Urine output is an early and strong predictor of acute kidney injury and associated mortality: a systematic literature review of 50 clinical studies.

IF 5.7 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Annals of Intensive Care Pub Date : 2024-07-09 DOI:10.1186/s13613-024-01342-x
Manu L N G Malbrain, Krista Tantakoun, Anthony T Zara, Nicole C Ferko, Timothy Kelly, Wojciech Dabrowski
{"title":"Urine output is an early and strong predictor of acute kidney injury and associated mortality: a systematic literature review of 50 clinical studies.","authors":"Manu L N G Malbrain, Krista Tantakoun, Anthony T Zara, Nicole C Ferko, Timothy Kelly, Wojciech Dabrowski","doi":"10.1186/s13613-024-01342-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although the present diagnosis of acute kidney injury (AKI) involves measurement of acute increases in serum creatinine (SC) and reduced urine output (UO), measurement of UO is underutilized for diagnosis of AKI in clinical practice. The purpose of this investigation was to conduct a systematic literature review of published studies that evaluate both UO and SC in the detection of AKI to better understand incidence, healthcare resource use, and mortality in relation to these diagnostic measures and how these outcomes may vary by population subtype.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The systematic literature review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Data were extracted from comparative studies focused on the diagnostic accuracy of UO and SC, relevant clinical outcomes, and resource usage. Quality and validity were assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) single technology appraisal quality checklist for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for observational studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1729 publications were screened, with 50 studies eligible for inclusion. A majority of studies (76%) used the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria to classify AKI and focused on the comparison of UO alone versus SC alone, while few studies analyzed a diagnosis of AKI based on the presence of both UO and SC, or the presence of at least one of UO or SC indicators. Of the included studies, 33% analyzed patients treated for cardiovascular diseases and 30% analyzed patients treated in a general intensive care unit. The use of UO criteria was more often associated with increased incidence of AKI (36%), than was the application of SC criteria (21%), which was consistent across the subgroup analyses performed. Furthermore, the use of UO criteria was associated with an earlier diagnosis of AKI (2.4-46.0 h). Both diagnostic modalities accurately predicted risk of AKI-related mortality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Evidence suggests that the inclusion of UO criteria provides substantial diagnostic and prognostic value to the detection of AKI.</p>","PeriodicalId":7966,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Intensive Care","volume":"14 1","pages":"110"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11233478/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-024-01342-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Although the present diagnosis of acute kidney injury (AKI) involves measurement of acute increases in serum creatinine (SC) and reduced urine output (UO), measurement of UO is underutilized for diagnosis of AKI in clinical practice. The purpose of this investigation was to conduct a systematic literature review of published studies that evaluate both UO and SC in the detection of AKI to better understand incidence, healthcare resource use, and mortality in relation to these diagnostic measures and how these outcomes may vary by population subtype.

Methods: The systematic literature review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Data were extracted from comparative studies focused on the diagnostic accuracy of UO and SC, relevant clinical outcomes, and resource usage. Quality and validity were assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) single technology appraisal quality checklist for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for observational studies.

Results: A total of 1729 publications were screened, with 50 studies eligible for inclusion. A majority of studies (76%) used the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria to classify AKI and focused on the comparison of UO alone versus SC alone, while few studies analyzed a diagnosis of AKI based on the presence of both UO and SC, or the presence of at least one of UO or SC indicators. Of the included studies, 33% analyzed patients treated for cardiovascular diseases and 30% analyzed patients treated in a general intensive care unit. The use of UO criteria was more often associated with increased incidence of AKI (36%), than was the application of SC criteria (21%), which was consistent across the subgroup analyses performed. Furthermore, the use of UO criteria was associated with an earlier diagnosis of AKI (2.4-46.0 h). Both diagnostic modalities accurately predicted risk of AKI-related mortality.

Conclusions: Evidence suggests that the inclusion of UO criteria provides substantial diagnostic and prognostic value to the detection of AKI.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
尿量是急性肾损伤及相关死亡率的早期有力预测指标:对 50 项临床研究的系统性文献综述。
背景:尽管目前对急性肾损伤(AKI)的诊断包括测量血清肌酐(SC)的急性升高和尿量(UO)的减少,但在临床实践中,UO 的测量在诊断 AKI 中并未得到充分利用。本调查的目的是对已发表的评估尿量和血清肌酸酐检测 AKI 的研究进行系统性文献综述,以更好地了解与这些诊断措施相关的发病率、医疗资源使用和死亡率,以及这些结果在不同人群亚型中的差异:系统性文献综述按照系统性综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)清单进行。从比较研究中提取数据,重点关注 UO 和 SC 的诊断准确性、相关临床结果和资源使用情况。对随机对照试验采用美国国家健康与护理卓越研究所(NICE)的单一技术评估质量核对表,对观察性研究采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华质量评估量表,对质量和有效性进行评估:共筛选出 1729 篇出版物,其中 50 项研究符合纳入条件。大多数研究(76%)使用了肾脏疾病:改善全球预后》(KDIGO)标准对 AKI 进行分类,并侧重于单独 UO 与单独 SC 的比较,而很少有研究根据 UO 和 SC 的存在,或 UO 或 SC 指标中至少有一个指标的存在,对 AKI 诊断进行分析。在纳入的研究中,33%分析了接受心血管疾病治疗的患者,30%分析了在普通重症监护病房接受治疗的患者。使用 UO 标准(36%)比使用 SC 标准(21%)更容易导致 AKI 发生率增加,这在所进行的亚组分析中是一致的。此外,使用 UO 标准与更早诊断出 AKI(2.4-46.0 小时)有关。两种诊断方式都能准确预测与 AKI 相关的死亡风险:有证据表明,纳入 UO 标准对检测 AKI 具有重要的诊断和预后价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Intensive Care
Annals of Intensive Care CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
14.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
107
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Intensive Care is an online peer-reviewed journal that publishes high-quality review articles and original research papers in the field of intensive care medicine. It targets critical care providers including attending physicians, fellows, residents, nurses, and physiotherapists, who aim to enhance their knowledge and provide optimal care for their patients. The journal's articles are included in various prestigious databases such as CAS, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, OCLC, PubMed, PubMed Central, Science Citation Index Expanded, SCOPUS, and Summon by Serial Solutions.
期刊最新文献
Alteplase in COVID-19 severe hypoxemic respiratory failure: the TRISTARDS multicenter randomized trial. Angiopoietin-2 as a prognostic biomarker in septic adult patients: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Editorial: Severe bleeding events among critically ill patients with hematological malignancies. Changes in portal pulsatility index induced by a fluid challenge in patients with haemodynamic instability and systemic venous congestion: a prospective cohort study. Corticosteroid treatment in COVID-19 patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: benefit from rational use - authors' reply.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1