These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of RIFLE, AKIN, and KDIGO classifications for assessing prognosis of patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
    Author: Tsai TY, Chien H, Tsai FC, Pan HC, Yang HY, Lee SY, Hsu HH, Fang JT, Yang CW, Chen YC.
    Journal: J Formos Med Assoc; 2017 Nov; 116(11):844-851. PubMed ID: 28874330.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Acute kidney injury (AKI) developing during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is associated with very poor outcome. The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) group published a new AKI definition in 2012. This study analyzed the outcomes of patients treated with ECMO and identified the relationship between the prognosis and the KDIGO classification. METHODS: This study examined total 312 patients initially, and finally reviewed the medical records of 167 patients on ECMO support at a tertiary care university hospital between March 2002 and November 2011. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory variables were retrospectively collected as survival predicators. RESULTS: The overall mortality rate was 55.7%. In the analysis of the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves, the KDIGO classification showed relatively higher discriminatory power (0.840 ± 0.032) than the Risk of renal failure, Injury to the kidney, Failure of kidney function, Loss of kidney function, and End-stage renal failure (RIFLE) (0.826 ± 0.033) and Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) (0.836 ± 0.032) criteria in predicting in-hospital mortality. Furthermore, multiple logistic regression analysis showed that KDIGO, hemoglobin, and Glasgow Coma Scale score on the first day of patients on ECMO were independent predictors for in-hospital mortality. Finally, cumulative survival rates at 6-month follow-up after hospital discharge differed significantly for KDIGO stage 3 versus KDIGO stage 0, 1, and 2 (p < 0.001); and KDIGO stage 2 versus KDIGO stage 0 (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: For those patients with ECMO support, the KDIGO classification proved to be a more reproducible evaluation tool with excellent prognostic abilities than RIFLE or AKIN classification.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]