I n 2012, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) published a guideline on the classification and management of acute kidney injury (AKI). 1 Since then, new evidence has emerged that has important implications for clinical practice. Large epidemiology studies and risk profiles for AKI have become available in adults and children, such as the AKI-Epidemiologic Prospective Investigation (AKI-EPI) study, 2 the 0by25 Initiative, 3 the Southeast Asia-AKI (SEA-AKI) study, 4 and the Assessment of Worldwide Acute Kidney Injury, Renal Angina, and Epidemiology (AWARE) 5 and Assessment of Worldwide Acute Kidney Injury Epidemiology in Neonates (AWAKEN) 6 studies. The effectiveness of the KDIGO recommendations in preventing AKI has been confirmed in small single-center randomized controlled trials (RCTs), such as the Prevention of AKI (PrevAKI) 7 and the

Acute kidney injury (AKI) has become increasingly prevalent in both developed and developing countries, and is associated with severe morbidity and mortality, especially in children. Uncertainty regarding the true incidence of AKI limits awareness of the problem, thereby reducing political visibility of the disorder and hampering efforts to prevent its occurrence. In developed countries, AKI occurs predominantly in urban intensive care units and is associated with multiorgan failure and sepsis, high mortality, and occurrence in older populations. While cases of AKI in urban areas of the developing world have similar characteristics to those in the developed world, AKI in rural regions commonly develops in response to a single disease and specific conditions (e.g. gastroenteritis) or infections (e.g. severe malaria, leptospirosis, or hemolytic-uremic syndrome) and in younger otherwise healthy individuals. Many causes of AKI in rural settings, such as diarrhea, poisoning, malaria, or septic abortion, can be prevented by interventions at the individual, community, and regional levels. Treatment with dialysis is often unavailable or too costly in developing regions, so there must be community-wide efforts to eradicate causes of AKI, expedite diagnosis, and aggressively manage prerenal conditions and specific infections. We have reviewed recent literature on AKI, identified differences and similarities in the condition between developed and developing areas, analyzed the practical implications of the identified differences, and made evidence-based recommendations for study and management.

This study suggests that on-pump as compared with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting is more deleterious to renal function in diabetic patients with non-dialysis dependent renal insufficiency. MDRD GFR is a more sensitive investigation than serum creatinine levels to assess renal insufficiency in patients undergoing coronary bypass.

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a simple, safe, gentle, and efficient renal replacement therapy (RRT) method. It is able to correct acute kidney injury (AKI)-induced metabolic, electrolytic, and acid-base disorders and volume overload both in and out the intensive care unit setting. Some PD modalities, such as high-volume PD and continuous flow PD, can provide RRT doses and efficiency comparable to extracorporeal blood purification methods. PD is particularly suitable for children, patients with refractory heart failure or hemodynamically instable, conditions where systemic anticoagulation should be avoided, patients with difficulty for vascular access and hypo- and hyperthermia conditions. In the following manuscript, PD technical aspects and the possible advantages and limitations of this RRT method will be discussed, and the more recent literature on clinical experience with PD for treatment of AKI will be reviewed.

Several new biomarkers of kidney damage have been characterized and are being validated in clinical studies. These damage biomarkers complement existing conventional biomarkers of kidney function (e.g. serum creatinine, serum urea, and urine output) that are currently utilized to diagnose and stage acute kidney injury (AKI). Both functional and damage biomarkers provide an opportunity to identify patients with AKI who are at risk for a less favorable prognosis in terms of worsening damage or further declines in kidney function and likelihood of need for renal replacement. We performed a systemic search and review of the available literature pre-conference. Our workgroup presented the findings in multiple rounds to the ADQI conference members and a final summary and review was refined in an iterative approach. The specific clinical situations of renal or liver transplantation, or cirrhosis/hepatorenal syndrome were not included. Overall, multiple AKI biomarkers have been well characterized for utilization for AKI prognosis. These functional and damage markers can be used to assist in decisions related to triage of patients with AKI and identifying patients with who are at risk for progression. Set cut-offs for various biomarkers and their bedside utility are forthcoming and will be in part determined by regulatory intended use guidelines, platform standardization, and inter-laboratory calibration. There remain many unresolved areas of AKI biomarker use in selected syndromes of AKI (e.g. cardiorenal syndrome, hepatorenal syndrome). As clinicians gain experience with AKI biomarkers, clinical care plans that incorporate them into routine care will shortly follow.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is increasingly common around the world. Because of the low availability of effective therapies and resource limitations, early preventive and therapeutic measures are essential to decrease morbidity, mortality, and cost. Timely recognition and diagnosis of AKI requires a heightened degree of suspicion in the appropriate clinical and environmental context. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), early detection is impaired by limited resources and low awareness. In this article, we report the consensus recommendations of the 18th Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative meeting in Hyderabad, India, on how to improve recognition of AKI. We expect these recommendations will lead to an earlier and more accurate diagnosis of AKI, and improved research to promote a better understanding of the epidemiology, etiology, and histopathology of AKI in LMICs.

There is wide variation in the management of acute kidney injury (AKI) and the practice of renal replacement therapy (RRT) around the world. Clinicians in developing countries face additional challenges due to limited resources, reduced availability of trained staff and equipment, cultural and socioeconomic aspects, and administrative and governmental barriers. In this article, we report the consensus recommendations from the 18th Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative conference in Hyderabad, India. We provide the minimal requirements for provision of acute RRT in developing countries, including patient selection, choice of RRT modality and monitoring, transition, and termination of acute RRT. We also discuss areas of uncertainty and propose themes for future research. These recommendations can serve as a foundation for clinicians to implement renal support for AKI in low resource settings.

The incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) among acutely ill patients is reportedly very high and has vexing consequences on patient outcomes and health care systems. The risks and impact of AKI differ between developed and developing countries. Among developing countries, AKI occurs in young individuals with no or limited comorbidities, and is usually due to environmental causes, including infectious diseases. Although several risk factors have been identified for AKI in different settings, there is limited information on how risk assessment can be used at population and patient levels to improve care in patients with AKI, particularly in developing countries where significant health disparities may exist. The Acute Disease Quality Initiative consensus conference work group addressed the issue of identifying risk factors for AKI and provided recommendations for developing individualized risk stratification strategies to improve care. We proposed a 5-dimension, evidence-based categorization of AKI risk that allows clinicians and investigators to study, define, and implement individualized risk assessment tools for the region or country where they practice. These dimensions include environmental, socioeconomic and cultural factors, processes of care, exposures, and the inherent risks of AKI. We provide examples of these risks and describe approaches for risk assessments in the developing world. We anticipate that these recommendations will be useful for health care providers to plan and execute interventions to limit the impact of AKI on society and each individual patient. Using a modified Delphi process, this group reached consensus regarding several aspects of AKI risk stratification.