4.3 Article

Comparative analysis of urinary biomarkers for early detection of acute kidney injury following cardiopulmonary bypass

Journal

BIOMARKERS
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages 423-431

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13547500903067744

Keywords

Acute kidney injury; early detection; urinary biomarker; cardiac surgery

Funding

  1. Norman Coplon Research Program of Satellite Healthcare, Inc.
  2. American Heart Association [0535367N]
  3. Earl P. Charlton Research Program of Tufts University School of Medicine
  4. National Institutes of Health [DK065102, DK077751, DK 39773, DK 074099, DK 072381, DK64075]
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [R21DK074099, R01DK039773, R37DK039773, K23DK065102, R33DK074099, R01DK072381, R03DK077751, K08DK064075] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of six candidate urinary biomarkers, kidney injury molecule (KIM)-1, N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase ( NAG), neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), interleukin (IL)-18, cystatin C and alpha-1 microglobulin, measured 2 h following cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) for the early detection of acute kidney injury (AKI) in a prospective cohort of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. A total of 103 subjects were enrolled; AKI developed in 13%. Urinary KIM-1 achieved the highest area under-the-receiver-operator-characteristic curve (AUC 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.64-0.91), followed by IL-18 and NAG. Only urinary KIM-1 remained independently associated with AKI after adjustment for a preoperative AKI prediction score (Cleveland Clinic Foundation score; p = 0.02), or CPB perfusion time (p = 0.006). In this small pilot cohort, KIM-1 performed best as an early biomarker for AKI. Larger studies are needed to explore further the role of biomarkers for early detection of AKI following cardiac surgery.

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