4.6 Article

Incidence Rate, Clinical Correlates, and Outcomes of AKI in Patients Admitted to a Comprehensive Cancer Center

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.03530412

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectives Incidence of AKI in hospitalized patients with cancer is increasing, but reports are scant. The objective of this study was to determine incidence rate, clinical correlates, and outcomes of AM in patients admitted to a cancer center. Design, setting, participants, & measurements Cross-sectional analysis of prospectively collected data on 3558 patients admitted to the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center over 3 months in 2006. Results Using modified RIFLE (Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, ESRD) criteria, 12% of patients admitted to the hospital had AM, with severity in the Risk, Injury, and Failure categories of 68%, 21%, and 11%, respectively. AKI occurred in 45% of patients during the first 2 days and in 55% thereafter. Dialysis was required in 4% of patients and nephrology consultation in 10%. In the multivariate model, the odds ratio (OR) for developing AKI was significantly higher for diabetes (OR, 1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.51-2.36), chemotherapy (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.26-2.05), intravenous contrast (OR, 4.55; 95% CI, 3.51-5.89), hyponatremia (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.57-2.47), and antibiotics (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.15-2.02). In patients with AM, length of stay (100%), cost (106%), and odds for mortality (4.7-fold) were significantly greater. Conclusion The rate of AM in patients admitted to a comprehensive cancer center was higher than the rate in most noncancer settings; was correlated significantly with diabetes, hyponatremia, intravenous contrast, chemotherapy, and antibiotics; and was associated with poorer clinical outcomes. AM developed in many patients after admission. Studies are warranted to determine whether proactive measures may limit AM and improve outcomes. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 8: 347-354, 2013. doi: 10.2215/CJN.03530412

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