI remains a major risk factor, emphasizing the importance of ensuring proper diagnosis for all patients.

Recovery of kidney function after acute kidney disease-a multi-cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

There are no consensus definitions for evaluating kidney function recovery after acute kidney injury (AKI) and acute kidney disease (AKD), nor is it clear how recovery varies across populations and clinical subsets. We present a federated analysis of four population-based cohorts from Canada, Denmark and Scotland, 2011-18.

METHODS

We identified incident AKD defined by serum creatinine changes within 48 h, 7 days and 90 days based on KDIGO AKI and AKD criteria. Separately, we applied changes up to 365 days to address widely used e-alert implementations that extend beyond the KDIGO AKI and AKD timeframes. Kidney recovery was based on resolution of AKD and a subsequent creatinine measurement below 1.2× baseline. We evaluated transitions between non-recovery, recovery and death up to 1 year; within age, sex and comorbidity subgroups; between subset AKD definitions; and across cohorts.

RESULTS

There were 464 868 incident cases, median age 67-75 years. At 1 year, results were consistent across cohorts, with pooled mortalities for creatinine changes within 48 h, 7 days, 90 days and 365 days (and 95% confidence interval) of 40% (34%-45%), 40% (34%-46%), 37% (31%-42%) and 22% (16%-29%) respectively, and non-recovery of kidney function of 19% (15%-23%), 30% (24%-35%), 25% (21%-29%) and 37% (30%-43%), respectively. Recovery by 14 and 90 days was frequently not sustained at 1 year. Older males and those with heart failure or cancer were more likely to die than to experience sustained non-recovery, whereas the converse was true for younger females and those with diabetes.

CONCLUSION

Consistently across multiple cohorts, based on 1-year mortality and non-recovery, KDIGO AKD (up to 90 days) is at least prognostically similar to KDIGO AKI (7 days), and covers more people. Outcomes associated with AKD vary by age, sex and comorbidities such that older males are more likely to die, and younger females are less likely to recover.

The estimation of glomerular filtration in acute and critical illness: Challenges and opportunities

Recent events have made it apparent that the creatinine based estimating equations for glomerular filtration have their flaws. Some flaws have been known for some time; others have prompted radical modification of the equations themselves. These issues persist in part owing to the behaviour of the creatinine molecule itself, particularly in acute and critical illness. There are significant implications for patient treatment decisions, including drug and fluid therapies and choice of imaging modality (contrast vs. non-contrast CT scan for example). An alternative biomarker, Cystatin C, has been used with some success both alone and in combination with creatinine to help improve the accuracy of particular estimating equations. Problems remain in certain circumstances and costs may limit the more widespread use of the alternative assay. This review will explore both the historical and more recent evidence for glomerular filtration estimation, including options to directly measure glomerular filtration (rather than estimate), perhaps the holy grail for both Biochemistry and Nephrology.