Eric A. J. HostepersName, Gilles ClermontpersName, Alexander KerstenpersName, Ramesh VenkataramanpersName, Derek C. AnguspersName, Dirk De BacquerpersName, John A. KellumpersName (2006date). “RIFLE criteria for acute kidney injury are associated with hospital mortality in critically ill patients: a cohort analysis.” Critical Caretitle·venue.
Object of study — A CLASSIFICATION BEING TESTED AGAINST THE OUTCOME IT CLASSIFIES - 5,383 ICU patients staged by RIFLE, a consensus definition built to replace the more than 30 definitions of acute kidney injuryterm then in use
Research question — does acute kidney injuryterm as defined by the RIFLE classificationterm predict hospital mortality, do patients progress between its classes, and is the classification usable in a general ICU population
Contribution — the first validation of RIFLE in a large general ICU cohort: incidence 67.2%, mortality rising across classes R/I/F, and class I identified as the stage at which adjusted mortality risk begins
phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | a disease whose measured frequency and lethality are properties of the definition chosen for it — “Yet there is no consensus on the amount of dysfunction that defines acute kidney injury, with more than 30 definitions in use in the literature today [ 3 ]. The variety of definitions used in clinical studies may be partly responsible for the large variations in the reported incidence (1–31%) [ 4 - 6 ] and the associated mortality (19–83%) [ 3 , 6 - 9 ] of acute kidney injury.” | |
| claim-type | existence — “The RIFLE classification is a very sensitive definition of acute kidney injury: acute kidney injury defined by the RIFLE classification occurred in two thirds of general ICU patients.” | |
| method — evidence | — “The RIFLE class was determined based on the worst of either glomerular filtration rate criteria or urine output criteria.” | |
| object of study — evidence | — “Yet there is no consensus on the amount of dysfunction that defines acute kidney injury, with more than 30 definitions in use in the literature today [ 3 ]. The variety of definitions used in clinical studies may be partly responsible for the large variations in the reported incidence (1–31%) [ 4 - 6 ] and the associated mortality (19–83%) [ 3 , 6 - 9 ] of acute kidney injury.” | |
| research question — evidence | — “To establish a uniform definition for acute kidney injury, the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative formulated the Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-stage Kidney (RIFLE) classification [ 11 ]. RIFLE defines three grades of increasing severity of acute kidney injury – risk (class R), injury (class I) and failure (class F) – and two outcome classes (loss and end-stage kidney disease)” | |
| contribution — evidence | — “The RIFLE classification is a very sensitive definition of acute kidney injury: acute kidney injury defined by the RIFLE classification occurred in two thirds of general ICU patients.” | |
| mechanism | THE DEFINITION IS THE VARIABLE, AND THE PAPER PUTS A NUMBER ON IT: `there is no consensus on the amount of dysfunction that defines acute kidney injury, with more than 30 definitions in use in the literature today. The variety of definitions used in clinical studies may be partly responsible for the large variations in the reported incidence (1-31%) and the associated mortality (19-83%)`. Thirty-one-fold in how often it happens, four-fold in how often it kills — “Yet there is no consensus on the amount of dysfunction that defines acute kidney injury, with more than 30 definitions in use in the literature today [ 3 ]. The variety of definitions used in clinical studies may be partly responsible for the large variations in the reported incidence (1–31%) [ 4 - 6 ] and the associated mortality (19–83%) [ 3 , 6 - 9 ] of acute kidney injury.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | and what was missing was not the disease but the RULER: `there has not been a consensus on how best to assess kidney function; namely, what markers best reflect kidney function, and what values of those markers discriminate normal from abnormal`. Which quantity, and which cut point on it - the two questions this project calls a threshold — “Until recently there has not been a consensus on how best to assess kidney function; namely, what markers best reflect kidney function, and what values of those markers discriminate normal from abnormal kidney function.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | THE CLASSIFICATION FIXES BOTH AT ONCE: three severity grades `risk (class R), injury (class I) and failure (class F)` plus `two outcome classes (loss and end-stage kidney disease)`. Severity and outcome in one acronym, and this study evaluates only the first three — “To establish a uniform definition for acute kidney injury, the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative formulated the Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-stage Kidney (RIFLE) classification [ 11 ]. RIFLE defines three grades of increasing severity of acute kidney injury – risk (class R), injury (class I) and failure (class F) – and two outcome classes (loss and end-stage kidney disease)” | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | AND THE PAPER TESTS WHETHER THE VOCABULARY'S WORDS MATCH WHAT ITS CLASSES DO: `RIFLE class R would appear to be aptly named. More than one-half of the patients of class R progressed to more severe RIFLE classes ... RIFLE class I may also have been fortuitously named, for this is the stage at which risk for hospital mortality increases even after controlling for covariates.` A validation of names, not only of cut points — “RIFLE class R would appear to be aptly named. More than one-half of the patients of class R progressed to more severe RIFLE classes, yet those that did not were not at increased risk of hospital mortality. Future studies could target this population for prevention. RIFLE class I may also have been fortuitously named, for this is the stage at which risk for hospital mortality increases even after controlling for covariates.” | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | and the definition creates the epidemiology it is then judged against: `The incidence of almost 70% may appear at odds with the existing literature ... our study highlights the potential for under-reporting when renal replacement therapy is used to 'define' acute kidney injury`. A rival operational definition named as the cause of a different number — “The incidence of almost 70% may appear at odds with the existing literature [ 5 ]. Even when limiting cases to those with RIFLE class F (28%) we found a higher rate for ICU patients than typically reported. Fourteen percent of class F patients received renal replacement therapy, however, leading to a rate of 4–5% among ICU patients, consistent with previous reports [ 9 , 19 ]. Indeed, our study highlights the potential for under-reporting when renal replacement therapy is used to 'define' acute kidney injury.” | mechanisms[4] |
| mechanism | THE FIELD'S OWN VERDICT ON WHAT DEFINITIONAL MULTIPLICITY COSTS, WITH A CITATION: `Indeed, the lack of a uniform definition for acute kidney injury is believed to be a major impediment to research in the field.` The preceding sentences give the size of it - more than 30 definitions in use, a reported incidence spanning 1-31% and a reported mortality spanning 19-83%. THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE IN THE CORPUS WHERE THE COST OF COMPETING DEFINITIONS IS PUT AS A RANGE ON A MEASURED QUANTITY. — “Indeed, the lack of a uniform definition for acute kidney injury is believed to be a major impediment to research in the field” | mechanisms[5] |
| extends | the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative's RIFLE consensus statement, which proposed the classification this study is the first to validate in a large general ICU cohort — “To establish a uniform definition for acute kidney injury, the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative formulated the Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-stage Kidney (RIFLE) classification [ 11 ]. RIFLE defines three grades of increasing severity of acute kidney injury – risk (class R), injury (class I) and failure (class F) – and two outcome classes (loss and end-stage kidney disease)” | claim_relations[0] |
| contrasts-with | the literature that defines acute kidney injury by the need for renal replacement therapy, which the authors name as a source of under-reporting — “The incidence of almost 70% may appear at odds with the existing literature [ 5 ]. Even when limiting cases to those with RIFLE class F (28%) we found a higher rate for ICU patients than typically reported. Fourteen percent of class F patients received renal replacement therapy, however, leading to a rate of 4–5% among ICU patients, consistent with previous reports [ 9 , 19 ]. Indeed, our study highlights the potential for under-reporting when renal replacement therapy is used to 'define' acute kidney injury.” | claim_relations[1] |
| sense | `acute kidney injury` - AT THE TIME OF WRITING, MORE THAN 30 COMPETING SENSES: `no consensus on the amount of dysfunction that defines acute kidney injury, with more than 30 definitions in use in the literature today`, and the reported incidence (1-31%) and mortality (19-83%) vary with them — “Yet there is no consensus on the amount of dysfunction that defines acute kidney injury, with more than 30 definitions in use in the literature today [ 3 ]. The variety of definitions used in clinical studies may be partly responsible for the large variations in the reported incidence (1–31%) [ 4 - 6 ] and the associated mortality (19–83%) [ 3 , 6 - 9 ] of acute kidney injury.” | senses[0] |
| sense | `acute kidney injury (RIFLE sense)` - meeting ANY of the RIFLE criteria: serum creatinine risen 1.5x, 2x or 3x from baseline, OR urine output below a stated rate for a stated number of hours, `both abrupt (within 1-7 days) and sustained (more than 24 hours)` — “RIFLE class is determined based on the worst of either glomerular filtration criteria or urine output criteria. Glomerular filtration criteria are calculated as an increase of serum creatinine above the baseline serum creatinine level. Acute kidney injury should be both abrupt (within 1–7 days) and sustained (more than 24 hours).” | senses[1] |
| sense | `acute kidney injury (renal-replacement sense)` - THE RIVAL DEFINITION THE PAPER NAMES: `our study highlights the potential for under-reporting when renal replacement therapy is used to 'define' acute kidney injury`. Under RIFLE 28% reach class F; only 14% of those are dialysed — “The incidence of almost 70% may appear at odds with the existing literature [ 5 ]. Even when limiting cases to those with RIFLE class F (28%) we found a higher rate for ICU patients than typically reported. Fourteen percent of class F patients received renal replacement therapy, however, leading to a rate of 4–5% among ICU patients, consistent with previous reports [ 9 , 19 ]. Indeed, our study highlights the potential for under-reporting when renal replacement therapy is used to 'define' acute kidney injury.” | senses[2] |
| sense | `baseline serum creatinine` - FOR ABOUT HALF THIS COHORT, NOT A MEASUREMENT: the MDRD equation solved backwards `ASSUMING a glomerular filtration rate of 75 ml/minute/1.73 m 2`, then the LOWEST of three candidate values taken — “For patients without chronic kidney insufficiency as reported in the medical history, we calculated a serum creatinine level using the MDRD equation [ 16 ] (Cr MDRD ) as recommended by the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative, by solving the MDRD equation for serum creatinine assuming a glomerular filtration rate of 75 ml/minute/1.73 m 2 . We then used the lowest creatinine value among the hospital admission creatinine, the ICU admission creatinine or the Cr MDRD creatinine as the baseline value. Approximately one-half of patients were classified using the Cr MDRD as a baseline.” | senses[3] |
| sense | `class Failure` - reachable by a THIRD route when the baseline is already high: `When the baseline serum creatinine is elevated, an abrupt rise of at least 0.5 mg/dl to more than 4 mg/dl is all that is required to achieve class Failure`. A ratio rule with an absolute exception — “When the baseline serum creatinine is elevated, an abrupt rise of at least 0.5 mg/dl to more than 4 mg/dl is all that is required to achieve class Failure.” | senses[4] |
| control | the nonrenal SOFA score entered as a covariate instead of the total SOFA score — held — “RIFLE class R would appear to be aptly named. More than one-half of the patients of class R progressed to more severe RIFLE classes, yet those that did not were not at increased risk of hospital mortality. Future studies could target this population for prevention. RIFLE class I may also have been fortuitously named, for this is the stage at which risk for hospital mortality increases even after controlling for covariates.” — rules out multicollinearity between the RIFLE class and severity scores that already award points for kidney insufficiency - the outcome scale containing the exposure being tested — “The RIFLE classification is a very sensitive definition of acute kidney injury: acute kidney injury defined by the RIFLE classification occurred in two thirds of general ICU patients.” | controls[0] |
| control | three candidate baseline creatinine values (hospital admission, ICU admission, MDRD-derived), with the lowest taken — failed — “For patients without chronic kidney insufficiency as reported in the medical history, we calculated a serum creatinine level using the MDRD equation [ 16 ] (Cr MDRD ) as recommended by the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative, by solving the MDRD equation for serum creatinine assuming a glomerular filtration rate of 75 ml/minute/1.73 m 2 . We then used the lowest creatinine value among the hospital admission creatinine, the ICU admission creatinine or the Cr MDRD creatinine as the baseline value. Approximately one-half of patients were classified using the Cr MDRD as a baseline.” — rules out nothing, on the authors' own account - it is a rule for filling a missing value, and they state its direction: 'may have lead to a higher estimate of change and therefore a higher estimate of the incidence' — “The Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative recommended the use of a baseline serum creatinine, yet a true baseline is often unknown for patients admitted to the ICU. Several possible baseline values existed for our patients (hospital admission, ICU admission, or a calculated baseline from the MDRD equation). Our use of the lowest of these values for any given patient may have lead to a higher estimate of change and therefore a higher estimate of the incidence of acute kidney injury.” | controls[1] |
| control | the two RIFLE outcome classes, loss and end-stage kidney disease — absent-declared-unreported — “We did not evaluate the outcome classes of RIFLE (loss and end-stage kidney disease criteria) in this study.” — rules out nothing here - they were outside the follow-up window and were not assessed — “We did not evaluate the outcome classes of RIFLE (loss and end-stage kidney disease criteria) in this study.” | controls[2] |
| weight | the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative's RIFLE consensus statement, which proposed the classification this study is the first to validate in a large general ICU cohort — 0.85 — “To establish a uniform definition for acute kidney injury, the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative formulated the Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-stage Kidney (RIFLE) classification [ 11 ]. RIFLE defines three grades of increasing severity of acute kidney injury – risk (class R), injury (class I) and failure (class F) – and two outcome classes (loss and end-stage kidney disease)” | claim_relations[0] |
| weight | the literature that defines acute kidney injury by the need for renal replacement therapy, which the authors name as a source of under-reporting — 0.85 — “The incidence of almost 70% may appear at odds with the existing literature [ 5 ]. Even when limiting cases to those with RIFLE class F (28%) we found a higher rate for ICU patients than typically reported. Fourteen percent of class F patients received renal replacement therapy, however, leading to a rate of 4–5% among ICU patients, consistent with previous reports [ 9 , 19 ]. Indeed, our study highlights the potential for under-reporting when renal replacement therapy is used to 'define' acute kidney injury.” | claim_relations[1] |
| note | acute kidney injury —operationalised-as→ RIFLE classification — 'The RIFLE classification is a very sensitive definition of acute kidney injury: acute kidney injury defined by the RIFLE classification occurred in two thirds of general ICU patients'. The definition's sensitivity is reported as a property of the definition, not of the patients — “The RIFLE classification is a very sensitive definition of acute kidney injury: acute kidney injury defined by the RIFLE classification occurred in two thirds of general ICU patients.” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | acute kidney injury —operationalised-as→ RIFLE classification — 0.95 — “The RIFLE classification is a very sensitive definition of acute kidney injury: acute kidney injury defined by the RIFLE classification occurred in two thirds of general ICU patients.” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | glomerular filtration rate criteria —distinct-from→ urine output criteria — THE CLASSIFICATION TREATS THEM AS INTERCHANGEABLE BY CONSTRUCTION - a class is 'the worst of either' - AND THE OUTCOME DATA SAYS THEY ARE NOT: class F reached on creatinine carries 27.9% hospital mortality, class F reached on urine output 21.9%, P = 0.020. The authors add that 'urine output and creatinine criteria provide complementary information, which is lost when these criteria are combined' — “Patients with maximum RIFLE class F based on glomerular filtration rate criteria had a somewhat higher inhospital mortality compared with patients who had a maximum RIFLE class F on urine output criteria (27.9% versus 21.9%, P = 0.020).” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | glomerular filtration rate criteria —distinct-from→ urine output criteria — 0.95 — “Patients with maximum RIFLE class F based on glomerular filtration rate criteria had a somewhat higher inhospital mortality compared with patients who had a maximum RIFLE class F on urine output criteria (27.9% versus 21.9%, P = 0.020).” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | Glomerular filtration criteria —operationalised-as→ baseline serum creatinine level — 'Glomerular filtration criteria are calculated as an increase of serum creatinine above the baseline serum creatinine level' - so the whole arm is defined relative to a value that, for about half this cohort, was computed from an assumed glomerular filtration rate of 75 rather than measured — “RIFLE class is determined based on the worst of either glomerular filtration criteria or urine output criteria. Glomerular filtration criteria are calculated as an increase of serum creatinine above the baseline serum creatinine level. Acute kidney injury should be both abrupt (within 1–7 days) and sustained (more than 24 hours).” | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | Glomerular filtration criteria —operationalised-as→ baseline serum creatinine level — 0.95 — “RIFLE class is determined based on the worst of either glomerular filtration criteria or urine output criteria. Glomerular filtration criteria are calculated as an increase of serum creatinine above the baseline serum creatinine level. Acute kidney injury should be both abrupt (within 1–7 days) and sustained (more than 24 hours).” | concept_edges[2] |
| outcome | control — held — “The RIFLE classification is a very sensitive definition of acute kidney injury: acute kidney injury defined by the RIFLE classification occurred in two thirds of general ICU patients.” — “RIFLE class R would appear to be aptly named. More than one-half of the patients of class R progressed to more severe RIFLE classes, yet those that did not were not at increased risk of hospital mortality. Future studies could target this population for prevention. RIFLE class I may also have been fortuitously named, for this is the stage at which risk for hospital mortality increases even after controlling for covariates.” | controls[0] |
| outcome | control — failed — “The Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative recommended the use of a baseline serum creatinine, yet a true baseline is often unknown for patients admitted to the ICU. Several possible baseline values existed for our patients (hospital admission, ICU admission, or a calculated baseline from the MDRD equation). Our use of the lowest of these values for any given patient may have lead to a higher estimate of change and therefore a higher estimate of the incidence of acute kidney injury.” — “For patients without chronic kidney insufficiency as reported in the medical history, we calculated a serum creatinine level using the MDRD equation [ 16 ] (Cr MDRD ) as recommended by the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative, by solving the MDRD equation for serum creatinine assuming a glomerular filtration rate of 75 ml/minute/1.73 m 2 . We then used the lowest creatinine value among the hospital admission creatinine, the ICU admission creatinine or the Cr MDRD creatinine as the baseline value. Approximately one-half of patients were classified using the Cr MDRD as a baseline.” | controls[1] |
| outcome | control — absent-declared-unreported — “We did not evaluate the outcome classes of RIFLE (loss and end-stage kidney disease criteria) in this study.” | controls[2] |
| limitation | THE DEFINITION REQUIRES AN INPUT THAT OFTEN DOES NOT EXIST, SO IT INVENTS ONE: `The Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative recommended the use of a baseline serum creatinine, yet a true baseline is often unknown for patients admitted to the ICU` - so the baseline was computed `by solving the MDRD equation for serum creatinine assuming a glomerular filtration rate of 75 ml/minute/1.73 m 2`, and `Approximately one-half of patients were classified using the Cr MDRD as a baseline` — “For patients without chronic kidney insufficiency as reported in the medical history, we calculated a serum creatinine level using the MDRD equation [ 16 ] (Cr MDRD ) as recommended by the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative, by solving the MDRD equation for serum creatinine assuming a glomerular filtration rate of 75 ml/minute/1.73 m 2 . We then used the lowest creatinine value among the hospital admission creatinine, the ICU admission creatinine or the Cr MDRD creatinine as the baseline value. Approximately one-half of patients were classified using the Cr MDRD as a baseline.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | and the authors name the direction of the bias that choice introduces: `Our use of the lowest of these values for any given patient may have lead to a higher estimate of change and therefore a higher estimate of the incidence of acute kidney injury`. The rule for filling a missing value moves the headline number — “The Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative recommended the use of a baseline serum creatinine, yet a true baseline is often unknown for patients admitted to the ICU. Several possible baseline values existed for our patients (hospital admission, ICU admission, or a calculated baseline from the MDRD equation). Our use of the lowest of these values for any given patient may have lead to a higher estimate of change and therefore a higher estimate of the incidence of acute kidney injury.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | ONE CLASS LABEL, TWO OPERATIONALISATIONS, DIFFERENT MORTALITY: `Patients with maximum RIFLE class F based on glomerular filtration rate criteria had a somewhat higher inhospital mortality compared with patients who had a maximum RIFLE class F on urine output criteria (27.9% versus 21.9%, P = 0.020)`. The classification declares them equivalent by construction - `the worst of either` - and the outcome says otherwise — “Patients with maximum RIFLE class F based on glomerular filtration rate criteria had a somewhat higher inhospital mortality compared with patients who had a maximum RIFLE class F on urine output criteria (27.9% versus 21.9%, P = 0.020).” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | and the authors say the merge destroys information: `It is possible that urine output and creatinine criteria provide complementary information, which is lost when these criteria are combined` — “First, we did not attempt to compare RIFLE with other classification systems; nor did we compare urine output and creatinine criteria, but rather used the criteria as proposed by the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative workgroup, as the worst classification by each criterion. It is possible that urine output and creatinine criteria provide complementary information, which is lost when these criteria are combined.” | limitations[3] |
| limitation | THE MEASUREMENT INTERVAL MANUFACTURES A CLASS TRANSITION THAT DID NOT HAPPEN: `our assessment of time to progression ... may have been artificially lengthened due to daily measurement of creatinine - some patients appeared to skip class R or class I`. The sampling rate of the instrument is visible in the patient's trajectory — “Indeed, our assessment of time to progression of acute kidney injury may have been artificially lengthened due to daily measurement of creatinine – some patients appeared to skip class R or class I because of this limitation.” | limitations[4] |
| limitation | and the same artefact is declared in the figure caption, from the other side: `Patients who appear to skip a grade ... do so because they did not remain at a transition state for at least 24 hours` - the 24-hour sustained clause in the definition, showing up as missing stages — “Patients who appear to skip a grade (class risk or class injury) do so because they did not remain at a transition state for at least 24 hours.” | limitations[5] |
| limitation | THE DEFINERS VALIDATED THEIR OWN DEFINITION AND SAID SO: `We also acknowledge that some members of our research group have contributed to the consensus process by which RIFLE was developed and by which MDRD recommendations were made` — “We also acknowledge that some members of our research group have contributed to the consensus process by which RIFLE was developed and by which MDRD recommendations were made.” | limitations[6] |
| limitation | and two of the five classes were never tested: `We did not evaluate the outcome classes of RIFLE (loss and end-stage kidney disease criteria) in this study`. The acronym has five letters; the validation covers three — “We did not evaluate the outcome classes of RIFLE (loss and end-stage kidney disease criteria) in this study.” | limitations[7] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | — “Yet there is no consensus on the amount of dysfunction that defines acute kidney injury, with more than 30 definitions in use in the literature today [ 3 ]. The variety of definitions used in clinical studies may be partly responsible for the large variations in the reported incidence (1–31%) [ 4 - 6 ] and the associated mortality (19–83%) [ 3 , 6 - 9 ] of acute kidney injury.” | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | — “Until recently there has not been a consensus on how best to assess kidney function; namely, what markers best reflect kidney function, and what values of those markers discriminate normal from abnormal kidney function.” | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | — “RIFLE class R would appear to be aptly named. More than one-half of the patients of class R progressed to more severe RIFLE classes, yet those that did not were not at increased risk of hospital mortality. Future studies could target this population for prevention. RIFLE class I may also have been fortuitously named, for this is the stage at which risk for hospital mortality increases even after controlling for covariates.” | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | — “Patients with maximum RIFLE class F based on glomerular filtration rate criteria had a somewhat higher inhospital mortality compared with patients who had a maximum RIFLE class F on urine output criteria (27.9% versus 21.9%, P = 0.020).” | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | — “First, we did not attempt to compare RIFLE with other classification systems; nor did we compare urine output and creatinine criteria, but rather used the criteria as proposed by the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative workgroup, as the worst classification by each criterion. It is possible that urine output and creatinine criteria provide complementary information, which is lost when these criteria are combined.” | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | — “For patients without chronic kidney insufficiency as reported in the medical history, we calculated a serum creatinine level using the MDRD equation [ 16 ] (Cr MDRD ) as recommended by the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative, by solving the MDRD equation for serum creatinine assuming a glomerular filtration rate of 75 ml/minute/1.73 m 2 . We then used the lowest creatinine value among the hospital admission creatinine, the ICU admission creatinine or the Cr MDRD creatinine as the baseline value. Approximately one-half of patients were classified using the Cr MDRD as a baseline.” | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | — “The Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative recommended the use of a baseline serum creatinine, yet a true baseline is often unknown for patients admitted to the ICU. Several possible baseline values existed for our patients (hospital admission, ICU admission, or a calculated baseline from the MDRD equation). Our use of the lowest of these values for any given patient may have lead to a higher estimate of change and therefore a higher estimate of the incidence of acute kidney injury.” | content_tags.findings[6] |
| finding | — “Indeed, our assessment of time to progression of acute kidney injury may have been artificially lengthened due to daily measurement of creatinine – some patients appeared to skip class R or class I because of this limitation.” | content_tags.findings[7] |
| finding | — “Patients who appear to skip a grade (class risk or class injury) do so because they did not remain at a transition state for at least 24 hours.” | content_tags.findings[8] |
| finding | — “The incidence of almost 70% may appear at odds with the existing literature [ 5 ]. Even when limiting cases to those with RIFLE class F (28%) we found a higher rate for ICU patients than typically reported. Fourteen percent of class F patients received renal replacement therapy, however, leading to a rate of 4–5% among ICU patients, consistent with previous reports [ 9 , 19 ]. Indeed, our study highlights the potential for under-reporting when renal replacement therapy is used to 'define' acute kidney injury.” | content_tags.findings[9] |
| finding | — “We also acknowledge that some members of our research group have contributed to the consensus process by which RIFLE was developed and by which MDRD recommendations were made.” | content_tags.findings[10] |
| finding | — “We did not evaluate the outcome classes of RIFLE (loss and end-stage kidney disease criteria) in this study.” | content_tags.findings[11] |
| quantity | 30 definitions — competing definitions of acute kidney injury in use in the literature at the time of writing - the count the classification exists to replace — “Yet there is no consensus on the amount of dysfunction that defines acute kidney injury, with more than 30 definitions in use in the literature today [ 3 ]. The variety of definitions used in clinical studies may be partly responsible for the large variations in the reported incidence (1–31%) [ 4 - 6 ] and the associated mortality (19–83%) [ 3 , 6 - 9 ] of acute kidney injury.” | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 1-31 % — the range of reported INCIDENCE of acute kidney injury across those definitions — “Yet there is no consensus on the amount of dysfunction that defines acute kidney injury, with more than 30 definitions in use in the literature today [ 3 ]. The variety of definitions used in clinical studies may be partly responsible for the large variations in the reported incidence (1–31%) [ 4 - 6 ] and the associated mortality (19–83%) [ 3 , 6 - 9 ] of acute kidney injury.” | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | 19-83 % — the range of reported MORTALITY across those definitions — “Yet there is no consensus on the amount of dysfunction that defines acute kidney injury, with more than 30 definitions in use in the literature today [ 3 ]. The variety of definitions used in clinical studies may be partly responsible for the large variations in the reported incidence (1–31%) [ 4 - 6 ] and the associated mortality (19–83%) [ 3 , 6 - 9 ] of acute kidney injury.” | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 75 ml/minute/1.73 m2 — the glomerular filtration rate ASSUMED when solving the MDRD equation backwards to manufacture a baseline creatinine - used for about half the cohort — “For patients without chronic kidney insufficiency as reported in the medical history, we calculated a serum creatinine level using the MDRD equation [ 16 ] (Cr MDRD ) as recommended by the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative, by solving the MDRD equation for serum creatinine assuming a glomerular filtration rate of 75 ml/minute/1.73 m 2 . We then used the lowest creatinine value among the hospital admission creatinine, the ICU admission creatinine or the Cr MDRD creatinine as the baseline value. Approximately one-half of patients were classified using the Cr MDRD as a baseline.” | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 24 hours — the minimum time a patient must remain in a transition state for that class to be recorded - the clause that makes patients appear to skip a grade — “Patients who appear to skip a grade (class risk or class injury) do so because they did not remain at a transition state for at least 24 hours.” | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| quantity | 0.5 mg/dl — the abrupt rise that alone achieves class Failure when the baseline creatinine is already elevated above 4 mg/dl — “When the baseline serum creatinine is elevated, an abrupt rise of at least 0.5 mg/dl to more than 4 mg/dl is all that is required to achieve class Failure.” | content_tags.quantities[5] |
| variable | baseline serum creatinine — “The Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative recommended the use of a baseline serum creatinine, yet a true baseline is often unknown for patients admitted to the ICU. Several possible baseline values existed for our patients (hospital admission, ICU admission, or a calculated baseline from the MDRD equation). Our use of the lowest of these values for any given patient may have lead to a higher estimate of change and therefore a higher estimate of the incidence of acute kidney injury.” | content_tags.variables[0] |
| variable | urine output criteria — “The RIFLE class was determined based on the worst of either glomerular filtration rate criteria or urine output criteria.” | content_tags.variables[1] |
| definition | acute kidney injury — “Yet there is no consensus on the amount of dysfunction that defines acute kidney injury, with more than 30 definitions in use in the literature today [ 3 ]. The variety of definitions used in clinical studies may be partly responsible for the large variations in the reported incidence (1–31%) [ 4 - 6 ] and the associated mortality (19–83%) [ 3 , 6 - 9 ] of acute kidney injury.” | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | RIFLE classification — “To establish a uniform definition for acute kidney injury, the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative formulated the Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-stage Kidney (RIFLE) classification [ 11 ]. RIFLE defines three grades of increasing severity of acute kidney injury – risk (class R), injury (class I) and failure (class F) – and two outcome classes (loss and end-stage kidney disease)” | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | Glomerular filtration criteria — “RIFLE class is determined based on the worst of either glomerular filtration criteria or urine output criteria. Glomerular filtration criteria are calculated as an increase of serum creatinine above the baseline serum creatinine level. Acute kidney injury should be both abrupt (within 1–7 days) and sustained (more than 24 hours).” | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | class Failure — “When the baseline serum creatinine is elevated, an abrupt rise of at least 0.5 mg/dl to more than 4 mg/dl is all that is required to achieve class Failure.” | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| concept | acute kidney injury — not defined in this paper's own words; the disease entity that had more than 30 competing definitions before RIFLE — “Yet there is no consensus on the amount of dysfunction that defines acute kidney injury, with more than 30 definitions in use in the literature today [ 3 ]. The variety of definitions used in clinical studies may be partly responsible for the large variations in the reported incidence (1–31%) [ 4 - 6 ] and the associated mortality (19–83%) [ 3 , 6 - 9 ] of acute kidney injury.” | concepts[0] |
| concept | RIFLE classification — not defined in this paper's own words; the consensus staging system: three severity grades and two outcome classes — “The RIFLE classification is a very sensitive definition of acute kidney injury: acute kidney injury defined by the RIFLE classification occurred in two thirds of general ICU patients.” | concepts[1] |
| concept | glomerular filtration rate criteria — not defined in this paper's own words; one of the two arms of a RIFLE class - a ratio rise in serum creatinine from baseline — “Patients with maximum RIFLE class F based on glomerular filtration rate criteria had a somewhat higher inhospital mortality compared with patients who had a maximum RIFLE class F on urine output criteria (27.9% versus 21.9%, P = 0.020).” | concepts[2] |
| concept | urine output criteria — not defined in this paper's own words; the other arm - millilitres per kilogram per hour sustained for a stated number of hours — “The RIFLE class was determined based on the worst of either glomerular filtration rate criteria or urine output criteria.” | concepts[3] |
| concept | Glomerular filtration criteria — not defined in this paper's own words; the same arm as stated in the classification table's own note, where its calculation rule is given — “RIFLE class is determined based on the worst of either glomerular filtration criteria or urine output criteria. Glomerular filtration criteria are calculated as an increase of serum creatinine above the baseline serum creatinine level. Acute kidney injury should be both abrupt (within 1–7 days) and sustained (more than 24 hours).” | concepts[4] |
| concept | baseline serum creatinine level — not defined in this paper's own words; the reference value the ratio rule is computed against, and the value that is usually unknown — “RIFLE class is determined based on the worst of either glomerular filtration criteria or urine output criteria. Glomerular filtration criteria are calculated as an increase of serum creatinine above the baseline serum creatinine level. Acute kidney injury should be both abrupt (within 1–7 days) and sustained (more than 24 hours).” | concepts[5] |
| concept | MDRD equation — not defined in this paper's own words; the equation solved backwards to manufacture a baseline creatinine when none exists — “For patients without chronic kidney insufficiency as reported in the medical history, we calculated a serum creatinine level using the MDRD equation [ 16 ] (Cr MDRD ) as recommended by the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative, by solving the MDRD equation for serum creatinine assuming a glomerular filtration rate of 75 ml/minute/1.73 m 2 . We then used the lowest creatinine value among the hospital admission creatinine, the ICU admission creatinine or the Cr MDRD creatinine as the baseline value. Approximately one-half of patients were classified using the Cr MDRD as a baseline.” | concepts[6] |
| 27.9% versus 21.9%, P = 0.020 | — “Patients with maximum RIFLE class F based on glomerular filtration rate criteria had a somewhat higher inhospital mortality compared with patients who had a maximum RIFLE class F on urine output criteria (27.9% versus 21.9%, P = 0.020).” | content_tags.statistics[0] |
Full text — tagged
The reference list is not part of the text we hold for this paper. Our copy was extracted from the publisher's page and the bibliography did not survive that extraction, so the article below ends before its references. Nothing has been removed by us.
9 ccforum Critical Care Crit Care BMC PMC1550961 1550961 1550961 16696865 10.1186/cc4915 RIFLE criteria for acute kidney injuryterm are associated with hospital mortality in critically ill patients: a cohort analysis HostepersName Eric AJ 1 2 ClermontpersName Gilles 1 KerstenpersName Alexander 1 VenkataramanpersName Ramesh 1 AnguspersName Derek C 1 De BacquerpersName Dirk 3 KellumpersName John A 1 ✉ 1 The Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness (CRISMA) Laboratory, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA 2 Intensive Care Unit, Ghent University Hospital, Gent, Belgium 3 Department of Public Health, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium ✉ Corresponding author.
12 5 2006 10 3 R73 R73 22 8 2006 Copyright © 2006 HostepersName et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Introduction The lack of a standard definition for acute kidney injuryterm has resulted in a large variation in the reported incidence and associated mortality. RIFLE, a newly developed international consensus classification for acute kidney injuryterm, defines three grades of severity – risk (class R), injury (class I) and failure (class F) – but has not yet been evaluated in a clinical series.
Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study, in seven intensive care units in a single tertiary care academic center, on 5,383 patients admitted during a one year period (1 July 2000–30 June 2001).
Results Acute kidney injuryterm occurred in 67% of intensive care unit admissions, with maximum RIFLE class R, class I and class F in 12%, 27% and 28%, respectively. Of the 1,510 patients (28%) that reached a level of risk, 840 (56%) progressed. Patients with maximum RIFLE class R, class I and class F had hospital mortality rates of 8.8%, 11.4% and 26.3%, respectively, compared with 5.5% for patients without acute kidney injuryterm. Additionally, acute kidney injuryterm (hazard ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.28–2.13; P < 0.001) and maximum RIFLE class I (hazard ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.02–1.88; P = 0.037) and class F (hazard ratio, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 2.03–3.55; P < 0.001) were associated with hospital mortality after adjusting for multiple covariates.
Conclusion In this general intensive care unit population, acute kidney 'risk, injury, failure', as defined by the newly developed RIFLE classificationterm, is associated with increased hospital mortality and resource use. Patients with RIFLE class R are indeed at high risk of progression to class I or class F. Patients with RIFLE class I or class F incur a significantly increased length of stay and an increased risk of inhospital mortality compared with those who do not progress past class R or those who never develop acute kidney injuryterm, even after adjusting for baseline severity of illness, case mix, race, gender and age.
status released display-pdf yes is-olf no is-manuscript no is-preprint no is-journal-matter no is-scanned no is-retracted no Received 2006 Mar 10; Revision requested 2006 Mar 27; Revised 2006 Apr 1; Accepted 2006 Apr 10; Issue date 2006.
Introduction Acute kidney injuryterm is well recognized for its impact on the outcome of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Illness severity scores such as the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation version III (APACHE III) scoring system [ 1 ] and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (SOFA) [ 2 ] both weight kidney dysfunction heavily (20% and 16.6% of the total scores for acute physiology). Yet there is no consensus on the amount of dysfunction that defines acute kidney injuryterm, with more than 30 definitions in use in the literature today [ 3 ]. The variety of definitions used in clinical studies may be partly responsible for the large variations in the reported incidence (1–31%) [ 4 - 6 ] and the associated mortality (19–83%) [ 3 , 6 - 9 ] of acute kidney injuryterm. Indeed, the lack of a uniform definition for acute kidney injuryterm is believed to be a major impediment to research in the field [ 10 ]. Acute kidney injuryterm is generally defined as 'an abrupt and sustained decrease in kidney function'. Until recently there has not been a consensus on how best to assess kidney function; namely, what markers best reflect kidney function, and what values of those markers discriminate normal from abnormal kidney function.
To establish a uniform definition for acute kidney injuryterm, the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative formulated the Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-stage Kidney (RIFLE) classification [ 11 ]. RIFLE defines three grades of increasing severity of acute kidney injuryterm – risk (class R), injury (class I) and failure (class F) – and two outcome classes (loss and end-stage kidney disease) (see Table 1 ). A unique feature of the RIFLE classificationterm is that it provides three grades of severity for acute kidney injuryterm based on changes in either serum creatinine or urine output from the baseline condition. This allows classification of patients with acute kidney injuryterm into one of the three RIFLE severity classes (Table 1 ).
Table 1 Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-stage Kidney (RIFLE) classification Class Glomerular filtration rate criteriaterm Urine output criteriaterm Risk Serum creatinine × 1.5 < 0.5 ml/kg/hour × 6 hours Injury Serum creatinine × 2 < 0.5 ml/kg/hour × 12 hours Failure Serum creatinine × 3, or serum creatinine ≥ 4 mg/dl with an acute rise > 0.5 mg/dl < 0.3 ml/kg/hour × 24 hours, or anuria × 12 hours Loss Persistent acute renal failure = complete loss of kidney function > 4 weeks End-stage kidney disease End-stage kidney disease > 3 months For conversion of creatinine expressed in conventional units to SI units, multiply by 88.4. RIFLE class is determined based on the worst of either glomerular filtration criteriaterm or urine output criteriaterm. Glomerular filtration criteriaterm are calculated as an increase of serum creatinine above the baseline serum creatinine levelterm. Acute kidney injuryterm should be both abrupt (within 1–7 days) and sustained (more than 24 hours). When the baseline serum creatinineterm·var is not known and patients are without a history of chronic kidney insufficiency, it is recommend to calculate a baseline serum creatinineterm·var using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation for assessment of kidney function, assuming a glomerular filtration rate of 75 ml/min/1.73 m 2 . When the baseline serum creatinineterm·var is elevated, an abrupt rise of at least 0.5 mg/dl to more than 4 mg/dl is all that is required to achieve class Failureterm·def.
RIFLE represents a new classification system issued from a process of formal evidence appraisal and expert opinion [ 11 , 12 ]. Three studies were recently published that used the RIFLE classificationterm to evaluate the occurrence rate and/or outcome of acute kidney injuryterm in two relatively small cohorts (207 ICU patients treated with renal replacement therapy and 183 ICU patients with acute kidney injuryterm) and one larger cohort (813 patients after cardiac surgery) [ 13 - 15 ]. The clinical characteristics and predictive ability of this classification have not, however, been clinically validated in a large general ICU population. The aims of this study were therefore to characterize acute kidney injuryterm defined by the maximum RIFLE classificationterm, to examine the progression between stages of the classification, and to relate this classification to the length of stay and mortality in a large cohort of critically ill patients.
Patients and methods Study population We constructed a retrospective cohort of all adult hospitalizations during a 12 month period (1 July 2000–30 June 2001) at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center that were admitted to one of its seven ICUs during their hospital stay. We excluded patients receiving chronic hemodialysis ( n = 146) from the study cohort, and we only considered the first admission for patients who were readmitted to the ICU during the study period ( n = 327). The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is a tertiary care academic medical center with seven ICUs and more than 120 ICU beds serving medical, surgical, neurological, trauma and solid organ transplant patients.
Data collection The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Data from different sources were merged by a non-investigator data manager (such as, an honest broker) and were stripped of all identifying information to preserve patient anonymity and to comply with local and federal regulations. Demographic data were retrieved from the electronic hospital database, laboratory data were retrieved from the laboratory database, and patient data were retrieved from the electronic hospital records. After merging data from the different sources, we performed automated and manual data verification. The patient data included demographic, administrative, physiologic, laboratory and hospital outcome information. Ethnicity, reported as white, black or other, was reported by the admitting nurse, and was used to calculate the glomerular filtration rate assessed by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation [ 16 ]. High-density (every two hours) physiologic data were only available while patients were in the ICU, while other data sources covered the entire hospitalization. Urine output was recorded at least once every two hours, and serum creatinine was measured at least once daily.
RIFLE criteria We classified patients according to the maximum RIFLE class (class R, class I or class F) reached during their hospital stay. The RIFLE class was determined based on the worst of either glomerular filtration rate criteriaterm or urine output criteriaterm. We used the change in serum creatinine level and urine output to classify patients according to the RIFLE criteria.
Patients who met any of the criteria of the RIFLE classificationterm were classified as acute kidney injuryterm patients. For patients without chronic kidney insufficiency as reported in the medical history, we calculated a serum creatinine level using the MDRD equationterm [ 16 ] (Cr MDRD ) as recommended by the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative, by solving the MDRD equationterm for serum creatinine assuming a glomerular filtration rate of 75 ml/minute/1.73 m 2 . We then used the lowest creatinine value among the hospital admission creatinine, the ICU admission creatinine or the Cr MDRD creatinine as the baseline value. Approximately one-half of patients were classified using the Cr MDRD as a baseline. None of these values differed by very much, however (mean difference between creatinine on admission and Cr MDRD = 0; interquartile range -0.3 to 0.3), and our results are not qualitatively different regardless of which baseline is used. For patients with a history of kidney insufficiency (but not on chronic dialysis) we used their hospital admission creatinine as their baseline. We did not evaluate the outcome classes of RIFLE (loss and end-stage kidney disease criteria) in this study.
Severity of illness The APACHE III [ 1 ] and the SOFA [ 2 ] scores were calculated based on the worst variables recorded during the first 24 hours of ICU admission. The nonrenal total SOFA score was calculated from the total SOFA score minus the points for kidney insufficiency. In addition, we calculated the SOFA score and the nonrenal SOFA score on basis of the worst variables recorded during the 24 hours preceding the maximum RIFLE class.
Statistical analysis The central tendency for continuous data is expressed as the mean ± standard deviation or the median (interquartile range). We tested continuous variables for normality by distribution plots. We compared means using the Student's t test when normally distributed, and the Mann-Whitney U test when not. Comparisons across multiple groups were performed using the F test, with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons [ 17 ]. When data were not normally distributed, we used the Kruskal-Wallis H analysis of variance test; significant changes over the observation period were tested with the Mann-Whitney U test.
We performed univariate and multivariable logistic regression to assess the impact of different baseline characteristics found to be significantly different over the four groups, on the occurrence of acute kidney injuryterm and on maximum RIFLE class F. In the multivariable model, all covariates were entered simultaneously (enter method). We analyzed for collinearity by assessing correlation between covariates. For continuous variables we analyzed the relationship between the outcome and the variable with locally weighted scatterplot smoothing in order to assess whether categorization was necessary. Finally, the goodness of fit of the model was tested by means of the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic.
We analyzed hospital survival across groups using the chi-square and the Kaplan-Meier methods, and we tested differences between groups using the log-rank test. Patients alive at hospital discharge were censored. We performed a Cox proportional hazards regression analysis to examine whether the maximum RIFLE class and the incidence of acute kidney injuryterm (defined as patients who fulfilled one of the RIFLE classes) were associated with mortality.
To correct for differences in patient characteristics, we included simultaneously age, gender, race, the main reason for ICU admission, the medical or surgical admission category, and the nonrenal SOFA score on ICU admission or at the maximum RIFLE class in the model (enter method). The nonrenal SOFA score was chosen as a covariate to control for multicollinearity between the RIFLE classificationterm and scoring systems that include points for kidney insufficiency such as the APACHE III and SOFA scores. Interactions between the 'main reason for admission' and the maximum RIFLE class were explored, and were found not to be significant.
We tested whether it was appropriate to treat continuous variables as continuous by a residuals plot. We tested the assumption of proportionality of hazards by plotting hazard rates against time for the four different categories, as well as by the numerical method proposed by Lin and colleagues [ 18 ] derived from cumulative sums of martingale residuals. We found no evidence of violating the proportional hazards assumption. Finally, we tested the qualitative goodness of fit of the model with residual plots. A double-sided P value less than 0.05 was considered significant. Analysis was performed with the statistical software package SPSS 11.0.1 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
Results Characteristics of patients with acute kidney injuryterm A total of 5,383 patients was evaluated. The baseline characteristics of the patient cohort are presented according to the maximum RIFLE class in Table 2 . The four groups differed in age, race, pre-existing chronic kidney insufficiency, admission type, severity of illness on admission and at the time of maximum RIFLE class, APACHE III score, SOFA score and the nonrenal SOFA score, and the proportion of patients already admitted inhospital to another non-ICU ward.
Table 2 Baseline characteristics of patients classified according to the maximum Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-stage Kidney (RIFLE) class No acute kidney injuryterm Risk Injury Failure n 1,766 (32.8%) 670 (12.4%) 1,436 (26.7%) 1,511 (28.1%) Sex (male) 988 (55.9%) 372 (55.5%) 841 (58.6%) 570 (57.0%) Age (years)* 56.6 (18.2) 63.4 (17.0) 62.6 (16.6) 62.1 (16.4) Race ( n = 5,101)** White 1,491 (89.5%) 587 (91.3%) 1,237 (90.7%) 1,255 (87.9%) Black 146 (8.8%) 45 (7.0%) 111 (8.1%) 156 (10.9%) Other 29 (1.7%) 11 (1.7%) 16 (1.2%) 17 (1.2%) Chronic kidney insufficiency* 17 (1.0%) 4 (0.6%) 17 (1.2%) 121 (8.0%) Admission type* ( n = 5,375) Medical 778 (44.2%) 277 (41.4%) 566 (39.4%) 545 (36.1%) Surgical 984 (55.8%) 392 (58.6%) 870 (60.6%) 963 (63.9%) Reason for admission according to organ system* ( n = 5,375) Cardiovascular disease 446 (25.3%) 236 (35.3%) 446 (31.1%) 513 (34.0%) Neurological disease 311 (17.7%) 109 (16.3%) 314 (21.9%) 327 (21.7%) Pulmonary disease/infection 226 (12.8%) 101 (15.1%) 232 (16.2%) 291 (19.3%) Trauma 317 (18.0%) 85 (12.7%) 203 (14.1%) 163 (10.8%) Malignancy 117 (6.6%) 34 (5.1%) 38 (2.6%) 35 (2.3%) Gastrointestinal disease 67 (3.8%) 22 (3.3%) 32 (2.2%) 26 (1.7%) Other 278 (15.8%) 82 (12.3%) 171 (11.9%) 153 (10.1%) APACHE III score* ( n = 3,400) 36 (26–47) 46 (35–57) 46 (36–58) 56 (41–73) SOFA score* 5.1 (3.3) 6.3 (4.0) 6.8 (4.1) 7.8 (4.5) SOFA nonrenal score* 4.5 (3.1) 5.3 (3.5) 5.6 (3.5) 5.9 (3.9) SOFA RIFLE max score* ( n = 4,994) 3.7 (3.2) 5.3 (3.8) 5.9 (3.8) 6.7 (4.3) SOFA nonrenal RIFLE max score* ( n = 4,994) 3.2 (2.8) 4.5 (3.5) 5.0 (3.4) 5.0 (3.7) Inhospital before ICU admission* 527 (29.8%) 243 (36.3%) 476 (33.1%) 592 (39.2%) Pre-ICU LOS* (days) 1 (1–4) 2 (1–4) 2 (1–5) 2 (1–6) Time to RIFLE max * (days) 2 (1–3) 2 (1–4) 2 (1–7) RIFLE class on glomerular filtration rate criteriaterm* 463 (69.1%) 929 (64.7%) 1,110 (73.5%) Continuous variables are presented as the mean (standard deviation) when normally distributed or as the median (interquartile interval) when not normally distributed. Categorical variables are presented as percentages. No acute kidney injuryterm is those patients without any occurrence of RIFLE criteria; APACHE III, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, version III; SOFA nonrenal , Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score without points for renal insufficiency, SOFA RIFLE max , Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score at the time of maximum RIFLE class; pre-ICU LOS, length of hospital stay before intensive care unit admission (only for patients who were in hospital before intensive care unit admission). * P < 0.001, ** P = 0.035.
Results of the regression analyses examining the impact of the different baseline characteristics on the appearance of acute kidney injuryterm and maximum RIFLE class F are presented in Table 3 . Increasing age, greater severity of illness (APACHE III, SOFA and nonrenal SOFA scores), pre-existing chronic kidney insufficiency and a preceding admission to a non-ICU ward in the hospital were associated with increased risk for occurrence of acute kidney injuryterm and maximum RIFLE class F. In addition, black patients had increased risk for development of maximum RIFLE class F. Medical admissions were less likely to result in acute kidney injuryterm or RIFLE class F compared with surgical admissions.
Table 3 Impact of baseline characteristics on the occurrence of acute kidney injuryterm (multivariate logistic regression analysis) Characteristic Covariates associated with occurrence of acute kidney injuryterm Covariates associated with occurrence of maximum RIFLE class failureterm·def Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) P Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) P Age (per year older) 1.02 (1.02–1.03) < 0.001 1.01 (1.00–1.01) 0.001 Race (reference white) 0.130 0.001 Black 1.20 (0.96–1.50) 0.111 1.50 (1.21–1.86) < 0.001 Other 0.73 (0.44–1.23) 0.237 0.78 (0.41–1.38) 0.397 Chronic kidney insufficiency 4.19 (2.48–7.10) < 0.001 8.86 (6.01–13.05) < 0.001 Medical admission (reference surgical) 0.79 (0.69–0.90) < 0.001 0.76 (0.66–0.87) < 0.001 Reason for admission according to organ system (reference cardiovascular disease) < 0.001 < 0.001 Trauma 0.64 (0.53–0.79) < 0.001 0.64 (0.52–0.80) < 0.001 Neurological disease 0.93 (0.78–1.13) 0.481 1.02 (0.85–1.2) 0.830 Pulmonary disease and infection 1.08 (0.88–1.32) 0.461 1.16 (0.96–1.40) 0.120 Gastrointestinal disease 0.51 (0.35–0.73) < 0.001 0.51 (0.32–0.66) 0.004 Malignancy 0.36 (0.27–0.49) < 0.001 0.45 (0.31–0.66) < 0.001 Other 0.57 (0.47–0.70) < 0.001 0.60 (0.48–0.74) < 0.001 SOFA nonrenal (per point greater) 1.19 (1.16–1.21) < 0.001 1.08 (1.06–1.10) < 0.001 In hospital before ICU admission 1.18 (1.03–1.36) 0.015 1.19 (1.04–1.36) 0.012 SOFA nonrenal , Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score without points for kidney insufficiency; ICU, intensive care unit. The odds ratios were calculated with logistic regression analysis. The goodness of fit of the multivariable regression model was tested by the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic: P = 0.080 for the model with acute kidney injuryterm as the endpoint, and P = 0.019 for the model with maximum Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-stage Kidney (RIFLE) class failureterm·def as the endpoint.
Progression of acute kidney injuryterm to maximum RIFLE class The progression of acute kidney injuryterm during the ICU stay to the maximum RIFLE class is shown in Figure 1 . On the first day of ICU admission, 1,182 patients (21.9%) already had acute kidney injuryterm, defined by the RIFLE criteria. During the entire ICU stay, 3,617 patients (67.2%) had an episode of acute kidney injuryterm defined by RIFLE criteria. One-half of the patients reached the maximum RIFLE class within 2 days after ICU admission (Table 2 ).
Figure 1 Flow chart of the clinical course of patients until the maximum RIFLE class. Data expressed as patient numbers who were identified at each level, and the percentage of the total number of patients. Patients who appear to skip a grade (class risk or class injury) do so because they did not remain at a transition state for at least 24 hours. 'Ever Risk' and 'Ever Failure' refers to the number of patients who could be identified at this stage. AKI, acute kidney injuryterm; ICU, intensive care unit; RIFLE, Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-stage Kidney Disease.
More than 50% of the patients with RIFLE class R progressed to RIFLE class I or class F, and more than one-third of the patients with RIFLE class I progressed to class F. The time to progress to class I was 1 (0.5–3.6) days and the time to progress to class F was 4 (1.4–9.5) days. Patients who progressed to a higher RIFLE class during the ICU stay were older compared to patients whose renal function did not deteriorate, (62.4 ± 16.6 years versus 58.5 ± 18.0 years, P < 0.001) and were already more severely ill on admission, as illustrated by the greater APACHE III score (47 (36–62) versus 41 (29–56), P < 0.001) and the greater nonrenal SOFA score (5.7 (3.6) versus 4.8 (3.4), P < 0.001).
Mortality, length of stay and renal replacement therapy Less than 1% of patients with maximum RIFLE class I and 14.2% of patients with maximum RIFLE class F received renal replacement therapy (Table 4 ). Increasing severity of acute kidney injuryterm was associated with an increasing length of ICU stay and hospital stay, and higher mortality (Table 5 and Figure 2 ). Patients with maximum RIFLE class R, class I and class F had hospital mortality rates of 8.8%, 11.4% and 26.3%, respectively, compared with 5.5% for patients without acute kidney injuryterm. Patients with maximum RIFLE class F based on glomerular filtration rate criteriaterm had a somewhat higher inhospital mortality compared with patients who had a maximum RIFLE class F on urine output criteriaterm (27.9% versus 21.9%, P = 0.020). The unadjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for hospital mortality for acute kidney injuryterm and RIFLE class R, class I and class F were, respectively, 2.1 (1.67–2.57, P < 0.001), 1.3 (0.91–1.93, P = 0.142), 1.9 (1.45–2.48, P < 0.001) and 3.4 (2.64–4.29, P < 0.001). After adjustment for covariates, acute kidney injuryterm was still associated with an almost twofold increased hazard for hospital mortality (Table 5 , panel A). Maximum RIFLE class I and class F were both associated with mortality in the covariate-adjusted Cox regression model (Table 5 , panel B). These results were unchanged when the nonrenal SOFA at the time of maximum RIFLE class was substituted for the nonrenal SOFA at ICU admission.
Table 4 Outcomes for all patients and for patients classified according to the maximum Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-stage Kidney (RIFLE) class No acute kidney injuryterm ( n = 1,766) Risk ( n = 670) Injury ( n = 1,436) Failure ( n = 1,511) All injury ( n = 5,383) Renal replacement therapy* 1 (0.1%) 0 (0%) 4 (0.3%) 214 (14.2%) 219 (4.1%) Hospital LOS after reaching maximum RIFLE class (days)* 5 (3–10) 5 (3–10) 7 (4–14) 11 (5–23) 7 (3–14) ICU LOS (days)* 3 (2–4) 3 (2–6) 5 (3–10) 9 (4–21) 4 (2–9) Hospital LOS (days)* 6 (4–10) 8 (5–14) 10 (6–19) 16 (9–31) 9 (5–19) Hospital mortality* 97 (5.5%) 59 (8.8%) 163 (11.4%) 398 (26.3%) 717 (13.3%) Continuous variables presented as the median (interquartile interval) and categorical variables presented as the percentage. LOS, length of stay; ICU, intensive care unit. * P = 0.001 between the four subgroups no acute kidney injuryterm, RIFLE class risk, RIFLE class injury and RIFLE class failureterm·def.
Table 5 Association of Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-stage Kidney (RIFLE) criteria with mortality Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) P Panel A: association of AKI, defined by meeting any RIFLE criteria, with mortality AKI (reference no AKI) 1.7 (1.28–2.13) < 0.001 SOFA nonrenal score (per point) 1.1 (1.10–1.15) < 0.001 Age (per 10 years) 1.1 (1.07–1.18) < 0.001 Sex (female) 0.9 (0.78–1.07) 0.252 Race (reference white) 0.528 Black 1.1 (0.88–1.45) 0.324 Other 0.8 (0.41–1.68) 0.608 Medical admission (reference surgical admission) 2.9 (2.44–3.40) < 0.001 Main reason for admission (reference cardiovascular disease) < 0.001 Trauma 0.9 (0.66–1.09) 0.196 Neurological disease 1.3 (1.03–1.52) 0.026 Pulmonary disease, infection 0.8 (0.65–1.03) 0.087 Gastrointestinal disease 0.5 (0.21–1.25) 0.140 Malignancy 0.2 (0.04–0.63) 0.009 Other 0.4 (0.22–0.62) < 0.001 Panel B: association of maximum RIFLE class with mortality RIFLE max (reference no AKI) < 0.001 Risk 1.0 (0.68–1.56) 0.896 Injury 1.4 (1.02–1.88) 0.037 Failure 2.7 (2.03–3.55) < 0.001 SOFA nonrenal score (per point) 1.1 (1.10–1.14) < 0.001 Age (per 10 years) 1.1 (1.08–1.20) < 0.001 Sex (female) 0.9 (0.76–1.06) 0.190 Race (reference white) 0.673 Black 1.1 (0.87–1.45) 0.389 Other 0.9 (0.44–1.97) 0.844 Medical admission (reference surgical admission) 2.7 (2.27–3.21) < 0.001 Main reason for admission (reference cardiovascular disease) < 0.001 Trauma 0.9 (0.69–1.18) 0.463 Neurological disease 1.3 (1.06–1.60) 0.011 Pulmonary disease, infection 0.8 (0.66–1.07) 0.154 Gastrointestinal disease 0.6 (0.24–1.41) 0.230 Malignancy 0.2 (0.04–0.69) 0.013 Other 0.3 (0.20–0.60 < 0.001 Covariate-adjusted Cox proportional hazard regression analysis. AKI, acute kidney injuryterm, patients meeting at least one of the RIFLE criteria; RIFLE max , maximum RIFLE class; SOFA nonrenal , Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score without points for kidney failure, determined on data from the first 24 hours of admission.
Figure 2 Kaplan-Meier curves for survival (inhospital) by maximum RIFLE class. Patients discharged alive were censored. Log-rank statistic, P < 0.001. AKI, acute kidney injuryterm; RIFLE max , maximum Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-stage Kidney Disease (RIFLE) class during the intensive care unit stay (days).
Discussion We found that acute kidney injuryterm, defined by the RIFLE classificationterm, had a high incidence (67.2%) and was associated with an increased risk for hospital mortality compared with those who never developed acute kidney injuryterm. The incidence of almost 70% may appear at odds with the existing literature [ 5 ]. Even when limiting cases to those with RIFLE class F (28%) we found a higher rate for ICU patients than typically reported. Fourteen percent of class F patients received renal replacement therapy, however, leading to a rate of 4–5% among ICU patients, consistent with previous reports [ 9 , 19 ]. Indeed, our study highlights the potential for under-reporting when renal replacement therapy is used to 'define' acute kidney injuryterm. Importantly, even milder degrees of kidney dysfunction, RIFLE class R or class I, were still associated with excess mortality compared with patients who maintained normal function. RIFLE provided a well-balanced classification system for determination of patients with different severity of acute kidney injuryterm, at least as far as risk of mortality or need for renal replacement therapy is concerned.
Not surprisingly, the occurrence of acute kidney injuryterm and maximum RIFLE class F were associated with increased baseline severity of illness and older age (Tables 2 and 3 ). Patients developing acute kidney injuryterm were slightly older and had higher APACHE III and SOFA scores, even when kidney dysfunction was not counted. However, the severity within acute kidney injuryterm was not so affected by these factors. Patients progressing to RIFLE class I and class F were no older and their nonrenal SOFA scores no greater than patients remaining in RIFLE class R. Although, Herget-Rosenthal and colleagues have also described the progression of acute kidney injuryterm in a selected cohort of 85 ICU patients [ 20 ], this is to our knowledge the first time that the progression of acute kidney injuryterm has been examined in a large dataset of general ICU patients.
RIFLE class R would appear to be aptly named. More than one-half of the patients of class R progressed to more severe RIFLE classes, yet those that did not were not at increased risk of hospital mortality. Future studies could target this population for prevention. RIFLE class I may also have been fortuitously named, for this is the stage at which risk for hospital mortality increases even after controlling for covariates. It was commonly held until fairly recently that patients die 'with, and not of, acute renal failure'. Medication (for example, erythropoietin and diuretics) and renal replacement therapy were thought to 'replace' the loss of kidney function. It has already been demonstrated in critically ill patients that severe acute renal failure, defined as the need for renal replacement therapy or oliguria, is independently associated with mortality [ 4 , 5 , 19 , 21 ]. In addition, in a cardiothoracic surgery population and in a cohort of hospitalized patients, both with a lower baseline mortality compared with general ICU patients, small changes in serum creatinine were associated with a worse outcome [ 22 , 23 ]. In the present study we confirm the association of acute kidney injuryterm with increased hospital mortality in a general ICU population. This is a remarkable finding considering how common this condition appears to be – 55% of all patients had RIFLE class I or class F. Furthermore, there was increasing mortality risk over RIFLE classes, despite the fact that these ICU patients had similar comorbidity, as reflected by the nonrenal SOFA score.
The finding that moderate degrees of kidney dysfunction pose a significant risk of death is particularly notable given that we know very little of why this should be. Acute kidney injuryterm may simply be colinear with unmeasured elements of comorbidity, or it may be causally related to the increased mortality. Future studies should consider exploring whether alternative management of patients with mild degrees of kidney dysfunction could change the outcome. If the problem is actually the kidney, then possible mechanisms underlying the excess mortality associated with acute kidney injuryterm are likely to be found in the pathophysiologic changes resulting from kidney insufficiency and adverse effects of renal replacement therapy [ 24 , 25 ]. Salt and water retention resulting in volume overload, hyperkalemia and acid-base derangements [ 26 ], perhaps leading to decreased blood pressure, cardiac output, hepatic and renal blood flow [ 27 ], to insulin resistance and protein breakdown, and even to alterations in innate immunity [ 28 ], all may contribute to the excess mortality in this group of patients. Furthermore, patients with acute kidney injuryterm have a high incidence of infectious complications [ 29 - 31 ] and frequently develop anemia. Finally, acute kidney injuryterm itself can lead to a non-infectious, proinflammatory response with activation of leukocytes, secretion of proinflammatory cytokines and recruitment of neutrophils and macrophages with resultant lung injury, as has been demonstrated in animal models of ischemia-reperfusion-induced acute renal failure [ 32 , 33 ]. All these changes may occur prior to, or even in, patients never receiving renal replacement therapy. These same mechanisms, however, may explain why patients who are treated with a lower dose of renal replacement therapy have a worse survival [ 34 - 36 ].
Our study has certain limitations. First, we did not attempt to compare RIFLE with other classification systems; nor did we compare urine output and creatinine criteria, but rather used the criteria as proposed by the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative workgroup, as the worst classification by each criterion. It is possible that urine output and creatinine criteria provide complementary information, which is lost when these criteria are combined.
The Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative recommended the use of a baseline serum creatinineterm·var, yet a true baseline is often unknown for patients admitted to the ICU. Several possible baseline values existed for our patients (hospital admission, ICU admission, or a calculated baseline from the MDRD equationterm). Our use of the lowest of these values for any given patient may have lead to a higher estimate of change and therefore a higher estimate of the incidence of acute kidney injuryterm. Although the MDRD equationterm was developed and validated on a large number of patients, conflicting results have been published regarding the validation of this equation in different patient populations. We acknowledge that this equation is only a substitute for the actual glomerular filtration rate, but validation of this equation or developing an alternative for the MDRD-derived baseline creatinine was beyond the scope of this study.
We also acknowledge that some members of our research group have contributed to the consensus process by which RIFLE was developed and by which MDRD recommendations were made. In addition, patient follow-up in our study was limited to hospital discharge information.
Some patients may have died shortly after hospital discharge. As shown in Figure 2 , the curves continue to separate, particularly for those in the class F group. Longer follow-up would also be required to examine the RIFLE endpoints 'loss' and 'end-stage disease'. Early renal replacement therapy may theoretically influence the criteria, and patients that would have reached class F could be classified in our study as class R or class I. Only four class I patients were treated with renal replacement therapy, however, and reclassification of these patients to class F does not influence our results.
Although our study is relatively large and included seven ICUs, it was conducted at a single medical center whose case mix and referral patterns may not be representative of other centers. The case mix of this study cohort could have hindered the detection of specific conditions that influence the development of acute kidney injuryterm. Finally, our retrospective study design, using existing medical records, limited our ability to look outside the ICU and to collect information on potential mechanisms of injury. Our design also prohibited the use of more sophisticated measures of kidney function. Indeed, our assessment of time to progression of acute kidney injuryterm may have been artificially lengthened due to daily measurement of creatinine – some patients appeared to skip class R or class I because of this limitation.
Conclusion In this general ICU population, acute kidney 'risk, injury, failure' as defined by the newly developed RIFLE classificationterm is associated with increased hospital mortality and resource use. Patients with RIFLE class R are indeed at high risk of progression to class I or class F. Patients with RIFLE class I or class F incur a significantly increased length of stay and an increased risk of inhospital mortality compared with those who do not progress past class R or those who never develop acute kidney injuryterm, even after adjusting for baseline severity of illness, case mix, race, gender and age.
Key messages • The RIFLE classificationterm is a very sensitive definition of acute kidney injuryterm: acute kidney injuryterm defined by the RIFLE classificationterm occurred in two thirds of general ICU patients.
• RIFLE classes injury and failure are independently associated with increased risk for in-hospital dead.
• Patients who meet the very sensitive RIFLE "risk" criteria, are at significant risk for progression to injury or failure, and therefore in-hospital dead.
Abbreviations APACHE III = Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, version III; class F = failure, according to the RIFLE classificationterm; class I = injury, according to the RIFLE classificationterm; class R = risk, according to the RIFLE classificationterm; Cr MDRD = serum creatinine based upon the MDRD equationterm; ICU = intensive care unit; MDRD = Modification of Diet in Renal Disease; RIFLE = Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-stage Kidney; SOFA = Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score; SOFA nonrenal = SOFA score without points for renal insufficiency.
Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors' contributions EAJH designed the study, analyzed the raw data set, performed the statistical analysis and contributed to writing of the paper. GC set up the raw data set, helped to design the study and contributed to writing of the paper. AK helped analyze the raw data set and helped in the design of the study. RV and DCA helped to design the study and contributed to writing the paper. DDB helped with the statistical analysis. JAK designed the study, analyzed the data and contributed to writing the paper. All authors read, edited and ultimately approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgments Acknowledgements Part of this work has been presented in abstract form at the 24th International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, Brussels, Belgium, 2004. This study was conducted without external financial support.
Contributor Information Eric AJ HostepersName, Email: eric.hostepersName@ugent.be.
Gilles ClermontpersName, Email: Clermontg@ccm.upmc.edu.
Alexander KerstenpersName, Email: Spacemanspiff99de@mac.com.
Ramesh VenkataramanpersName, Email: venkataramr@ccm.upmc.edu.
Derek C AnguspersName, Email: angusdc@ccm.upmc.edu.
Dirk De BacquerpersName, Email: dirk.debacquer@ugent.be.
John A KellumpersName, Email: kellumja@ccm.upmc.edu.