4.3 Article

Improving clinical prediction rules in acute kidney injury with the use of biomarkers of cell cycle arrest: a pilot study

Journal

BIOMARKERS
Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages 23-28

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/1354750X.2018.1493617

Keywords

Acute kidney injury (AKI); tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-2 (TIMP-2); insulin-like growth factor binding protein 7 (IGFBP7)

Funding

  1. Small Business Research Initiative (National Institute for Health Research Devices for Dignity HTC)Department of Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Early recognition of patients developing acute kidney injury (AKI) is of considerable interest, we report the first use of a combination of a clinical prediction rule with a biomarker in emergent adult medical patients to improve AKI recognition. Methods: Single-centre prospective pilot study of medical admissions without AKI identified as high risk by a clinical prediction rule. Urine samples were obtained and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-2 (TIMP-2) and insulin-like growth factor binding protein 7 (IGFBP7) - biomarkers associated with cell cycle arrest, were measured. Outcome: Creatinine-based KDIGO hospital-acquired AKI (HA-AKI). Results: Of 69 patients recruited, HA-AKI developed in 13% (n = 9), in whom biomarker values were higher (median 0.43 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.21-1.25) vs. 0.07 (0.03-0.16) in cases without (p = 0.008). Peak rise in creatinine was higher in biomarker positive cases (median 30 mu mol/L (7-72) vs. 1 mu mol/L (0-16), p = 0.002). AUROC was 0.78 (95% CI 0.57-0.98). At the suggested cut-off (0.3) sensitivity for predicting AKI was 78% (95% CI 40-97%), specificity 89% (78-95%), positive predictive value 50% (31-69%) and negative predictive value 96% (89-99%). Discussion: Addition of a urinary biomarker allows exclusion of a significant number of patients identified to be at higher risk of AKI by a clinical prediction rule.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available