Skip Navigation



NDT Advance Access published online on October 8, 2008
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, doi:10.1093/ndt/gfn557
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
24/3/907    most recent
gfn557v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by van der Tol, A.
Right arrow Articles by Vanholder, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by van der Tol, A.
Right arrow Articles by Vanholder, R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2008]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org


Impact of local circumstances on outcome of renal casualties in major disasters

Arjan van der Tol1, Asrar Hussain2, Memhet Sukru Sever3, Stefaan Claus1, Wim Van Biesen1, Eric Hoste4, Samuel Khan2 and Raymond Vanholder1,5

1 Renal Division, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium 2 Department of Nephrology, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, Islamabad, Pakistan 3 Department of Internal Medicine, Istanbul School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey 4 Intensive Care Unit 1K12-C, University Hospital, Ghent 5 Chairman Renal Disaster Relief Task Force, International Society of Nephrology, Brussels, Belgium

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Arjan van der Tol, Renal Division, Department of internal Medicine, University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium. Tel: +32-9-2404509; Fax: +3253-764212; E-mail: arjan.vandertol{at}ugent.be



   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Background. In the aftermath of earthquakes, the cumulative incidence of crush-induced acute kidney injury (AKI) is difficult to predict. Insight into factors determining this risk is indispensable to allow adequate logistical planning, which is a prerogative for success in disaster management.

Methods. Data of 88 crush-related AKI patients in the aftermath of the Kashmir earthquake were collected and outcome measures were analysed. Then the findings were compared with the data of 596 crush-related AKI patients of the Marmara earthquake.

Results. The earthquake in Kashmir occurred in a rural area with lack of medical facilities and difficult transportation conditions while the earthquake in Marmara occurred in an urban area with more efficient transport possibilities. In Kashmir we reported fewer patients with treated AKI (1.2 AKI per 1000 deaths, 1.3 AKI per 1000 victims) than in Marmara (34.1 AKI per 1000 deaths; P < 0.001, 13.6 AKI per 1000 victims; P < 0.001). Time lag between earthquake and admission to hospitals was longer in Kashmir (5.8 ± 5.8 days) than in Marmara (3.5 ± 3.7 days; P < 0.001). The frequencies of fasciotomies (P < 0.001), amputations (P < 0.001) and dialysis (P = 0.005) were lower in Kashmir, than in Marmara AKI patients.

Conclusions. The cumulative incidence of treated AKI related to number of deaths or victims might differ substantially among earthquakes. Many factors may affect the frequency of AKI: hampered rescue and transport possibilities; destroyed medical facilities on the spot; availability or not of sophisticated therapeutic possibilities and structure of the buildings might all have impacted on different cumulative incidence between Kashmir and Marmara.

Keywords: acute kidney injury; crush syndrome; earthquakes; Kashmir; Marmara



   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Highly vulnerably built environments that cannot withstand the energy input from earthquakes cause high mortality and morbidity [1]. The higher the intensity on the Richter scale of an earthquake, the higher the death to injury ratio [2]. Most earthquake fatalities die as a result of asphyxia/compression or head/neck trauma within the first hours after the quake [3,4]. Surviving victims who are entrapped in collapsed buildings are at risk for crush syndrome [5]. The crush syndrome is caused by rhabdomyolysis due to compression and ischaemic injury to the skeletal muscles [6]. Fluid therapy prevents renal failure in crush victims that is induced by the presence of dehydration and acidosis together with release of myoglobulin into the circulation [7]. The cumulative incidence of actual AKI in surviving victims in the aftermath of disasters is difficult to detect for practical reasons. The treated cumulative incidence of AKI shows remarkable variability among various disasters and is affected by rescue efforts, entrapment time, timing of the disaster and prehospital patient dehydration [8].

For example, the Indian Gujarat earthquake in 2001 caused 20 000 deaths, 167 000 injured and only 35 treated AKI [9] while the Japanese Hanshin earthquake in 1995 caused fewer deaths (5500) and injured (41 000) but 202 treated AKI [10].

In the present study, the cumulative incidence of treated AKI and its relation to the local circumstances are compared between the Kashmir earthquake on 8 October 2005 and the Marmara earthquake in Northwestern Turkey on 17 August 1999.



   Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
The Renal Disaster Relief Task Force (RDRTF) of the International Society of Nephrology (ISN) offered support for the renal problems in the aftermath of the Kashmir and Marmara earthquakes, next to other events [11]. In Kashmir the data were collected from the files of 93 crush victims with renal problems who were admitted to renal wards or intensive care units from five different Pakistani hospitals: Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (n = 43); SHIFA international (n = 11); CGH Rawalpindi (n = 14); Military Hospital-Rawalpindi (n = 11) and Fanji Foundation Hospital Rawalpindi (n = 9). A local Pakistani doctor (A Hussain) filled out the questionnaires in the aftermath of the disaster. In Marmara the data were also collected by questionnaires that were sent to 35 different nephrology units that treated victims with crush-induced renal problems. Most patients were first admitted to the emergency unit and were then referred to the renal unit after clinical and biochemistry examination. The local physicians decided upon the indication for dialysis. Because all the patients presented with acute renal dysfunction without any baseline measurement of renal function, we calculated a theoretical baseline serum creatinine value in each patient of the study, assuming that a simplified ‘modification of diet in renal disease’ MDRD formula provides a robust estimate of a normal GFR (~75–100 ml/min per 1.73 m2) relative to serum creatinine based on age, race and sex. The change in serum creatinine was estimated in each patient. AKI was defined according to the RIFLE criteria as an abrupt reduction in kidney function corresponding to an absolute at least twofold increase in serum creatinine or/and urine output <60 ml/kg/12 u [12,13]. In Kashmir five patients were not included in the database because they did not fulfil the RIFLE criteria or because of missing important data. According to the RIFLE criteria, 596 patients had AKI of the 639 patients with renal problems due to crush injury in the Marmara cohort. We combined the data of the patients with RIFLE- AKI from both earthquakes in one SPSS data file.

Statistical analysis
We recorded the data in SPSS 15.0 Descriptive statistics for all numeric variables, including means, medians, standard deviations and minimum and maximum values. We performed the t-test to compare two independent group means. When the continuous variables were not normally distributed, the Mann–Whitney U-test was used. The proportions of all categorical variables were calculated in 2 x 2 contingency tables; differences between group proportions were examined by the {chi}2 test. The calculated P-values were provided. A binominal test was used to compare the gender distribution of the patients with AKI to the gender ratio in the local population (test proportion).



   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
In this study we compared various features, which could be associated with the risk of AKI in the aftermath of the Kashmir and Marmara earthquake that both occurred in densely populated and inhabited regions. The intensity of the earthquake was slightly higher in Kashmir than in Marmara (Table 1). The Kashmir disaster caused more total deaths, more injured survivors and a higher death to injury ratio than the Marmara earthquake [1] (Table 1), but in Kashmir fewer patients with treated crush-induced AKI (n = 88) were reported than in Marmara (n = 596).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1 Local circumstances and the outcomes in the Kashmir and in the Marmara disasters

 
The earthquake in Kashmir hit in the morning while the earthquake in Marmara took place at night. In the Kashmir earthquake more than 18 000 children died and many were injured in collapsed poorly built school buildings [14,15]. Both AKI groups had a low number of children probably because of lower surface area and/or muscle mass than adults. The proportions of the age categories (Figure 1A) were not significantly different between both AKI populations although the global population in Kashmir contained more children (1 604 800) than in Marmara (621 900; Figure 1B). The mean age of AKI victims in Kashmir was 35.7 ± 14.8 years while in Marmara they were slightly younger (32.2 ± 14.4; P = 0.03 [16]).


Figure 1
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 1 (A) The proportion (%) of the local population by age categories in Kashmir (dark bars) and Marmara [1] (grey bars), *P < 0.001. (B) The proportion (%) of the patients with AKI by age categories in Kashmir (dark bars) and Marmara (grey bars), P = 0.091. NS.

 
More males than females suffered from AKI in both populations. In Kashmir the male to female ratio in the victims with AKI was 1.32 while the gender ratio in the global population was 1.048. This difference was not significant, probably due to the small numbers in the AKI group (n = 88). In Marmara the male to female ratio in the renal victims was 1.23 while the gender ratio in the global population was 1.019 [17,18]. This difference was significant (P = 0.03).

The victims with AKI in Kashmir were admitted markedly later than the AKI victims in the urban areas of Marmara (Table 2; Figure 2; P < 0.001). The mean serum creatinine, phosphorus and calcium in AKI victims were higher in Kashmir than in Marmara (Table 3). The peak CK level in AKI victims in Marmara was higher than in Kashmir (Table 3). The frequencies of fasciotomies, amputations and the need for renal replacement therapy were markedly lower in the Kashmir patients than in Marmara (Table 2). We reported more fractures of the extremities in the Kashmir AKI patients than in Marmara (P < 0.001). The Marmara patients with AKI had more thorax traumas than the Kashmir victims with AKI (P < 0.001). The mortality in both AKI groups was not significantly different (Table 2).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2 Time period under the rubble and before admission, major complications, interventions and outcome in AKI patients in Kashmir and in Marmara

 

Figure 2
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 2 Time lag between the occurrence of the earthquake and admission to hospitals in days (d): Percentage (%) of victims with AKI in Kashmir (dark bars) and Marmara (grey bars), *P < 0.001.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3 Metabolic profile on admission in patients with crush-induced AKI in Kashmir and Marmara

 
The majority of the population in Azad Jammu, Kashmir and the North West Frontier Province [19] lived in rural areas with many adobe or brick masonry buildings [20] while the majority of the people in the east of the Marmara Sea lived in urban areas with many multi-storey concrete buildings [21]. The victims with AKI in Kashmir were entrapped for a shorter time than in Marmara (Table 2). In Kashmir a higher proportion of patients with AKI were entrapped less than 4 h than in Marmara (Table 2). In Marmara a higher proportion of patients with AKI were entrapped >24 h than in Kashmir (Table 2).



   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
To our knowledge, until now there have been no direct studies comparing different earthquake conditions regarding their relation to renal outcome. It is of utmost importance to compare outcomes of disasters allowing us to make more accurate predictions in future events. In the present study we evaluated the influence of demographical and geological features in two major earthquakes of the last decade on the cumulative incidence of treated crush-induced AKI. Admittedly, such an analysis can never be the topic of a controlled study, due to disaster circumstances, and can only be pursued by comparison of events with different characteristics.

The high altitude and unstable mountainous geological situation make Northern Pakistan very vulnerable to extensive landslides, especially when an earthquake strikes the region [22]. This phenomenon made the Kashmir region less accessible and delayed the rescue efforts, resulting in a high risk to die on the spot, hence indirectly reducing the cumulative incidence of treated AKI. The importance of fast rescue was well illustrated in the Kobe disaster that revealed a high survival rate of the extricated victims on the first day and a low probability of being alive on extrication after the first day [23]. Further possible explanation for the lower number of treated AKI could be the selection bias of patients during the triage process, whereby those needing dialysis or intensive care may have been excluded from transport, because of the awareness of low availability of both amenities. Patients with less severe injuries might have been given higher priority. Also some patients or their relatives refused to seek medical help because of economic or religious reasons.

The crush victims with AKI in Marmara had more crush-induced complications and necessitated more interventions (dialysis, fasciotomies and amputations) while the AKI patients in Kashmir had more fractures of the extremities; this may be related to the daytime occurrence of the earthquake in Kashmir when most individuals are upright and about, whereas the Marmara earthquake occurred overnight and hit people in supine position that increased the risk for complex muscle compression [24,25]. Another reason for fewer crush-induced complications in the Kashmir group could be related to the shorter time period under the rubble than the Marmara group of AKI who were entrapped in more complex buildings. The time period under the rubble is pointed out as an important indicator for crush-induced AKI [26–30]. The Bam earthquake (2003, 5.30 a.m.) showed that crush-related AKI (n = 170) developed in victims who were entrapped longer whereas victims developing no AKI were extricated earlier (6.2 ± 4.1 versus 2.1 ± 3.9 h; P < 0.001) [31]. Further important factors besides speed of rescue efforts, entrapment period and time of occurrence that influence the frequency of crush-induced complications during disasters are the degree of availability of basic life supplies and the meteorological circumstances. For example, the victims in Marmara were more prone to dehydration because the quake occurred in a hot summer period, which therefore very likely caused more crush-induced AKI.

Our findings were later on confirmed by our observations in the aftermath of the Yogyakarta earthquake in Indonesia, 27 May 2006, which occurred early in the morning and in an essentially rural area, with light building structures, and easy rescue [personal observation at the occasion of an intervention from the Renal Disaster Relief Task Force (RDRTF) by S. Claus and A. van der Tol]. The earthquake had an intensity of 6.3 on Richter scale and caused 5782 deaths and 36 299 injured [32], but only four cases of registered AKI needing dialysis. Most surviving earthquake victims were extricated quickly and could be offered intravenous fluid, both preventing crush-induced AKI, because the Yogyakarta area was already prepared for a disaster due to the activity of the Merapi volcano.

Also, the experience gained in the aftermath of the latest Peruvian earthquake, which with an intensity of 7.9 took place in the evening of 15 August 2007 indicates that local conditions have a major impact on the frequency of AKI. Even for the maximum reported mortality rate of 519 and 1366 injured [33], which remained unmodified from Day 3 on, the occurrence of one single AKI victim needing dialysis is low. Here the late start of rescue activities (reportedly at the earliest 14 h after the disaster), partly due not only to the vast destruction of roads but also to a lack of advance rescue plans, together with the light building structures and the daytime occurrence, led to an extremely low number of polytrauma victims in the hospitals and to a low incidence of crush-induced AKI [personal observation at the occasion of an intervention from the Renal Disaster Relief Task Force (RDRTF) by S. Claus].

Our study suffers from a number of unavoidable shortcomings since collecting data during chaotic disaster conditions will inevitably lead to a database with missing values. Our data are not adequate enough to offer an exact quantification of the actual cumulative incidence of AKI because a serum creatinine check could not be performed in the large majority of surviving victims. In addition the patients who had their AKI diagnosed may have been a selected group and in this way not typical of the majority of AKI patients in Kashmir, as a large part may have died before reaching facilities where diagnosis was possible. Destroyed medical facilities on the spot and delayed transfers of the severely injured victims affected the high mortality and deteriorated the outcome of the surviving injured resulting in less treated AKI. In future disaster planning, it will be a challenge to screen the patients with AKI and to transfer the surviving injured casualties to hospitals with modern facilities, to close the gap between actual AKI and treated AKI, especially in rural areas with fewer medical supplies. The Renal Disaster Relief Task Force should adapt their support to these local circumstances. To identify patients with AKI in chaotic conditions, a crush syndrome patients' questionnaire could be very helpful. In Table 4 we illustrate the simple questionnaire that is currently used by RDRTF. Also, a protocol for fluid administration to prevent AKI, distribution of intravenous fluids and a dry-biochemistry kit in (rural) affected areas are needed in future earthquakes.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4 Renal Disaster Relief Task Force—crush syndrome patients questionnaire

 
Conflict of interest statement. None declared.



   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Sever MS, Vanholder R, Lameire N. Management of crush-related injuries after disasters. NEJM (2006) 354:1052–1063.[Free Full Text]
  2. Gutiérrez E, Taucer F, De Groeve T, et al. Analysis of worldwide earthquake mortality using multivariate demographic and seismic data. Am J Epidemiol (2005) 161:1151–1158.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Chan CC, Lin YP, Chen HH, et al. A population-based study on the immediate and prolonged effects of the 1999 Taiwan earthquake on mortality. Ann Epidemiol (2003) 13:502–508.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  4. Aoki N, Nishimura A, Pretto EA, et al. Survival and cost analysis of fatalities of the Kobe earthquake in Japan. Prehosp Emerg Care (2004) 8:217–222.[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Vanholder R, Van Der Tol A, Sever MS, et al. Earthquake and crush syndrome casualties: lessons learned from the Kashmir disaster. Kidney Int (2007) 71:17–23.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  6. Yokota J. Crush syndrome in disaster. JMAJ (2005) 48:341–352.
  7. Gunal AI, Celiker H, Dogukan A, et al. Early and vigorous fluid resuscitation prevents acute renal failure in the crush victims of catastrophic earthquakes. J Am Soc Nephrol (2004) 15:1862–1867.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Sheng ZY. Medical support in the Tangshan earthquake: a review of the management of mass casualties and certain major injuries. J Trauma (1987) 27:1130–1135.[Web of Science][Medline]
  9. Viroja D, et al. Management of crush syndrome following Gujarat earthquake. Nephrol Dial Transplant (2001) W357(suppl_4):659–360.
  10. Oda J, Tanaka H, Yoshioka T, et al. Analysis of 372 patients with crush syndrome caused by the Hanshin-Awaji earthquake. J Trauma (1997) 42:470–476.[Web of Science][Medline]
  11. Vanholder R, Van Biesen W, Lameire N, et al. International Society of Nephrology/Renal Disaster Relief Task Force: the role of the International Society of Nephrology/Renal Disaster Relief Task Force in the rescue of renal disaster victims. Contrib Nephrol (2007) 156:325–332.[Web of Science][Medline]
  12. Kellum JA, Bellomo R, Ronco C. The concept of acute kidney injury and the Rifle criteria. Contrib Nephrol (2007) 156:10–16.[Web of Science][Medline]
  13. Bellomo R, Ronco C, Kellum J, et aland the ADQI workgroup. Acute renal failure—definition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information technology needs: the Second International Consensus Conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Group. Crit Care (2004) 8:R204–R212.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  14. Helminen M, Saarela E, Salmela J. Characterization of patients treated at the Red Cross field hospital in Kashmir during the first three weeks of operation. Emerg Med J (2006) 23:654–656.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Laverick S, et al. Asian earthquake: report from the first volunteer British hospital team in Pakistan. Emerg Med J (2007) 24:543–546.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Sever MS. The Crush Syndrome (2005) S Karger. 41. First Ed. Basel.
  17. http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/worldguide/html/1046_people.html.
  18. Sever MS. The Crush Syndrome (2005) S Karger. 44. First Ed. Basel.
  19. www.ajk.gov.pk/site/index.
  20. www.statpak.gov.pk/dept/pco/statistics/demographic_indicators98.
  21. http://www.eeri.org/lfe/pdf/turkey_reinforced_concrete_frame.pdf.
  22. Peiris N, Rossetto T, Burton P, et al. Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation Team: Mission: October 8, 2005 Kashmir Earthquake. www.istrude.org/eefit.
  23. Tanaka K. The Kobe earthquake: the system response. A disaster report from Japan. Eur J Emerg Med (1996) 3:263–269.[CrossRef][Medline]
  24. Roy N, Shan H, Patel V, et al. The Gujarat earthquake (2001) experience in a seismically unprepared area: community hospital medical response. Prehospital Disaster Med (2002) 17:186–195.[Medline]
  25. Mahue-Giangreco M, Mack W, Seliason H, et al. Risk factors associated with moderate and serious injuries attributable to the 1994 Northridge earthquake, LA, California. Ann Epidemiol (2001) 11:347–357.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  26. Collins AJ, Burzstein S. Renal failure in disasters. Crit Care Clin (1991) 7:421–435.[Web of Science][Medline]
  27. Better OS. Acute renal failure in casualties of mass disasters. Kidney Int (1993) 43(suppl 41):235–236.
  28. Atef MR, Nadjaffi I, Boroumand B, et al. Acute renal failure in earthquake victims in Iran: epidemiology and management. Q J Med (1994) 87:35–40.[Web of Science][Medline]
  29. Sever MS, Erek E, Vanholder R, et al. Lessons learned from the Marmara disaster: time period under the rubble. Crit Care Med (2002) 30:2443–2449.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  30. Sever MS, Erek E, Vanholder R, et al. The Marmara earthquake: epidemiological analysis of the victims with nephrological problems. Kidney Int (2001) 60:1114–1123.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  31. Hatamizadeh P, Najafi I, Vanholder R, et al. Epidemiologic aspects of the Bam earthquake in Iran: the nephrologic perspective. Am J Kidney Dis (2006) 47:428–438.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  32. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_2006_Java_earthquake.
  33. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Peruvian_earthquake.
Received for publication: 23. 2.08
Accepted in revised form: 12. 9.08


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
R. Vanholder, S. Stuard, M. Bonomini, and M. S. Sever
Renal disaster relief in Europe: the experience at L'Aquila, Italy, in April 2009
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., October 1, 2009; 24(10): 3251 - 3255.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
24/3/907    most recent
gfn557v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by van der Tol, A.
Right arrow Articles by Vanholder, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by van der Tol, A.
Right arrow Articles by Vanholder, R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?