Sepsis-associated acute kidney injury in the intensive care unit: incidence, patient characteristics, timing, trajectory, treatment, and associated outcomes. A multicenter, observational study

Résumé fourni par la source

PURPOSE: The Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) Workgroup recently released a consensus definition of sepsis-associated acute kidney injury (SA-AKI), combining Sepsis-3 and Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) AKI criteria. This study aims to describe the epidemiology of SA-AKI. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study carried out in 12 intensive care units (ICUs) from 2015 to 2021. We studied the incidence, patient characteristics, timing, trajectory, treatment, and associated outcomes of SA-AKI based on the ADQI definition. RESULTS: Out of 84,528 admissions, 13,451 met the SA-AKI criteria with its incidence peaking at 18% in 2021. SA-AKI patients were typically admitted from home via the emergency department (ED) with a median time to SA-AKI diagnosis of 1 day (interquartile range (IQR) 1-1) from ICU admission. At diagnosis, most SA-AKI patients (54%) had a stage 1 AKI, mostly due to the low urinary output (UO) criterion only (65%). Compared to diagnosis by creatinine alone, or by both UO and creatinine criteria, patients diagnosed by UO alone had lower renal replacement therapy (RRT) requirements (2.8% vs 18% vs 50%; p < 0.001), which was consistent across all stages of AKI. SA-AKI hospital mortality was 18% and SA-AKI was independently associated with increased mortality. In SA-AKI, diagnosis by low UO only, compared to creatinine alone or to both UO and creatinine criteria, carried an odds ratio of 0.34 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-0.36) for mortality. CONCLUSION: SA-AKI occurs in 1 in 6 ICU patients, is diagnosed on day 1 and carries significant morbidity and mortality risk with patients mostly admitted from home via the ED. However, most SA-AKI is stage 1 and mostly due to low UO, which carries much lower risk than diagnosis by other criteria.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.