4.6 Article

Prediction of acute renal failure after cardiac surgery: retrospective cross-validation of a clinical algorithm

期刊

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 77-81

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/18.1.77

关键词

cardiac surgical procedures; coronary artery bypass; kidney failure acute; post-operative complications; receiver operating characteristic curve; sensitivity and specificity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Acute renal failure (ARF) after cardiac surgery is associated with high costs and a poor prognosis. Based on the results of a large US study, an algorithm has been developed for predicting ARF from pre-operative risk factors. The aim of this study was to cross-validate this algorithm in a patient population from Europe, and to assess its usefulness as a clinical tool. Methods. All coronary bypass and valvular surgery patients from a 5-year period were included. Data on pre-operative risk factors for all patients who developed dialysis-dependent ARF and for a random sample of patients without ARF were retrospectively obtained from hospital databases and medical records. For each patient, a risk score for ARF was calculated on the basis of the algorithm. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the score's ability to predict ARF were estimated. Results. 2037 patients were included. The risk of ARF was 1.9%, and the area under the ROC curve 0.71. For a risk score of 6 or higher, the sensitivity was 0.53, the specificity 0.71, the positive predictive value 0.03 and the negative predictive value 0.99. Conclusions. The validity of the algorithm was confirmed in a population differing in several aspects from the US populations where it was developed. Although it is useful for estimating the risk of ARF in groups of patients, the low risk of ARF limits the algorithm's ability to predict the outcome for individual patients.

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