Manu L N G Malbrain, Krista Tantakoun, Anthony T Zara, Nicole C Ferko, Timothy Kelly, Wojciech Dabrowski
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Urine output is an early and strong predictor of acute kidney injury and associated mortality: a systematic literature review of 50 clinical studies.
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.
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.