...
首页> 外文期刊>Critical care : >Acute kidney injury in intensive care unit patients: a comparison between the RIFLE and the Acute Kidney Injury Network classifications.
【24h】

Acute kidney injury in intensive care unit patients: a comparison between the RIFLE and the Acute Kidney Injury Network classifications.

机译:重症监护病房患者的急性肾损伤:RIFLE和急性肾损伤网络分类之间的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.
机译:摘要:简介:急性肾损伤网络(AKIN)标准相对于风险,伤害,衰竭,肾功能丧失,终末期肾脏疾病(RIFLE)标准在敏感性和特异性方面是否存在明显优势。我们评估了急性肾脏损伤的发生率,并比较了重症监护病房住院期间最大RIFLE和最大AKIN的能力,以预测重症患者的住院死亡率。方法:回顾性分析2003年1月至2006年12月在我院重症监护室收治的患者。分析中排除了接受透析的慢性肾脏病患者或肾脏移植患者。结果:总共评估了662例患者(平均年龄58.6 +/- 19.2岁; 392例男性)。 AKIN标准可以识别出更多的急性肾损伤患者(50.4%对43.8%,P = 0.018),并对更多的1期患者(RIFLE有风险)进行分类(21.1%对14.7%,P = 0.003),但没有第二阶段(RIFLE受伤)(10.1%对11%,P = 0.655)和第三阶段(RIFLE失败)(19.2%对18.1%,P = 0.672)观察到差异。根据任何RIFLE标准定义的急性肾损伤死亡率显着更高(41.3%对11%,P <0.0001;优势比= 2.78,95%置信区间= 1.74至4.45,P <0.0001)或AKIN标准( 39.8%对8.5%,P <0.0001;优势比= 3.59,95%置信区间= 2.14至6.01,P <0.0001)。对于RIFLE标准,接受者操作者特征曲线下面积的住院死亡率为0.733(P <0.0001),对于AKIN标准为0.750(P <0.0001)。根据急性肾损伤定义/分类标准,死亡率无统计学差异(P = 0.72)。结论:尽管AKIN标准可以提高急性肾损伤诊断的敏感性,但RIFLE标准预测重症患者住院死亡率的能力似乎并未提高。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号