• J Formos Med Assoc · Nov 2017

    Comparative Study

    Comparison of RIFLE, AKIN, and KDIGO classifications for assessing prognosis of patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

    • Tsung-Yu Tsai, Hao Chien, Feng-Chun Tsai, Heng-Chih Pan, Huang-Yu Yang, Shen-Yang Lee, Hsiang-Hao Hsu, Ji-Tseng Fang, Chih-Wei Yang, and Yung-Chang Chen.
    • Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Kidney Research Center, Department of Nephrology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan.
    • J Formos Med Assoc. 2017 Nov 1; 116 (11): 844-851.

    Background/PurposeAcute kidney injury (AKI) developing during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is associated with very poor outcome. The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) group published a new AKI definition in 2012. This study analyzed the outcomes of patients treated with ECMO and identified the relationship between the prognosis and the KDIGO classification.MethodsThis study examined total 312 patients initially, and finally reviewed the medical records of 167 patients on ECMO support at a tertiary care university hospital between March 2002 and November 2011. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory variables were retrospectively collected as survival predicators.ResultsThe overall mortality rate was 55.7%. In the analysis of the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves, the KDIGO classification showed relatively higher discriminatory power (0.840 ± 0.032) than the Risk of renal failure, Injury to the kidney, Failure of kidney function, Loss of kidney function, and End-stage renal failure (RIFLE) (0.826 ± 0.033) and Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) (0.836 ± 0.032) criteria in predicting in-hospital mortality. Furthermore, multiple logistic regression analysis showed that KDIGO, hemoglobin, and Glasgow Coma Scale score on the first day of patients on ECMO were independent predictors for in-hospital mortality. Finally, cumulative survival rates at 6-month follow-up after hospital discharge differed significantly for KDIGO stage 3 versus KDIGO stage 0, 1, and 2 (p < 0.001); and KDIGO stage 2 versus KDIGO stage 0 (p < 0.05).ConclusionFor those patients with ECMO support, the KDIGO classification proved to be a more reproducible evaluation tool with excellent prognostic abilities than RIFLE or AKIN classification.Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…