IMPORTANCE In the last decade, new biomarkers for acute kidney injury (AKI) have been identified and studied in clinical trials. Guidance is needed regarding how best to incorporate them into clinical practice. OBJECTIVE To develop recommendations on AKI biomarkers based on existing data and expert consensus for practicing clinicians and researchers. EVIDENCE REVIEW At the 23rd Acute Disease Quality Initiative meeting, a meeting of 23 international experts in critical care, nephrology, and related specialties, the panel focused on 4 broad areas, as follows: (1) AKI risk assessment; (2) AKI prediction and prevention; (3) AKI diagnosis, etiology, and management; and (4) AKI progression and kidney recovery. A literature search revealed more than 65 000 articles published between 1965 and May 2019. In a modified Delphi process, recommendations and consensus statements were developed based on existing data, with 90% agreement among panel members required for final adoption. Recommendations were graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations system. FINDINGS The panel developed 11 consensus statements for biomarker use and 14 research recommendations. The key suggestions were that a combination of damage and functional biomarkers, along with clinical information, be used to identify high-risk patient groups, improve the diagnostic accuracy of AKI, improve processes of care, and assist the management of AKI. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Current evidence from clinical studies supports the use of new biomarkers in prevention and management of AKI. Substantial gaps in knowledge remain, and more research is necessary.

ART-123 is a safe intervention in critically ill patients with sepsis and suspected disseminated intravascular coagulation. The study provided evidence suggestive of efficacy supporting further development of this drug in sepsis-associated coagulopathy including disseminated intravascular coagulation. Future study should focus on using ART-123 in the subgroup of patients most likely to respond to this agent.

Controlled resuscitation leads to increased survival compared with no fluids or standard resuscitation. Fluid type affects results. Controlled fluid use should be considered when surgical care is not readily available.