Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Observational analysis reveals distinct clinical patterns across acute kidney injury alert rules, indicating varying mortality risks by origin.
Introduction Automated acute kidney injury (AKI) electronic alerts are based on comparing creatinine with historic results. Methods We report the significance of AKI defined by 3 "rules" differing in the time period from which the baseline creatinine is obtained, and AKI with creatinine within the normal range. Results A total of 47,090 incident episodes of AKI occurred between November 2013 and April 2016. Rule 1 (>26 μmol/l increase in creatinine within 48 hours) accounted for 9.6%. Rule 2 (≥50% increase in creatinine within previous 7 days) and rule 3 (≥50% creatinine increase from the median value of results within the last 8–365 days) accounted for 27.3% and 63.1%, respectively. Hospital-acquired AKI was predominantly identified by rules 1 and 2 (71.7%), and community-acquired AKI (86.3%) by rule 3. Stages 2 and 3 were detected by rules 2 and 3. Ninety-day mortality was higher in AKI rule 2 (32.4%) than rule 1 (28.3%, P < 0.001) and rule 3 (26.6%, P < 0.001). Nonrecovery of renal function (90 days) was lower for rule 1 (7.9%) than rule 2 (22.4%, P < 0.001) and rule 3 (16.5%, P < 0.001). We found that 19.2% of AKI occurred with creatinine values within normal range, in which mortality was lower than that in AKI detected by a creatinine value outside the reference range (22.6% vs. 29.6%, P < 0.001). Discussion Rule 1 could only be invoked for stage 1 alerts and was associated with acute on chronic kidney disease acquired in hospital. Rule 2 was also associated with hospital-acquired AKI and had the highest mortality and nonrecovery. Rule 3 was the commonest cause of an alert and was associated with community-acquired AKI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Holmes et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: