No abstract

BackgroundThe aim of this study is to evaluate the association between acute serum creatinine changes in acute renal failure (ARF), before specialized treatment begins, and in-hospital mortality, recovery of renal function, and overall mortality at 6 months, on an equal degree of ARF severity, using the RIFLE criteria, and comorbid illnesses.MethodsProspective cohort study of 1008 consecutive patients who had been diagnosed as having ARF, and had been admitted in an university-affiliated hospital over 10 years. Demographic, clinical information and outcomes were measured. After that, 646 patients who had presented enough increment in serum creatinine to qualify for the RIFLE criteria were included for subsequent analysis. The population was divided into two groups using the median serum creatinine change (101%) as the cut-off value. Multivariate non-conditional logistic and linear regression models were used.ResultsA ≥ 101% increment of creatinine respect to its baseline before nephrology consultation was associated with significant increase of in-hospital mortality (35.6% vs. 22.6%, p < 0.001), with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.81 (95% CI: 1.08–3.03). Patients who required continuous renal replacement therapy in the ≥ 101% increment group presented a higher increase of in-hospital mortality (62.7% vs 46.4%, p = 0.048), with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.66 (95% CI: 1.00–7.21). Patients in the ≥ 101% increment group had a higher mean serum creatinine level with respect to their baseline level (114.72% vs. 37.96%) at hospital discharge. This was an adjusted 48.92% (95% CI: 13.05–84.79) more serum creatinine than in the < 101% increment group.ConclusionIn this cohort, patients who had presented an increment in serum level of creatinine of ≥ 101% with respect to basal values, at the time of nephrology consultation, had increased mortality rates and were discharged from hospital with a more deteriorated renal function than those with similar Liano scoring and the same RIFLE classes, but with a < 101% increment. This finding may provide more information about the factors involved in the prognosis of ARF. Furthermore, the calculation of relative serum creatinine increase could be used as a practical tool to identify those patients at risk, and that would benefit from an intensive therapy.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a silent and poorly known killer. The current concept of CKD is relatively young and uptake by the public, physicians and health authorities is not widespread. Physicians still mix up CKD with chronic kidney insufficiency or failure, For the wider public and health authorities, CKD evokes kidney replacement therapy (KRT). In Spain, the prevalence of KRT is 0.13%. Thus, health authorities may consider CKD a non-issue: very few persons eventually need KRT and, for those in whom kidneys fail, the problem is “solved” by dialysis or kidney transplantation. However, KRT is the tip of the iceberg in the burden of CKD. The main burden of CKD is accelerated aging and premature death. The cut-off points for kidney function and kidney damage indexes that define CKD also mark an increased risk for all-cause premature death. CKD is the most prevalent risk factor for lethal COVID-19 and the factor that most increases the risk of death in COVID-19, after old age. Men and women undergoing KRT still have an annual mortality which is 10- o 100-fold higher than similar age peers, and life expectancy is shortened by around 40 years for young persons on dialysis and by 15 years for young persons with a functioning kidney graft. CKD is expected to become the fifth global cause of death by 2040 and the second cause of death in Spain before the end of the century, a time when 1 in 4 Spaniards will have CKD. However, by 2022, CKD will become the only top-15 global predicted cause of death that is not supported by a dedicated well-funded CIBER network research structure in Spain. Realizing the underestimation of the CKD burden of disease by health authorities, the Decade of the Kidney initiative for 2020-2030 was launched by the American Association of Kidney Patients (AAKP) and the European Kidney Health Alliance (EKHA). Leading Spanish kidney researchers grouped in the kidney collaborative research network REDINREN have now applied for the RICORS call of collaborative research in Spain with the support of the Spanish Society of Nephrology, ALCER and ONT: RICORS2040 aims to prevent the dire predictions for the global 2040 burden of CKD from becoming true.

No abstract

SUMMARY Aim:The experts have argued about the use of the risk, injury, failure, loss and endstage renal failure (RIFLE) criteria as a prognosis scoring system. We examined the association between in-hospital mortality and the RIFLE criteria, and discussed its accuracy as a prognosis factor. Methods:In this prospective study, we analysed the data gathered from a cohort of 956 patients admitted in a Spanish tertiary hospital between January 1998 and April 2006. Hazard ratios for mortality, and survival curves within 60 days were calculated. Discrimination and calibration of the model were also assessed.Results: Excluding 53 patients, 903 patients were finally analysed. We classified them into groups according to the maximum RIFLE class reached during their admission. The RIFLE class was assessed by the glomerular filtration rate criterion. We found an increase in the in-hospital mortality risk. Cox proportional hazard models showed that RIFLE classes risk, injury, and failure were significant predictive factors (hazard ratios were 2.77, 3.23 and 3.52, respectively; P for trend was 0.005). The multivariate analyses from the cross-classification of the participants according to Liano score values (severity of illness) and RIFLE classes showed additive effects of the exposures on inhospital mortality. Conclusion:In this population, the risk of in-hospital mortality during the acute kidney injury (AKI) episode was positively associated with RIFLE classes. We showed that the RIFLE classification system had discriminative power in predicting hospital mortality within 60 days in AKI patients, but not better than a specific AKI predictive model. However, a combined use of both may give a more robust prognosis system.