Sesso Ricardo, Roque Alexandre, Vicioso Belinda, Stella Sergio
Federal University of São Paulo, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Division of Nephrology, São Paulo, Brazil.
Am J Kidney Dis. 2004 Sep;44(3):410-9.
Differentiation between hospital-acquired acute renal failure (ARF) and community-acquired ARF may have epidemiological implications that lead to different prognoses in hospitalized patients. Such a comparison has not yet been made among elderly individuals.
We performed a 3-year prospective study in a tertiary referral hospital of 325 patients aged 60 years or older who presented with ARF. Patients were divided into 2 groups; those with hospital-acquired ARF (n = 154) and community-acquired ARF (n = 171), and were followed up in relation to mortality. Multiple logistic regression was used in the analysis.
The overall mortality rate in this elderly population was 54%; 59% for the group with hospital-acquired ARF and 41% for the group with community-acquired ARF (P < 0.001). Groups differed (P < 0.01) in relation to cause of ARF, preexisting diseases, organ failure, sepsis, and performance of dialysis, among other factors. The adjusted mortality risk for the group with hospital-acquired ARF was 2.23 times greater than for the group with community-acquired ARF (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21 to 4.08). In the group with hospital-acquired ARF, factors associated with mortality were neurological failure (odds ratio [OR], 2.97; 95% CI, 1.17 to 7.60), hematologic failure (OR, 4.30; 95% CI, 1.63 to 11.34), and oliguria (OR, 12.14; 95% CI, 4.62 to 31.87). In the group with community-acquired ARF, significant factors were neoplasia, cardiac disease, hepatic disease, cardiovascular failure, oliguria, and sepsis.
Differentiation between hospital-acquired ARF and community-acquired ARF is important in determining the prognosis of ARF in the elderly. Mortality risk factors are different in these 2 groups, and knowledge of their characteristics may allow better management of such patients.
医院获得性急性肾衰竭(ARF)与社区获得性ARF的鉴别可能具有流行病学意义,这会导致住院患者出现不同的预后。在老年个体中尚未进行过此类比较。
我们在一家三级转诊医院对325例60岁及以上出现ARF的患者进行了为期3年的前瞻性研究。患者被分为两组,即医院获得性ARF组(n = 154)和社区获得性ARF组(n = 171),并对其死亡率进行随访。分析采用多因素逻辑回归。
该老年人群的总体死亡率为54%;医院获得性ARF组为59%,社区获得性ARF组为41%(P < 0.001)。两组在ARF病因、基础疾病、器官衰竭、败血症及透析情况等因素方面存在差异(P < 0.01)。医院获得性ARF组的校正死亡风险比社区获得性ARF组高2.23倍(95%置信区间[CI],1.21至4.08)。在医院获得性ARF组中,与死亡率相关的因素有神经功能衰竭(比值比[OR],2.97;95%CI,1.17至7.60)、血液系统功能衰竭(OR,4.30;95%CI,1.63至11.34)和少尿(OR,12.14;95%CI,4.62至31.87)。在社区获得性ARF组中,显著因素有肿瘤、心脏病、肝病、心血管功能衰竭、少尿和败血症。
区分医院获得性ARF和社区获得性ARF对于确定老年患者ARF的预后很重要。这两组的死亡风险因素不同,了解其特征可能有助于更好地管理此类患者。