4.4 Article

Fluid overload is an independent risk factor for acute kidney injury in critically III patients: results of a cohort study

Journal

BMC NEPHROLOGY
Volume 18, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12882-017-0460-6

Keywords

Acute kidney injury; Fluid overload; Renal congestion; Chloride-liberal fluids; Critical illness

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Acute Kidney injury (AKI) is common and increases mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU). We carried out this study to explore whether fluid overload is an independent risk factor for AKI. Methods: Single-center prospective, observational study. Consecutively admitted, ICU patients were followed for development of AKI. Intravenous fluid volumes, daily fluid balances were measured, hourly urine volumes, daily creatinine levels were recorded. Results: Three hundred thirty nine patients were included; AKI developed in 141 (41.6%) patients; RISK in 27 (8%) patients; INJURY in 25 (7%); FAILURE in 89 (26%) by the RIFLE criteria. Fluid balance was significantly higher in patients with AKI; 1755 +/- 2189 v/s 924 +/- 1846 ml, p < 0.001 on ICU day 1. On multivariate regression analysis, a net fluid balance in first 24 h of ICU admission, OR 1.02 (95% CI 1.01,1.03 p = 0.003), percentage of fluid accumulation adjusted for body weight OR1.009 (95% CI 1.001,1.017, p = 0.02), fluid balance in first 24 h of ICU admission with serum creatinine adjusted for fluid balance, OR 1.024 (95% CI 1.012,1,035, p = 0.005), Age, OR 1.02 95% CI 1.01,1.03, p < 0.001, CHF, OR 3.1 (95% CI 1.16,8.32, p = 0.023), vasopressor requirement on ICU day one, OR 1.9 (95% CI 1.13,3. 19, p = 0.014) and Colistin OR 2.3 (95% CI 1.3, 4.02, p < 0.001) were significant predictors of AKI. There was no significant association between fluid type; Chloride-liberal, Chloride-restrictive, and AKI. Conclusions: Fluid overload is an independent risk factor for AKI.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available