4.4 Article

Sex differences in acute kidney injury requiring dialysis

Journal

BMC NEPHROLOGY
Volume 19, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12882-018-0937-y

Keywords

Gender; Sex; Acute kidney injury; Acute renal failure; AKI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Female sex has been included as a risk factor in models developed to predict the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) associated with cardiac surgery, aminoglycoside nephrotoxicity and contrast-induced nephropathy. The commentary acompanying the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes Clinical Practice Guideline for Acute Kidney Injury concludes that female sex is a shared susceptibility factor for acute kidney injury based on observations that female sex is associated with the development of hospital-acquired acute kidney injury. In contrast, female sex is reno-protective in animal models. In this context, we sought to examine the role of sex in hospital-associated acute kidney injury in greater detail. Methods: We utilized the Hospital Episode Statistics database to calculate the sex-stratified incidence of AKI requiring renal replacement therapy (AKI-D) among 194,157,726 hospital discharges reported for the years 1998-2013. In addition, we conducted a systematic review of the English literature to evaluate dialysis practices among men versus women with AKI. Results: Hospitalized men were more likely to develop AKI-D than hospitalized women (OR 2.19 (2.15, 2.22) p < 0.0001). We found no evidence in the published literature that dialysis practices differ between men and women with AKI. Conclusions: Based on a population of hospitalized patients which is more than 3 times larger than all previously published cohorts reporting sex-stratified AKI data combined, we conclude that male sex is associated with an increased incidence of hospital-associated AKI-D. Our study is among the first reports to highlight the protective role of female gender in 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