4.6 Article

Improving the identification of patients at risk of postoperative renal failure after cardiac surgery

期刊

ANESTHESIOLOGY
卷 104, 期 1, 页码 65-72

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00000542-200601000-00012

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Preoperative renal insufficiency is an important predictor of the need for postoperative renal replacement therapy (RRT). Serum creatinine (sCr) has a limited ability to identify patients with preoperative renal insufficiency because it varies with age, sex, and muscle mass. Calculated creatinine clearance (CrCl) is an alternative measure of renal function that may allow better estimation of renal reserve. Methods: Data were prospectively collected for consecutive patients who underwent cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass at a tertiary care center. The relation between CrCl (Cockcroft-Gauh equation) and RRT was initially described using descriptive statistics, logistic regression, and receiver operating curve analysis. Based on these analyses, preoperative renal insufficiency was defined as CrCl of 60 ml/min or less. Preoperative renal function was classified as moderate insufficiency (sCr > 133 mu m), mild insufficiency (100 mu m < sCr <= 133 mu M), occult insufficiency (sCr <= 100 mu M and CrCl <= 60 ml/min), or normal function (sCr <= 100 mu M and CrCl > 60 ml/min). The independent association of preoperative renal function with RRT was subsequently determined using multiple logistic regression. Results: Of the 10,751 patients in the sample, 137 (1.2%) required postoperative RRT. Approximately 13% of patients with normal sCr had occult renal insufficiency. Occult renal insufficiency was independently associated with RRT (odds ratio, 2.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-5-33). The magnitude of this risk was similar to patients with mild renal insufficiency (P = 0.73). Conclusions: The inclusion of a simple CrCl-based criterion in preoperative assessments may improve identification of patients at risk of needing postoperative RRT.

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

4.6
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