Next Article in Journal
Inhibitory Effects of Intranasal Administration of Insulin on Fat Oxidation during Exercise Are Diminished in Young Overweight Individuals
Next Article in Special Issue
Safety Lapses Prior to Initiation of Hemodialysis for Acute Kidney Injury in Hospitalized Patients: A Patient Safety Initiative
Previous Article in Journal
Pioglitazone Reduces Dementia Risk in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Norepinephrine Administration Is Associated with Higher Mortality in Dialysis Requiring Acute Kidney Injury Patients with Septic Shock
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Acute Kidney Injury Definition and Diagnosis: A Narrative Review

Division of Nephrology and Renal Transplantation, Department of Medicine Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Norte, EPE, Av. Prof. Egas Moniz, 1649-035 Lisboa, Portugal
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2018, 7(10), 307;
Received: 5 September 2018 / Revised: 25 September 2018 / Accepted: 26 September 2018 / Published: 28 September 2018


Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a complex syndrome characterized by a decrease in renal function and associated with numerous etiologies and pathophysiological mechanisms. It is a common diagnosis in hospitalized patients, with increasing incidence in recent decades, and associated with poorer short- and long-term outcomes and increased health care costs. Considering its impact on patient prognosis, research has focused on methods to assess patients at risk of developing AKI and diagnose subclinical AKI, as well as prevention and treatment strategies, for which an understanding of the epidemiology of AKI is crucial. In this review, we discuss the evolving definition and classification of AKI, and novel diagnostic methods.

1. Introduction

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a complex syndrome characterized by a decrease in renal function, associated with numerous etiologies and pathophysiological mechanisms [1,2]. It is a common diagnosis in hospitalized patients, associated with poorer short- and long-term outcomes and increased health care costs [3].
The incidence of AKI has increased in recent years [2,3]. However, there is significant variability in the reported incidence of AKI, which is associated with the different characteristics of the populations studied, cause of AKI, and diagnostic criteria used [1,2,3,4]. Additionally, the lack of studies assessing AKI in community settings and comparing critically ill and non-critical patients hampers the characterization of the epidemiology of AKI [2,3,4].
The importance of recognizing AKI applies to pediatric and adult patients, as well as ambulatory, hospitalized, and critically ill patients in multiple clinical settings, due to its prognostic impact [4,5,6]. The incidence of AKI is lowest in ambulatory patients and higher in critically ill and patients which need dialysis [4,5,6,7,8]. In literature reviews, AKI is most commonly reported in surgical and critical settings, where patients are systematically monitored by assessing hourly urinary output and daily creatinine. Despite the lack of extensive data, this syndrome has undeniable importance also in internal medicine wards, where cardiorenal syndrome plays a substantial role [1,2,3,9]. Indeed, AKI occurs in up to 40% of acute decompensated heart failure hospitalizations, which differs according to the criteria used to define AKI [10]. This is known as cardiorenal syndrome type 1 and is an important prognostic factor [10]. Importantly, with the increase in patients with heart failure, the prevalence of this syndrome is also estimated to rise in the near future [9,10]. Mortality rates have declined in critically ill patients, although an increase has been reported in patients with dialysis-requiring AKI [5,6,7,8,9,10,11].
AKI is more common in older patients and those with predisposing factors, who present with a higher rate of comorbidities and higher probability of developing severe disease [12]. Sepsis is the leading cause of AKI in critically ill patients, accounting for 50% of cases [13,14]. Furthermore, the differences in patient characteristics, setting, pathophysiology, and outcomes distinguish septic AKI as a separate clinical entity from non-septic AKI [14]. Indeed, septic AKI patients are more likely to require mechanically assisted ventilation and vasoactive drugs, and have longer hospital stays, a higher likelihood of dialysis-requiring AKI, and higher in-hospital mortality rates. Moreover, they have an increased probability of renal function recovery [15,16].
Surgery is another important cause of AKI that accounts for up to 40% of in-hospital AKI cases [17,18]. The highest rates of AKI are found after cardiac (18.7%), general (13.2%), and thoracic (12.0%) surgeries, representing the impact of surgical settings on the incidence variability [19,20].
Recently, the Acute Disease Quality Initiative Workgroup proposed the term acute kidney disease (AKD) to reflect the continuing pathological processes and adverse events developing after AKI [20]. AKD is defined by presenting Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) stage 1 criteria for longer than 7 days after an AKI initiating event [20]. This definition includes the post-AKI period in which critical interventions potentially alter the progression of kidney disease, therefore recognizing a population at risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) development, cardiovascular events, and mortality [20].
Considering the impact of AKI on patient prognosis, research has focused on methods to assess patients at risk for developing AKI and diagnose subclinical AKI, as well as prevention and treatment strategies, for which it is crucial to have an understanding of the epidemiology of AKI. In this review, we discuss the evolving definition and classification of AKI, and its novel diagnostic methods.

2. Definitions and Classification

Over the last century, the definition of AKI has evolved significantly [21]. In fact, the diagnosis of AKI has changed from a clinical and biochemical level to a molecular level, with the most recent advances in tubular damage biomarkers increasing the accuracy of the diagnosis [21]. The use of standard classifications to define and stratify AKI has helped to increase the recognition of this disease in clinical practice and epidemiological research, which has led to defining the incidence of AKI in different settings and assessing its association with adverse outcomes [20,21]. This highlighted the importance of prevention, early diagnosis, and prompt treatment of AKI.

2.1. Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of Kidney Function, End-Stage Kidney Disease (RIFLE) Classification

The RIFLE classification was first published in 2004, resulting from the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) group conference, which aimed to determine a consensual AKI definition [22]. This classification defines AKI based on variations in serum creatinine (SCr) or estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and/or urine output (UO), and contemplates three severity levels (risk, injury, and failure) and two outcomes (loss of kidney function and end-stage kidney disease) in AKI [22]. The criteria to use are those that lead to the most negative classification, meaning the maximum RIFLE. The deterioration of renal function from baseline must occur within 7 days and persist for more than 24 h. When baseline SCr is unknown and there is no history of chronic kidney disease, the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation should be used to calculate the baseline SCr [23].
The RIFLE classification has been used for determining the incidence of AKI, stratifying AKI severity in multiple settings, and establishing the association between AKI severity and mortality [3,8,24,25]. Despite some limitations, this classification was vital in standardizing the criteria of AKI and confirming AKI severity as an outcome predictor [26].

2.2. Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) Classification

In 2007, the AKIN classification was proposed and published by the AKIN working group [27]. There was cumulative evidence demonstrating that small increases in SCr were associated with poor outcomes and that there was variation between hospitals regarding the start of renal replacement therapy, leading to the importance of revising the RIFLE classification [28,29,30].
The AKIN classification depends only on SCr and not on eGFR changes, and does not require baseline SCr, but needs at least two values of SCr obtained within a period of 48 h, thus defining AKI as an increase in SCr of at least 0.3 mg/dL or a percentage increase in SCr equal to or higher than 50%, or by a decrease in UO lower than 0.5 mL/kg/h for more than 6 h. The diagnosis of AKI is only to be considered after achieving an adequate hydration status and excluding urinary obstruction. This classification also excluded the two outcome classes [27].
Both the AKIN and RIFLE classifications led to the identification and stratification of AKI in hospitalized patients, which was independently associated with outcome [31,32,33,34]. The AKIN classification, despite improving diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, shows no evidence of better prognostic acuity [34,35,36,37,38,39].

2.3. Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Classification

Recently, the KDIGO work group has developed a classification by merging the RIFLE and AKIN classifications to provide simplified and integrated criteria that could be applied in clinical practice and research (Table 1) [40].
Accordingly, AKI is defined as an increase in SCr of at least 0.3 mg/dL within 48 h, or an increase in SCr to more than 1.5 times of baseline level, which is known or presumed to have occurred within the prior 7 days, or a UO decrease to less than 0.5 mL/kg/h for 6 h. AKI stratification according to KDIGO follows the stages of the AKIN criteria, except for a simplification of stage 3 [40].

2.4. RIFLE vs. AKIN vs. KDIGO

The KDIGO classification, theoretically, offers superior diagnostic and prognostic accuracy than the former classifications. Recent studies have conducted evaluations of these classifications to assess differences, advantages, and limitations in their incidence determination and prognostic ability in different settings (Table 2).
The Finnaki study demonstrated similar incidence in AKI defined by AKIN and KDIGO in a cohort of 2901 critically patients [41]. Roy et al. also found that the incidence of AKI was similar using the RIFLE, AKIN, and KDIGO criteria in a prospective study of 637 hospitalized patients with acute heart failure, although there were discrete differences in the predictive ability of the 30-day outcomes between RIFLE and KDIGO (area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.76 and 0.74, respectively) [42]. In a retrospective study of 1881 cardiac surgery patients, the RIFLE, AKIN, and KDIGO criteria reported a similar incidence of AKI, although AKIN performed significantly better than RIFLE (AUROC = 0.86 versus 0.78, p < 0.001) [43]. Another retrospective cohort study of 31970 hospitalizations reported similar AKI incidence and prognosis using RIFLE, AKIN, and KDIGO [44]. Levi et al. compared the classifications in a study of 190 critical care patients and reported similar incidences [45]. In a prospective study of 1045 hospitalized patients on internal medicine wards conducted by Neves et al., the incidence of AKI was also similar using AKIN and KDIGO criteria, but higher with the RIFLE classification due to the incidence of pre-renal AKI [46].
The KDIGO classification was superior to RIFLE in diagnosing AKI (36.6% versus 14.8%) and predicting early and late mortality (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for 30-day death of 3.51 by RIFLE and 3.99 by KDIGO; adjusted hazard ratio for 1-year mortality of 1.84 by RIFLE and 2.43 by KDIGO) in a cohort of 1050 patients with acute myocardial infarction [47].
The KDIGO criteria demonstrated a higher incidence of AKI than both RIFLE (51% versus 46.9%, p = 0.001) and AKIN (51% versus 38.4%, p < 0.001) criteria in a prospective cohort of 3107 critically ill patients [47]. Furthermore, evaluating in-hospital mortality, KDIGO was more predictive than RIFLE (p < 0.001), but not AKIN (p = 0.12) [48].
AKI was identified in more patients using the RIFLE and KDIGO criteria than AKIN (11% versus 4.8%) in a retrospective analysis of 49518 hospitalizations [49]. In this study, the KDIGO criteria had superior prognostic ability (AUROC: KDIGO 0.78, RIFLE 0.77, AKIN 0.69) [49]. Li et al. also demonstrated the superior performance of KDIGO in diagnosis and outcome prediction compared to RIFLE and AKIN in a retrospective study of 1005 patients with type 1 cardiorenal syndrome (AUROC: KDIGO 4.00, AKIN 2.68, RIFLE 2.56) [50].
We performed a single-center study of 457 critically ill septic patients and demonstrated that RIFLE and KDIGO criteria identified more AKI cases than did AKIN criteria (RIFLE 84.2% vs. KDIGO 87.5% vs. AKIN 72.8%, p < 0.001), although there were no differences in AKI incidence comparing RIFLE and KDIGO classifications, and the prediction of in-hospital mortality was similar between the three classifications [51]. Additionally, in this cohort of septic patients, AKI defined only by UO criteria was a better predictor of in-hospital mortality than was AKI defined either by SCr itself or by both SCr and UO (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 2.7 (95% CI 1.7–4.5), p < 0.001), demonstrating the diagnostic and prognostic importance of UO in patients with septic AKI [51].
In a cohort of 1376 critically ill patients by Koeze et al., the AKIN (15%) and KDIGO (14%) criteria identified more AKI patients than the RIFLE criteria (10%). Moreover, by adding UO criteria, patients were detected earlier than when using only SCr criteria (median time of detection using UO 13 h and SCr 24 h) [52].
The KDIGO classification was also superior to AKIN and RIFLE in predicting in-hospital mortality (AUROC: KDIGO 0.840, AKIN 0.836, RIFLE 0.826, p < 0.001) in a study of 167 patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support [53].
Wu et al. performed a retrospective analysis of 826 critically ill surgical patients and demonstrated that KDIGO was a better predictor of in-hospital mortality after surgery than AKIN (AUROC: KDIGO 0.678, AKIN 0.670, p <0.001) [54].
In a retrospective multi-center cohort of 1036 critically ill patients, the KDIGO criteria identified more AKI patients than RIFLE and AKIN (37.8%, 26.4%, and 34.1%, respectively) [55]. The KDIGO criteria was also a better predictor of mortality (AUROC: KDIGO 0.7013, AKIN 0.6934, RIFLE 0.7016, p < 0.001) [55]. Additionally, this study incorporated the Cystatin-C (Cys-C) criteria, which demonstrated good concordance with the RIFLE, AKIN, and KDIGO criteria, and had better predictive ability of mortality than the three definitions (AUROC 0.7023), validating Cys-C as an important biomarker of AKI [55,56].
In a prospective study of 242 critically ill cirrhotic patients, the incidence of AKI was higher with the KDIGO criteria (67%) than with AKIN (65%) or RIFLE (63%), and KDIGO was a better predictor of in-hospital mortality (AUROC: KDIGO 0.781, AKIN 0.741, RIFLE 0.744, p < 0.001) [57].
The KDIGO classification appears to perform better in diagnosis and prognosis determination than AKIN and RIFLE. Nonetheless, future prospective studies with larger populations are still required to better assess the sensitivity and prognostic performance of these definitions.

2.5. Limitations

Despite the importance of these classifications in defining the epidemiology of AKI, it is increasingly recognized that novel biomarkers have to be researched to improve the definition of AKI and its application in predicting outcomes.
The fact that these classifications rely on SCr, eGFR, and UO, which are insensitive and unspecific markers of AKI and do not account for its duration or cause, is a significant caveat [58]. The value of SCr is influenced by factors altering its production (age, gender, diet, muscle mass), elimination (previous renal dysfunction), secretion (medications) and, importantly, concentration according to fluid balance variations. Baseline SCr is frequently unknown and its assessment is complex, with several studies pointing to the use of minimum preadmission SCr or estimated SCr using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula. Furthermore, UO is difficult to assess without a urinary catheter and can be significantly altered by hypovolemic status and diuretics, and UO adjustment to actual versus ideal body weight affects AKI incidence reports [58,59,60,61,62,63,64].

2.6. Future Biomarkers

Recently, potential biomarkers of AKI have been identified. Ideally, novel biomarkers should be specific, identify the cause, identify patients at risk, provide an early diagnosis, stratify the severity of the injury, and predict outcomes.
With the enhanced understanding of the pathophysiology of AKI, novel biomarkers were identified, including proteins filtered by the glomerulus, enzymes released by tubular cells after injury, and inflammatory mediators [65]. These include Cys-C, neutrophil gelatinase associated lipocalin (NGAL), N-acetyl-glucosaminidase (NAG), kidney injury molecule 1 (KIM-1), interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-8 (IL-8), interleukin 18 (IL-18), liver-type fatty acid-binding protein (L-FABP), calprotectin, urine angiotensinogen (AGT), urine microRNAs, insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7 (IGFBP7), and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-2 (TIMP-2), which have been evaluated in multiple settings, primarily on critically ill and surgical patients [66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77].
NGAL was one of the primarily studied biomarkers, which has demonstrated significant prediction of AKI in critically ill, cardiac surgery, sepsis, trauma, and contrast nephropathy patients [65,66,72]. Most recently, the use of IGFBP7 and TIMP-2 has been promising in the critical care setting, demonstrating greater accuracy and stability than former biomarkers [77,78,79,80,81,82]. However, further studies in different clinical settings are still required.
Most of these biomarkers can be detected in both serum and urine, and have been significantly associated with early AKI prediction. The association of these novel biomarkers with the need for dialysis, renal recovery, progression to CKD, and mortality has also been reported, although further studies are still warranted [65,77].
With recent advances in the understanding of AKI pathogenesis, the role of intrarenal and systemic inflammation leading to multi-organ dysfunction has been emphasized [82,83]. A new marker of systemic inflammation has become available, the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), which has been identified as an AKI prediction tool in multiple settings, being a simple, effective, and low-cost marker [84,85,86].
Despite the current progress in the development of new biomarkers, important drawbacks have limited their widespread applicability in clinical practice. For instance, they have not been able to reliably distinguish pre-renal and renal AKI; moreover, several patient characteristics and comorbidities, such as age, gender, diabetes mellitus, and chronic inflammation, are associated with range variations that limit their validity. The increased cost associated with testing and the need for multiple assessments to increase accuracy limits the cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, evidence of improvement of outcomes associated with using these biomarkers is still lacking [65,77].
Indeed, AKI is a complex syndrome and perhaps the use of a panel of several biomarkers covering different phases of the syndrome could provide a better understanding of its etiology and pathophysiology, and identify targets for future treatments [87].
Additionally, the use of automated electronic alerts (e-alerts) has received much attention in the past few years [88,89]. These consist of algorithms configured from patients’ electronic medical records and clinical information to notify of early or imminent AKI, prompting an earlier clinical evaluation and application of prevention and treatment strategies, potentially improving clinical outcomes [89,90,91,92]. Indeed, a UK consensus conference has encouraged the use of these e-alerts for early detection of AKI [93]. Nevertheless, e-alerts are heterogeneous, do not include clear decision-making strategies, and have not been associated with decreased mortality or renal replacement technique (RRT) use [94]. Further development of these alerts is required to assess their impact on clinical outcomes and recommendation of use in clinical practice. We believe that it is essential to incorporate these scientific advances in daily clinical practice in the near future.

3. Conclusions

AKI is a complex syndrome with significant impact on patient outcomes; thus, its prevention, early detection, and prompt treatment are important to minimize the associated morbidity and mortality.
Research has led to an improvement in our understanding of AKI, raising our awareness of its incidence and prognostic impact. The KDIGO classification unified previous definitions and improved the recognition of AKI in clinical practice. The search for the perfect biomarker of AKI is still ongoing. Future studies should focus on early diagnostic measures, outcome predictors, and new treatments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.G. and J.A.L.; Methodology, J.G. and J.A.L.; Investigation, J.A.F.; Resources, S.J.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, J.G.; Writing-Review & Editing, S.J. and J.A.L.


This research received no external funding.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Hoste, E.A.J.; Kellum, J.A.; Selby, N.M.; Zarbock, A.; Palevsky, P.M.; Bagshaw, S.M.; Goldstein, S.L.; Cerdá, J.; Chawla, L.S. Global epidemiology and outcomes of acute kidney injury. Nat. Rev. Nephrol. 2018, 14, 607–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Susantitaphong, P.; Cruz, D.N.; Cerda, J.; Abulfaraj, M.; Alqahtani, F.; Koulouridis, I.; Jaber, B.L. Acute Kidney Injury Advisory Group of the American Society of Nephrology. World incidence of AKI: A meta-analysis. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2013, 8, 1482–1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Chertow, G.; Burdick, E.; Honour, M.; Bonventre, J.; Bates, D. Acute kidney injury, mortality, length of stay, and costs in hospitalized patients. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2005, 16, 3365–3370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lameire, N.; van Biesen, W.; Vanholder, R. The changing epidemiology of acute renal failure. Nat. Clin. Nephrol. 2006, 2, 364–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Bagshaw, S.M.; George, C.; Bellomo, R.; ANZICS Database Management Committee. Changes in the incidence and outcome for early acute kidney injury in a cohort of Australian intensive care units. Crit. Care 2007, 11, R68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Bellomo, R. The epidemiology of acute renal failure: 1975 versus 2005. Curr. Opin. Crit. Care. 2006, 12, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Feest, T.G.; Round, A.; Hamad, S. Incidence of severe acute renal failure in adults: Results of a community-based study. BMJ 1993, 306, 481–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Liano, F.; Pascual, J. Epidemiology of acute renal failure: A prospective, multicenter, community-based study. Kidney Int. 1996, 50, 811–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Amin, A.P.; Salisbury, A.C.; McCullough, P.A.; Gosch, K.; Spertus, J.A.; Venkitachalam, L.; Stolker, J.M.; Parikh, C.R.; Masoudi, F.A.; Jones, P.G.; et al. Trends in the incidence of acute kidney injury in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction. Arch. Intern. Med. 2012, 172, 246–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Ronco, C.; McCullough, P.; Anker, S.D.; Anand, I.; Aspromonte, N.; Bagshaw, S.M.; Bellomo, R.; Berl, T.; Bobek, I.; Cruz, D.N.; et al. Cardio-renal syndromes: Report from the consensus conference of the acute dialysis quality initiative. Eur. Heart J. 2010, 31, 703–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Hsu, R.K.; McCulloch, C.E.; Dudley, R.A.; Lo, L.J.; Hsu, C.Y. Temporal changes in incidence of dialysis-requiring AKI. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2013, 24, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Singbartl, K.; Kellum, J.A. AKI in the ICU: Definition, epidemiology, risk stratification, and outcomes. Kidney Int. 2012, 81, 819–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Uchino, U.S.; Kellum, J.A.; Bellomo, R.; Doig, G.S.; Morimatsu, H.; Morgera, S.; Schetz, M.; Tan, I.; Bouman, C.; Macedo, E.; et al. Acute renal failure in critically ill patients: A multinational, multicenter study. JAMA 2005, 294, 813–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bellomo, R.; Kellum, J.A.; Ronco, C.; Wald, R.; Martensson, J.; Maiden, M.; Bagshaw, S.M.; Glassford, N.J.; Lankadeva, Y.; Vaara, S.T.; et al. Acute kidney injury in sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2017, 43, 816–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Bagshaw, S.M.; George, C.; Bellomo, R.; ANZICS Database Management Committee. Early acute kidney injury and sepsis: A multicentre evaluation. Crit. Care 2008, 12, R47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Lopes, J.A.; Jorge, S.; Resina, C.; Santos, C.; Pereira, A.; Neves, J.; Antunes, F.; Prata, M.M. Acute kidney injury in patients with sepsis: A contemporary analysis. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2009, 13, 176–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Thakar, C.V. Perioperative acute kidney injury. Adv. Chronic Kidney Dis. 2013, 20, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Grams, M.E.; Sang, Y.; Coresh, J.; Ballew, S.; Matsushita, K.; Molnar, M.Z.; Szabo, Z.; Kalantar-Zadeh, K.; Kovesdy, C.P. Acute kidney injury after major surgery: A retrospective analysis of veteran’s health administration data. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2016, 67, 872–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Gameiro, J.; Fonseca, J.A.; Neves, M.; Jorge, S.; Lopes, J.A. Acute kidney injury in major abdominal surgery: Incidence, risk factors, pathogenesis and outcomes. Ann. Intensive Care 2018, 8, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Chawla, L.S.; Bellomo, R.; Bihorac, A.; Goldstein, S.L.; Siew, E.D.; Bagshaw, S.M.; Bittleman, D.; Cruz, D.; Endre, Z.; Fitzgerald, R.L.; et al. Acute kidney disease and renal recovery: Consensus report of the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) 16 workgroup. Nat. Rev. Nephrol. 2017, 13, 241–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Husain-Syed, F.; Ronco, C. The odyssey of risk stratification in acute kidney injury. Nat. Rev. Nephrol. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Bellomo, R.; Ronco, C.; Kellum, J.A.; Mehta, R.L.; Palevsky, P. Acute renal failure—Definition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information technology needs: The second international consensus conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) group. Crit. Care 2004, 8, R204–R212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  23. Manjunath, G.; Sarnak, M.J.; Levey, A.S. Prediction equations to estimate glomerular filtration rate: An update. Curr. Opin. Nephrol. Hypertens. 2001, 10, 785–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Brivet, F.G.; Kleinknecht, D.J.; Loirat, P.; Landais, P.J. Acute renal failure in intensive care units—Causes, outcome, and prognostic factors of hospital mortality: A prospective, multicenter study. Crit. Care Med. 1996, 24, 192–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Silvester, W.; Bellomo, R.; Cole, L. Epidemiology, management, and outcome of severe acute renal failure of critical illness in Australia. Crit. Care Med. 2001, 29, 1910–1915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Lopes, J.A.; Jorge, S. The RIFLE and AKIN classifications for acute kidney injury: A critical and comprehensive review. Clin. Kidney J. 2013, 6, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Mehta, R.L.; Kellum, J.A.; Shah, S.V.; Molitoris, B.A.; Ronco, C.; Warnock, D.G.; Levin, A. Acute Kidney Injury Network: Report of an initiative to improve outcomes in acute kidney injury. Crit. Care 2007, 11, R31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Uchino, S.; Bellomo, R.; Goldsmith, D.; Bates, S.; Ronco, C. An assessment of the RIFLE criteria for acute renal failure in hospitalized patients. Crit. Care Med. 2006, 34, 1913–1917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Hoste, E.A.; Clermont, G.; Kersten, A.; Venkataraman, R.; Angus, D.C.; De Bacquer, D.; Kellum, J.A. RIFLE criteria for acute kidney injury are associated with hospital mortality in critically ill patients: A cohort analysis. Crit. Care 2006, 10, R73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Lassnigg, A.; Schmidlin, D.; Mouhieddine, M.; Bachmann, L.M.; Druml, W.; Bauer, P.; Hiesmayr, M. Minimal changes of serum creatinine predict prognosis in patients after cardiothoracic surgery: A prospective cohort study. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2004, 15, 1597–1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Lopes, J.A.; Fernandes, P.; Jorge, S.; Gonçalves, S.; Alvarez, A.; Costae, S.Z.; França, C.; Prata, M.M. Acute kidney injury in intensive care unit patients: A comparison between the RIFLE and the Acute Kidney Injury Network classifications. Crit. Care 2008, 12, R110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Barrantes, F.; Feng, Y.; Ivanov, O.; Yalamanchili, H.B.; Patel, J.; Buenafe, X.; Cheng, V.; Dijeh, S.; Amoateng-Adjepong, Y.; Manthous, C.A. Acute kidney injury predicts outcomes of non-critically ill patients. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2009, 84, 410–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Barrantes, F.; Tian, J.; Vazquez, R.; Amoateng-Adjepong, Y.; Manthous, C.A. Acute kidney injury criteria predict outcomes of critically ill patients. Crit. Care Med. 2008, 36, 1397–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Bagshaw, S.M.; George, C.; Bellomo, R. A comparison of the RIFLE and AKIN criteria for acute kidney injury in critically ill patients. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2008, 23, 1569–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Lassnigg, A.; Schmid, E.R.; Hiesmayr, M.; Falk, C.; Druml, W.; Bauer, P.; Schmidlin, D. Impact of minimal increases in serum creatinine on outcome in patients after cardiothoracic surgery: Do we have to revise current definitions of acute renal failure? Crit. Care Med. 2008, 36, 1129–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Joannidis, M.; Metnitz, B.; Bauer, P.; Schusterschitz, N.; Moreno, R.; Druml, W.; Metnitz, P.G. Acute kidney injury in critically ill patients classified by AKIN versus RIFLE using the SAPS 3 database. Intensive Care Med. 2009, 35, 1692–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Ostermann, M.; Chang, R.W. Challenges of defining acute kidney injury. QJM 2011, 104, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Englberger, L.; Suri, R.M.; Li, Z.; Casey, E.T.; Daly, R.C.; Dearani, J.A.; Schaff, H.V. Clinical accuracy of RIFLE and Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) criteria for acute kidney injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Crit. Care 2011, 15, R16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Robert, A.M.; Kramer, R.S.; Dacey, L.J.; Charlesworth, D.C.; Leavitt, B.J.; Helm, R.E.; Hernandez, F.; Sardella, G.L.; Frumiento, C.; Likosky, D.S.; et al. Cardiac surgery associated acute kidney injury: A comparison of two consensus criteria. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2010, 90, 1939–1943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Khwaja, A. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury. Nephron Clin. Pract. 2012, 120, c179–c184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Nisula, S.; Kaukonen, K.M.; Vaara, S.T.; Korhonen, A.M.; Poukkanen, M.; Karlsson, S.; Haapio, M.; Inkinen, O.; Parviainen, I.; Suojaranta-Ylinen, R.; et al. Incidence, risk factors and 90-day mortality of patients with acute kidney injury in Finnish intensive care units: The FINNAKI study. Intensive Care Med. 2013, 39, 420–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Roy, A.K.; Mc Gorrian, C.; Treacy, C.; Kavanaugh, E.; Brennan, A.; Mahon, N.G.; Murray, P.T. A comparison of traditional and novel definitions (RIFLE, AKIN, and KDIGO) of acute kidney injury for the prediction of outcomes in acute decompensated heart failure. Cardiorenal Med. 2013, 3, 26–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Bastin, A.J.; Ostermann, M.; Slack, A.J.; Diller, G.P.; Finney, S.J.; Evans, T.W. Acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery according to risk/injury/failure/loss/end-stage, acute kidney injury network, and kidney disease: Improving global outcomes classifications. J. Crit. Care 2013, 28, 389–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Zeng, X.; McMahon, G.M.; Brunelli, S.M.; Bates, D.W.; Waikar, S.S. Incidence, outcomes, and comparisons across definitions of AKI in hospitalized individuals. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2014, 9, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Levi, T.M.; de Souza, S.P.; de Magalhães, J.G.; de Carvalho, M.S.; Cunha, A.L.; Dantas, J.G.; Cruz, M.G.; Guimarães, Y.L.; Cruz, C.M. Comparison of the RIFLE, AKIN and KDIGO criteria to predict mortality in critically ill patients. Rev. Bras. Ter. Intensiva 2013, 25, 290–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Neves, M.; Fidalgo, P.; Gonçalves, C.; Leitão, S.; Santos, R.M.; Carvalho, A.; Costa, J.M. Acute kidney injury in an internal medicine ward in a Portuguese quaternary hospital. Eur. J. Intern. Med. 2014, 25, 169–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Rodrigues, F.B.; Bruetto, R.G.; Torres, U.S.; Otaviano, A.P.; Zanetta, D.M.; Burdmann, E.A. Incidence and mortality of acute kidney injury after myocardial infarction: A comparison between KDIGO and RIFLE criteria. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e69998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Luo, X.; Jiang, L.; Du, B.; Wen, Y.; Wang, M.; Xi, X. A comparison of different diagnostic criteria in acute kidney injury in critically ill patients. Crit. Care 2014, 18, R144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Fujii, T.; Uchino, S.; Takinami, M.; Bellomo, R. Validation of the kidney disease improving global outcomes criteria for AKI and comparison of three criteria in hospitalized patients. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2014, 9, 848–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Li, Z.; Cai, L.; Liang, X.; Du, Z.; Chen, Y.; An, S.; Tan, N.; Xu, L.; Li, R.; Li, L.; et al. Identification and predicting short-term prognosis of early cardiorenal syndrome type 1: KDIGO is superior to RIFLE or AKIN. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e114369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Pereira, M.; Rodrigues, N.; Godinho, I.; Gameiro, J.; Neves, M.; Gouveia, J.; Costa, E.; Silva, Z.; Lopes, J.A. Acute kidney injury in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock: A comparison between the “Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of kidney function, End-stage kidney disease” (RIFLE), Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) and Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classifications. Clin. Kidney J. 2017, 10, 332–340. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  52. Koeze, J.; Keus, F.; Dieperink, W.; van der Horst, I.C.C.; Zijlstra, J.G.; van Meurs, M. Incidence, timing and outcome of AKI in critically ill patients varies with the definition used and the addition of urine output criteria. BMC Nephrol. 2017, 18, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Tsai, T.Y.; Chien, H.; Tsai, F.C.; Pan, H.C.; Yang, H.Y.; Lee, S.Y.; Hsu, H.H.; Fang, J.T.; Yang, C.W.; Chen, Y.C. Comparison of RIFLE, AKIN, and KDIGO classifications for assessing prognosis of patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J. Formos. Med. Assoc. 2017, 116, 844–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Wu, H.C.; Lee, L.C.; Wang, W.J. Incidence and mortality of postoperative acute kidney injury in non-dialysis patients: Comparison between the AKIN and KDIGO criteria. Ren. Fail. 2016, 38, 330–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Zhou, J.; Liu, Y.; Tang, Y.; Liu, F.; Zhang, L.; Zeng, X.; Feng, Y.; Tao, Y.; Yang, L.; Fu, P. A comparison of RIFLE, AKIN, KDIGO, and Cys-C criteria for the definition of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 2016, 48, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Zhang, Z.; Lu, B.; Sheng, X.; Jin, N. Cystatin C in prediction of acute kidney injury: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2011, 58, 356–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Pan, H.C.; Chien, Y.S.; Jenq, C.C.; Tsai, M.H.; Fan, P.C.; Chang, C.H. Acute kidney injury classification for critically Ill cirrhotic patients: A comparison of the KDIGO, AKIN, and RIFLE classifications. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 23022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Thomas, M.E.; Blaine, C.; Dawnay, A.; Devonald, M.A.; Ftouh, S.; Laing, C.; Latchem, S.; Lewington, A.; Milford, D.V.; Ostermann, M. The definition of acute kidney injury and its use in practice. Kidney Int. 2015, 87, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Thongprayoon, C.; Cheungpasitporn, W.; Kittanamongkolchai, W.; Srivali, N.; Ungprasert, P.; Kashani, K. Optimum methodology for estimating baseline serum creatinine for the acute kidney injury classification. Nephrology (Carlton) 2015, 20, 881–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Thongprayoon, C.; Cheungpasitporn, W.; Harrison, A.M.; Kittanamongkolchai, W.; Ungprasert, P.; Srivali, N.; Akhoundi, A.; Kashani, K.B. The comparison of the commonly used surrogates for baseline renal function in acute kidney injury diagnosis and staging. BMC Nephrol. 2016, 17, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Waikar, S.S.; Betensky, R.A.; Emerson, S.C.; Bonventre, J.V. Imperfect gold standards for kidney injury biomarker evaluation. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2012, 23, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Macedo, E.; Malhotra, R.; Claure-Del Granado, R.; Fedullo, P.; Mehta, R.L. Defining urine output criterion for acute kidney injury in critically ill patients. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2011, 26, 509–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Macedo, E.; Bouchard, J.; Soroko, S.H.; Chertow, G.M.; Himmelfarb, J.; Ikizler, T.A.; Paganini, E.P.; Mehta, R.L. Fluid accumulation, recognition and staging of acute kidney injury in critically-ill patients. Crit. Care 2010, 14, R82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Thongprayoon, C.; Cheungpasitporn, W.; Akhoundi, A.; Ahmed, A.H.; Kashani, K.B. Actual versus ideal body weight for acute kidney injury diagnosis and classification in critically ill patients. BMC Nephrol. 2014, 15, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Ostermann, M.; Philips, B.J.; Forni, L.G. Clinical review: Biomarkers of acute kidney injury: Where are we now? Crit. Care 2012, 16, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Schinstock, C.A.; Semret, M.H.; Wagner, S.J.; Borland, T.M.; Bryant, S.C.; Kashani, K.B.; Larson, T.S.; Lieske, J.C. Urinalysis is more specific and urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin is more sensitive for early detection of acute kidney injury. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2013, 28, 1175–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Han, W.K.; Bailly, V.; Abichandani, R.; Thadhani, R.; Bonventre, J.V. Kidney Injury Molecule-1 (KIM-1): A novel biomarker for human renal proximal tubule injury. Kidney Int. 2002, 62, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Parikh, C.R.; Mishra, J.; Thiessen-Philbrook, H.; Dursun, B.; Ma, Q.; Kelly, C.; Dent, C.; Devarajan, P.; Edelstein, C.L. Urinary IL-18 is an early predictive biomarker of acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery. Kidney Int. 2006, 70, 199–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  69. Di Somma, S.; Magrini, L.; De Berardinis, B.; Marino, R.; Ferri, E.; Moscatelli, P.; Ballarino, P.; Carpinteri, G.; Noto, P.; Gliozzo, B.; et al. Additive value of blood neutrophil gelatinase associated lipocalin to clinical judgement in acute kidney injury diagnosis and mortality prediction in patients hospitalized from the emergency department. Crit. Care 2013, 17, R29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Bennett, M.; Dent, C.L.; Ma, Q.; Dastrala, S.; Grenier, F.; Workman, R.; Syed, H.; Ali, S.; Barasch, J.; Devarajan, P. Urine NGAL predicts severity of acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery: A prospective study. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2008, 3, 665–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Hall, I.E.; Yarlagadda, S.G.; Coca, S.G.; Wang, Z.; Doshi, M.; Devarajan, P.; Han, W.K.; Marcus, R.J.; Parikh, C.R. IL-18 and urinary NGAL predict dialysis and graft recovery after kidney transplantation. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2010, 21, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Jia, H.M.; Huang, L.F.; Zheng, Y.; Li, W.X. Diagnostic value of urinary tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-2 and insulin-like growth factor binding protein 7 for acute kidney injury: A meta-analysis. Crit. Care 2017, 21, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Bargnoux, A.S.; Piéroni, L.; Cristol, J.P. Analytical study of a new turbidimetric assay for urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) determination. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2013, 51, e293–e296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Westhoff, J.H.; Tönshoff, B.; Waldherr, S.; Pöschl, J.; Teufel, U.; Westhoff, T.H.; Fichtner, A. Urinary tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-2 (TIMP-2) insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7 (IGFBP7) predicts adverse outcome in pediatric acute kidney injury. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0143628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Lima, C.; Macedo, E. Urinary biochemistry in the diagnosis of acute kidney injury. Dis. Markers 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Vanmassenhove, J.; Vanholder, R.; Nagler, E.; van Biesen, W. Urinary and serum biomarkers for the diagnosis of acute kidney injury: An in-depth review of the literature. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2013, 28, 254–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Kashani, K.; Cheungpasitporn, W.; Ronco, C. Biomarkers of acute kidney injury: The pathway from discovery to clinical adoption. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2017, 55, 1074–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Fan, W.; Ankawi, G.; Zhang, J.; Digvijay, K.; Giavarina, D.; Yin, Y.; Ronco, C. Current understanding and future directions in the application of TIMP-2 and IGFBP7 in AKI clinical practice. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Koyner, J.L.; Garg, A.X.; Coca, S.G.; Sint, K.; Thiessen-Philbrook, H.; Patel, U.D.; Shlipak, M.G.; Parikh, C.R. TRIBE-AKI Consortium. Biomarkers predict progression of acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2012, 16, 905–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Bell, M.; Granath, F.; Martensson, J.; Lofberg, E.; Ekbom, A.; Martling, C.R. Cystatin C is correlated with mortality in patients with and without acute kidney injury. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2009, 16, 3096–3102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Srisawat, N.; Murugan, R.; Lee, M.; Kong, L.; Carter, M.; Angus, D.C.; Kellum, J.A. Plasma neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin predicts recovery from acute kidney injury following community-acquired pneumonia. Kidney Int. 2011, 16, 545–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Rabb, H.; Griffin, M.D.; McKay, D.B.; Swaminathan, S.; Pickkers, P.; Rosner, M.H.; Kellum, J.A.; Ronco, C. Inflammation in AKI: Current understanding, key questions, and knowledge gaps. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2016, 27, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Gomez, H.; Ince, C.; De Backer, D.; Pickkers, P.; Payen, D.; Hotchkiss, J.; Kellum, J.A. A unified theory of sepsis-induced acute kidney injury: Inflammation, microcirculatory dysfunction, bioenergetics, and the tubular cell adaptation to injury. Shock 2014, 41, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Yilmaz, H.; Cakmak, M.; Inan, O.; Darcin, T.; Akcay, A. Can neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio be independent risk factor for predicting acute kidney injury in patients with severe sepsis? Ren. Fail. 2015, 37, 225–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Kim, W.H.; Park, J.Y.; Ok, S.H.; Shin, I.W.; Sohn, J.T. Association Between the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and acute kidney injury after cardiovascular surgery: A retrospective observational study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015, 94, e1867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Abu Alfeilat, M.; Slotki, I.; Shavit, L. Single emergency room measurement of neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio for early detection of acute kidney injury (AKI). Intern. Emerg. Med. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Marx, D.; Metzger, J.; Pejchinovski, M.; Gil, R.B.; Frantzi, M.; Latosinska, A.; Belczacka, I.; Heinzmann, S.S.; Husi, H.; Zoidakis, J.; et al. Proteomics and Metabolomics for AKI Diagnosis. Semin. Nephrol. 2018, 38, 63–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Hobson, C.E.; Darmon, M.; Mohan, S.; Hudson, D.; Goldstein, S.L.; Ronco, C.; Kellum, J.A.; Bagshaw, S.M. Applications for detection of acute kidney injury using electronic medical records and clinical information systems: Workgroup statements from the 15(th) ADQI Consensus Conference. Can. J. Kidney Health Dis. 2016, 3, 9. [Google Scholar]
  89. Selby, N.M.; Crowley, L.; Fluck, R.J.; McIntyre, C.W.; Monaghan, J.; Lawson, N.; Kolhe, N.V. Use of electronic results reporting to diagnose and monitor AKI in hospitalized patients. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2012, 7, 533–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Cheungpasitporn, W.; Kashani, K. Electronic data systems and acute kidney injury. Contrib. Nephrol. 2016, 187, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  91. Sutherland, S.M.; Goldstein, S.L.; Bagshaw, S.M. Leveraging big data and electronic health records to enhance novel approaches to acute kidney injury research and care. Blood Purif. 2017, 44, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Prendecki, M.; Blacker, E.; Sadeghi-Alavijeh, O.; Edwards, R.; Montgomery, H.; Gillis, S.; Harber, M. Improving outcomes in patients with acute kidney injury: The impact of hospital based automated AKI alerts. Postgrad. Med. J. 2016, 92, 9–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Feehally, J.; Gilmore, I.; Barasi, S.; Bosomworth, M.; Christie, B.; Davies, A.; Dhesi, J.; Dowdle, R.; Gibbins, C.; Gonzalez, I.; et al. Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh UK Consensus Conference on Management of acute kidney injury: The role of fluids, e-alerts and biomarkers. J. R. Coll. Physicians Edinb. 2013, 43, 37–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Lachance, P.; Villeneuve, P.M.; Rewa, O.G.; Wilson, F.P.; Selby, N.M.; Featherstone, R.M.; Bagshaw, S.M. Association between e-alert implementation for detection of acute kidney injury and outcomes: A systematic review. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2017, 32, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of kidney function, End-stage kidney disease (RIFLE) [22], Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) [27], and Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) [40] classifications.
Table 1. Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of kidney function, End-stage kidney disease (RIFLE) [22], Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) [27], and Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) [40] classifications.
Risk/1 *↑ SCr X 1.5 or ↓ GFR > 25%↑ SCr ≥ 26.5 μmol/L (≥0.3 mg/dL
or ↑ SCr ≥ 150 to 200%
(1.5 to 2X)
↑ SCr ≥ 26.5 μmol/L (≥0.3 mg/dL)
or ↑ SCr ≥ 150 to 200% (1.5 to 2X)
<0.5 mL/kg/h (>6 h)<0.5 mL/kg/h (>6 h)<0.5 mL/kg/h (>6 h)
Injury/2 *↑ SCr X 2 or ↓ GFR > 50%↑ SCr > 200 to 300% (>2 to 3X)↑ SCr > 200 to 300% (>2 to 3X)<0.5 mL/kg/h (>12 h)<0.5 mL/kg/h (>12 h)<0.5 mL/kg/h (>12 h)
Failure/3*↑ SCr X 3 or ↓ GFR >75%
or if baseline SCr ≥ 353.6 μmol/L (≥4 mg/dL)
↑ SCr > 44.2 μmol/L (>0.5 mg/dL)
↑ SCr >300% (>3X)
or if baseline SCr ≥ 353.6 μmol/L (≥4 mg/dL) ↑ SCr ≥ 44.2 μmol/L (≥0.5 mg/dL)
or initiation of renal replacement therapy
↑ SCr > 300% (>3X)
or ↑ SCr to ≥353.6 μmol/L (≥4 mg/dL)
or initiation of renal replacement therapy
<0.3 mL/kg/h (>24 h)
or anuria (>12 h)
<0.3 mL /kg/h (24 h)
or anuria (12 h)
<0.3 mL/kg/h (24 h)
or anuria (12 h)
or GFR < 35 mL/min/1.73 m2 in patients younger than 18 years
SCr: serum creatinine; GFR: glomerular filtration rate; UO: urine output; RIFLE: Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of kidney function (dialysis dependence for at least 4 weeks), End-stage kidney disease (dialysis dependence for at least 3 months); AKIN: Acute Kidney Injury Network; KDIGO: Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes. * Risk class (RIFLE) corresponds to stage 1 (AKIN and KDIGO), Injury class (RIFLE) corresponds to stage 2 (AKIN and KDIGO), and Failure class (RIFLE) corresponds to stage 3 (AKIN and KDIGO), ↑ increase, ↓ decrease.
Table 2. Incidence of AKI and patient outcomes according to AKI definitions.
Table 2. Incidence of AKI and patient outcomes according to AKI definitions.
StudyDesignSettingCriteriaAKI DefinitionNAKI IncidenceMortality
Nisula et al. (2013) [41]Prospective, multi-centreICUSCr, UOAKIN, KDIGO2901AKIN 39.3%
KDIGO 39.3%
AKIN 26%
Roy et al. (2013) [42]ProspectiveHospitalized, HFSCrRIFLE, AKIN, KDIGO637RIFLE 25.6%, AKIN 27.9%, KDIGO 36.7%RIFLE AUROC 0.76
p = 0.02
Bastin et al. (2013) [43]RetrospectiveCardiac surgerySCrRIFLE, AKIN, KDIGO1881RIFLE 24.9%, AKIN 25.9%, KDIGO 25.9%RIFLE AUROC 0.78, AKIN AUROC 0.86, p < 0.001
Zeng et al. (2014) [44]RetrospectiveHospitalizedSCrRIFLE, AKIN, KDIGO31,970RIFLE 16.1%, AKIN 16.6%, KDIGO 18.3%RIFLE OR 2.9, AKIN OR 2.6, KDIGO OR 2.8
Levi et al. (2013) [45]ProspectiveICUSCr, UORIFLE, AKIN, KDIGO190RIFLE 62.6%, AKIN 63.2%, KDIGO 63.2%RIFLE OR 0.56, AKIN OR 0.58, KDIGO OR 0.58
Rodrigues et al. (2013) [46]ProspectiveAMISCrRIFLE, KDIGO1050RIFLE 14.8%
KDIGO 36.6%
RIFLE HR 3.51 (early) 1.84 (late)
KDIGO HR 3.99 (early) 2.43 (late)
Luo et al. (2014) [47]ProspectiveICUSCr, UORIFLE, AKIN, KDIGO3107RIFLE 46.9%, AKIN 38.4%, KDIGO 51%
p = 0.001
KDIGO vs. RIFLE p = 0.12
KDIGO vs. AKIN p < 0.001
Fuji et al. (2014) [48]RetrospectiveHospitalizedSCrRIFLE, AKIN, KDIGO49,518RIFLE 11.0%, AKIN 4.8%, KDIGO 11.8%RIFLE AUROC 0.77
p = 0.02
Neves et al. (2014) [49]ProspectiveHospitalizedSCr, UORIFLE, AKIN, KDIGO1045RIFLE 6.2%, AKIN 5.5%, KDIGO 5.5%N/A
Li et al. (2014) [50]RetrospectiveHospitalizedSCrRIFLE, AKIN, KDIGO1005RIFLE 32.1%, AKIN 34.7%, KDIGO 38.9%RIFLE OR 2.56
AKIN OR 2.68
p < 0.05
Pereira et al. (2017) [51]RetrospectiveICU, SepsisSCr, UORIFLE, AKIN, KDIGO457RIFLE 84.2%, AKIN 72.8%, KDIGO 87.5%RIFLE AUROC 0.652
p < 0.001
Koeze et al. (2017) [52]RetrospectiveICUSCr, UORIFLE, AKIN, KDIGO1376RIFLE 28% (SCr) 35% (SCr + UO)
AKIN 12% (SCr) 38% (SCr + UO)
KDIGO 11% (SCr) 38% (SCr + UO)
RIFLE 84.2%, AKIN 72.8%, KDIGO 87.5%
Tsai et al. (2017) [53]RetrospectiveECMOSCr, UORIFLE, AKIN, KDIGO167RIFLE 75.4%, AKIN 84.4%, KDIGO 85%RIFLE AUROC 0.826
p < 0.001
Wu et al. (2016) [54]RetrospectiveICU, SurgicalSCr, UOAKIN, KDIGO826AKIN 31%
AKIN 21.8% (1), 20.2% (2), 27.8% (3)
KDIGO 16.9% (1), 17.5% (2), 34.1% (3)
Zhou et al. (2016) [55]RetrospectiveICUSCr, UO, Cys-CRIFLE, AKIN, KDIGO1036RIFLE 26.4%, AKIN 34.1%, KDIGO 37.8%,
Cys-C 36.1%
RIFLE 57.9%, AKIN 54.4%, KDIGO 51.8%,
Cys-C 52.1%
Pan et al. (2016) [56]RetrospectiveICU, CirrhosisSCr, UORIFLE, AKIN, KDIGO242RIFLE, AKIN, KDIGORIFLE AUROC 0.774
p < 0.001
ICU: Intensive care unit, SCr: Serum creatinine, UO: Urinary output, HF: Heart failure, AMI: acute myocardial infarction, Cys-C: Cystatin C, N/A not applicable, AUROC: area under the receiving operating characteristic curve, HR: hazard ratio, OR: odds ratio.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gameiro, J.; Agapito Fonseca, J.; Jorge, S.; Lopes, J.A. Acute Kidney Injury Definition and Diagnosis: A Narrative Review. J. Clin. Med. 2018, 7, 307.

AMA Style

Gameiro J, Agapito Fonseca J, Jorge S, Lopes JA. Acute Kidney Injury Definition and Diagnosis: A Narrative Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2018; 7(10):307.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gameiro, Joana, Jose Agapito Fonseca, Sofia Jorge, and Jose Antonio Lopes. 2018. "Acute Kidney Injury Definition and Diagnosis: A Narrative Review" Journal of Clinical Medicine 7, no. 10: 307.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop