Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Crit Care. 2011;15(1):R16. doi: 10.1186/cc9960. Epub 2011 Jan 13.
The RIFLE (risk, injury, failure, loss of kidney function, and end-stage renal failure) classification for acute kidney injury (AKI) was recently modified by the Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN). The two definition systems differ in several aspects, and it is not clearly determined which has the better clinical accuracy.
In a retrospective observational study we investigated 4,836 consecutive patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass from 2005 to 2007 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. AKI was defined by RIFLE and AKIN criteria.
Significantly more patients were diagnosed as AKI by AKIN (26.3%) than by RIFLE (18.9%) criteria (P < 0.0001). Both definitions showed excellent association to outcome variables with worse outcome by increased severity of AKI (P < 0.001, all variables). Mortality was increased with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.5 (95% CI 3.6 to 5.6) for one class increase by RIFLE and an OR of 5.3 (95% CI 4.3 to 6.6) for one stage increase by AKIN. The multivariate model showed lower predictive ability of RIFLE for mortality. Patients classified as AKI in one but not in the other definition set were predominantly staged in the lowest AKI severity class (9.6% of patients in AKIN stage 1, 2.3% of patients in RIFLE class R). Potential misclassification of AKI is higher in AKIN, which is related to moving the 48-hour diagnostic window applied in AKIN criteria only. The greatest disagreement between both definition sets could be detected in patients with initial postoperative decrease of serum creatinine.
Modification of RIFLE by staging of all patients with acute renal replacement therapy (RRT) in the failure class F may improve predictive value. AKIN applied in patients undergoing cardiac surgery without correction of serum creatinine for fluid balance may lead to over-diagnosis of AKI (poor positive predictive value). Balancing limitations of both definition sets of AKI, we suggest application of the RIFLE criteria in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.
急性肾损伤(AKI)的 RIFLE(风险、损伤、衰竭、肾功能丧失和终末期肾衰竭)分类最近已被急性肾损伤网络(AKIN)修改。这两种定义系统在几个方面存在差异,目前尚不清楚哪种具有更好的临床准确性。
在一项回顾性观察研究中,我们调查了 2005 年至 2007 年在美国明尼苏达州罗切斯特市梅奥诊所接受体外循环心脏手术的 4836 例连续患者。AKI 采用 RIFLE 和 AKIN 标准定义。
与 RIFLE 标准(18.9%)相比,AKIN 标准(26.3%)诊断为 AKI 的患者明显更多(P<0.0001)。两种定义均与结局变量具有极好的关联,AKI 严重程度增加则结局更差(P<0.001,所有变量)。死亡率随着 RIFLE 每增加一个级别,风险比(OR)为 4.5(95%CI 3.6 至 5.6),AKIN 每增加一个阶段,OR 为 5.3(95%CI 4.3 至 6.6)而增加。多变量模型显示 RIFLE 对死亡率的预测能力较低。在一种定义中被分类为 AKI 但在另一种定义中未被分类的患者主要处于 AKI 严重程度最低的阶段(AKIN 1 期患者中 9.6%,RIFLE 级 R 患者中 2.3%)。在 AKIN 中,仅将 48 小时诊断窗口应用于急性肾替代治疗(RRT)的所有患者,AKIN 的潜在 AKI 分类错误更高。两种定义集之间最大的差异可以在术后初始血清肌酐下降的患者中检测到。
通过在接受心脏手术的患者中修改 RIFLE 标准,对所有接受急性肾替代治疗的患者进行分期(F 级衰竭),可能会提高预测值。在未对液体平衡校正血清肌酐的心脏手术患者中应用 AKIN 可能导致 AKI 过度诊断(阳性预测值差)。在平衡 AKI 两种定义集的局限性的基础上,我们建议在接受心脏手术的患者中应用 RIFLE 标准。