Haematological, Biochemical, and Serological Differences Between Haemodialysis Patients with Acute Kidney Injury and Chronic Kidney Disease: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study

Le résumé fourni par la source

Objective: This study aimed to compare haematological, biochemical, and serological parameters in haemodialysis (HD) patients with Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) and Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) in order to identify distinctive laboratory patterns with potential clinical relevance. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 77 patients undergoing HD at a tertiary centre: 45 with AKI and 32 with CKD. Demographic characteristics and a broad panel of laboratory parameters encompassing haematological indices, inflammatory markers, liver and cholestatic enzymes, electrolyte and mineral metabolism, iron parameters, and serological markers were analysed. Group comparisons were performed using appropriate statistical tests. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses were conducted for Helicobacter pylori (HP) IgA and IgG. Results: Patients with AKI were significantly older than those with CKD (p=0.001), while sex distribution was similar. Compared with CKD patients, the AKI group demonstrated a laboratory profile characterised by higher inflammatory and tissue injury markers, including white blood cell count, neutrophils, C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, and D-dimer (all p<0.05). In contrast, CKD patients exhibited higher levels of creatinine, parathyroid hormone, ferritin, iron indices, and alkaline phosphatase, consistent with chronic kidney disease–related metabolic alterations (all p<0.05). No significant differences were observed in HP IgA or IgG levels, and ROC analyses showed no discriminative value for distinguishing AKI from CKD. Conclusion: HD patients with AKI and CKD exhibit distinct multisystem laboratory patterns reflecting acute inflammatory activity versus chronic metabolic adaptation. Recognising these differences may improve contextual interpretation of laboratory findings and support more individualised clinical decision-making in the HD setting.

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