4.2 Article

Acute kidney injury in patients with severe sepsis in Finnish Intensive Care Units

期刊

ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 57, 期 7, 页码 863-872

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aas.12133

关键词

-

资金

  1. Helsinki University Hospital [TYH 2010109/2011210, T102010070]
  2. Lapland Central Hospital
  3. Academy of Finland
  4. Finnish Society of Intensive Care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundSevere sepsis is one of the leading causes of acute kidney injury (AKI). Patients with sepsis-associated AKI demonstrate high-hospital mortality. We evaluated the incidence of severe sepsis-associated AKI and its association with outcome in intensive care units (ICUs) in Finland. MethodsThis was a predetermined sub-study of the prospective, observational, multicentre FINNAKI study conducted in 17 ICUs during 1 September 2011 and 1 February 2012. All emergency ICU admissions and elective admissions exceeding 24 hours in the ICU were screened for presence of severe sepsis and AKI up to 5 days in ICU. AKI was defined according to the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria and severe sepsis according to the American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine (ACCP/SCCM) criteria. ResultsOf the 2901 included patients, severe sepsis was diagnosed in 918 (31.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 29.9-33.4%) patients. Of these 918 patients, 488 (53.2% [95% CI 49.9-56.5%]) had AKI. The 90-day mortality rate was 38.1% (95% CI 33.7-42.5%) for severe sepsis patients with AKI and 24.7% (95% CI 20.5-28.8%) for those without AKI. After adjusting for covariates, KDIGO stage 3 AKI was associated with an increased risk for 90-day mortality with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 1.94 (95% CI 1.28-2.94), but stages 1 and 2 were not. ConclusionsMore than half of the patients with severe sepsis had AKI according to the KDIGO classification, and AKI stage 3 was independently associated with 90-day mortality. (C) 2013 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据