increases the risk of progressive chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int 2009;76:893–899.
19Riley S, Diro E, Batchelor P, Abebe A, Amsalu A, Tadesse Y, Williams J, Phillips AO: Renal impairment among acute hospital admissions in a rural Ethiopian hospital. Nephrology (Carlton) 2013;18:92–96.
20Bagshaw SM, Goldstein SL, Ronco C, Kellum JA: Acute kidney injury in the era of big data: the 15(th) consensus conference of the acute dialysis quality initiative (ADQI). Can J Kidney Health Dis 2016;3:5.
21National Clinical Guideline Centre (UK): Acute Kidney Injury: Prevention, Detection and Management up to the Point of Renal Replacement Therapy. London, Royal College of Physicians (UK), 2013.
22Rizo-Topete LM, Rosner MH, Ronco C: Acute kidney injury risk assessment and the nephrology rapid response team. Blood Purif 2017;43:82–88.
23Jiang W, Teng J, Xu J, Shen B, Wang Y, Fang Y, Zou Z, Jin J, Zhuang Y, Liu L, Luo Z, Wang C, Ding X: Dynamic predictive scores for cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury. J Am Heart Assoc 2016;5:pii:e003754.
24Palomba H, de Castro I, Neto AL, Lage S, Yu L: Acute kidney injury prediction following elective cardiac surgery: AKICS score. Kidney Int 2007;72:624–631.
25Thakar CV, Arrigain S, Worley S, Yared JP, Paganini EP: A clinical score to predict acute renal failure after cardiac surgery. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005;16:162–168.
Xiaoqiang Ding or Jie Teng
Department of Nephrology, Zhongshan Hospital
180 Fenglin Road
200032 Shanghai (China)
E-Mail [email protected] or [email protected]
Ding X, Rosner MH, Ronco C (eds): Acute Kidney Injury – Basic Research and Clinical Practice. Contrib Nephrol. Basel, Karger, 2018, vol 193, pp 21–34 (DOI: 10.1159/000484960)
______________________
Acute Kidney Injury Biomarkers: What Do They Tell Us?
Rishabh Singha, b · Joanna Dodkinsa, c · James F. Doylec, d · Lui G. Fornia, c, e
aRoyal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, Surrey, bMinimal Access Therapy Training Unit, Post Graduate Medical School, University of Surrey, Manor Park, Guildford, Surrey, cDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine and Surrey Peri-Operative Anaesthesia and Critical Care Collaborative Research Group, Guildford, Surrey, dDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, and eDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
______________________
Abstract
The definition of acute kidney injury (AKI) is now well established and encompasses changes in both the urine output and the serum creatinine (SCr) over time. Many studies to date have concentrated solely on the SCr criteria, as this is relatively easy to monitor, given that accurate urine output is rarely measured outside critical care areas. However, many studies have emphasised the inadequacies of SCr in highlighting potential renal injury in a timely fashion. These limitations reflect not only acute changes in creatinine metabolism in the critically ill but also the kinetics of creatinine generation that may hinder early recognition of AKI. In turn, this may prevent judicious intervention promoting the misconception that little can be done for patients with this devastating condition except treating the consequences. Such observations have led to much research focused on identifying early indicators of AKI that may enable early treatment and hopefully lead to improved outcomes. This explains in part the reasoning behind the interest in biomarkers of AKI and which may see them develop a role as part of established clinical tool(s) in both the assessment of severity of AKI and the potential to assess recovery. However, much of the effort behind biomarker research has focused on the ability of such candidate molecules to predict AKI as defined by the imperfect gold standards used currently. It may be that the presence of renal biomarkers associated with renal stress or injury in isolation dictates poor outcomes and as such may provide diagnostic certainty in their own right.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
Introduction
The introduction of more robust definitions of acute renal failure including the Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, End-stage kidney disease criteria and, more recently, the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria have revolutionized the field of critical care nephrology [1–3]. The introduction of the concept of acute kidney injury (AKI) has enabled identification and classification of critically ill patients with AKI who previously may have been labeled as having acute renal failure or whose renal function may have been dismissed as a relatively benign consequence of the underlying pathological process [4, 5]. The success of this approach is borne by the explosion of new data describing this syndrome and the consequences thereof [1, 6]. This has proved particularly enlightening with regard to the long-term complications of this syndrome [7–9]. The main drivers behind this “rebranding” of acute renal failure stemmed from the desire to introduce robust criteria to enable research questions to be answered coupled with the realization that even relatively small changes in serum creatinine (SCr) translate into a significantly poorer outcome for patients [10]. However, the classification of AKI has not been without criticism [11–13]. This is driven, in part, by the use of the readily available classical measures of renal function (namely SCr and/or urine output) as the diagnostic criteria by which AKI is defined both of which are associated with significant inadequacies [14, 15].
SCr and Urine Output: The Problems
Both the urine output and the SCr have inherent flaws when applied to the acute situation. A fall in urine output may be either a normal physiological response to stressors or a pathological response to renal injury
