Wars, disasters and kidneys

This paper summarizes the impact that wars had on the history of nephrology, both worldwide and in the Ghent Medical Faculty notably on the definition, research and clinical aspects of acute kidney injury. The paper briefly describes the role of 'trench nephritis' as observed both during World War I and II, supporting the hypothesis that many of the clinical cases could have been due to Hantavirus nephropathy. The lessons learned from the experience with crush syndrome first observed in World War II and subsequently investigated over many decades form the basis for the creation of the Renal Disaster Relief Task Force of the International Society of Nephrology. Over the last 15 years, this Task Force has successfully intervened both in the prevention and management of crush syndrome in numerous disaster situations like major earthquakes

Diagnosis, evaluation, and management of acute kidney injury : a KDIGO summary (part 1)

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common and serious problem affecting millions and causing death and disability for many. In 2012, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes completed the first ever, international, multidisciplinary, clinical practice guideline for AKI. The guideline is based on evidence review and appraisal, and covers AKI definition, risk assessment, evaluation, prevention, and treatment. In this review we summarize key aspects of the guideline including definition and staging of AKI, as well as evaluation and nondialytic management. Contrast-induced AKI and management of renal replacement therapy will be addressed in a separate review. Treatment recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant trials. Appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Limitations of the evidence are discussed and a detailed rationale for each recommendation is provided

Contrast-induced acute kidney injury and renal support for acute kidney injury : a KDIGO summary (part 2)

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common and serious problem affecting millions and causing death and disability for many. In 2012, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes completed the first ever international multidisciplinary clinical practice guideline for AKI. The guideline is based on evidence review and appraisal, and covers AKI definition, risk assessment, evaluation, prevention, and treatment. Two topics, contrast-induced AKI and management of renal replacement therapy, deserve special attention because of the frequency in which they are encountered and the availability of evidence. Recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant trials. Appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Limitations of the evidence are discussed and a detailed rationale for each recommendation is provided. This review is an abridged version of the guideline and provides additional rationale and commentary for those recommendation statements that most directly impact the practice of critical care

Acute kidney injury in critically ill cancer patients : an update

Patients with cancer represent a growing group among actual ICU admissions (up to 20 %). Due to their increased susceptibility to infectious and noninfectious complications related to the underlying cancer itself or its treatment, these patients frequently develop acute kidney injury (AKI). A wide variety of definitions for AKI are still used in the cancer literature, despite existing guidelines on definitions and staging of AKI. Alternative diagnostic investigations such as Cystatin C and urinary biomarkers are discussed briefly. This review summarizes the literature between 2010 and 2015 on epidemiology and prognosis of AKI in this population. Overall, the causes of AKI in the setting of malignancy are similar to those in other clinical settings, including preexisting chronic kidney disease. In addition, nephrotoxicity induced by the anticancer treatments including the more recently introduced targeted therapies is increasingly observed. However, data are sometimes difficult to interpret because they are often presented from the oncological rather than from the nephrological point of view. Because the development of the acute tumor lysis syndrome is one of the major causes of AKI in patients with a high tumor burden or a high cell turnover, the diagnosis, risk factors, and preventive measures of the syndrome will be discussed. Finally, we will briefly discuss renal replacement therapy modalities and the emergence of chronic kidney disease in the growing subgroup of critically ill post-AKI survivors

Prognostic robustness of serum creatinine based AKI definitions in patients with sepsis: a prospective cohort study

Background: It is unclear how modifications in the way to calculate serum creatinine (sCr) increase and in the cut-off value applied, influences the prognostic value of Acute Kidney Injury (AKI). We wanted to evaluate whether these modifications alter the prognostic value of AKI for prediction of mortality at 3 months, 1 and 2 years. Methods: We prospectively included 195 septic patients and evaluated the prognostic value of AKI by using three different algorithms to calculate sCr increase: either as the difference between the highest value in the first 24 h after ICU admission and a pre-admission historical (Delta HIS) or an estimated (Delta EST) baseline value, or by subtracting the ICU admission value from the sCr value 24 h after ICU admission (Delta ADM). Different cut-off levels of sCr increase (0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 mg/dl) were evaluated. Results: Mortality at 3 months, 1 and 2 years in AKI defined as Delta ADM > 0.3 mg/dl was 48.1 %, 63.0 % and 63.0 % vs 27.7 %, 39.8 % and 47.6 % in no AKI respectively (OR(95%CI): 2.42(1.06-5.54), 2.58(1.11-5.97) and 1.87(0.81-4.33); 0.3 mg/dl was the lowest cut-off value that was discriminatory. When AKI was defined as Delta HIS > 0.3 mg/dl or Delta EST > 0.3 mg/dl, there was no significant difference in mortality between AKI and no AKI. Conclusions: The prognostic value of a 0.3 mg/dl increase in sCr, on mortality in sepsis, depends on how this sCr increase is calculated. Only if the evolution of serum creatinine over the first 24 h after ICU admission is taken into account, an association with mortality is found

When to start dialysis in patients with acute kidney injury? When semantics and logic become entangled with expectations and beliefs

Earlier initiation of dialysis may have a beneficial impact on survival of critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). A retrospective analysis in the previous issue of Critical Care showed that early initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT), as defined by RIFLE criteria, was not associated with a reduction in hospital mortality. The retrospective character of many studies describing the results of early RRT initiation and the validity of RIFLE criteria to determine the need for dialysis can be questioned, in particular when urinary output is not considered. Initiating dialysis in AKI should be based on clinical criteria and not on serum creatinine or another serum/urine-based biomarker

Dose of dialysis in the intensive care unit: is the venom in the dose or in the clinical experience?

Many studies on the most 'adequate' dose of renal replacement therapy (RRT) in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury have obtained contradictory results. The previous issue of Critical Care reports a multi-centre study showing that a higher than conventional dose of RRT, whether continuous RRT or intermittent RRT, is not associated with better survival of these patients. This commentary highlights some of the problems associated with the interpretation of this and previously published studies. These problems include the use of targets of Kt/V urea or the ultrafiltration rate in millilitres per kilogram body weight, the latter quite difficult to estimate in these patients, the divergent co-morbidities of the patients, and the local experience of intensivists or nephrologists with either continuous RRT or intermittent RRT. The last factor could explain why some single centre studies did find an impact of dialysis dose on the survival of these patients whereas multi-centre studies did not