NDT Advance Access originally published online on February 15, 2008
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2008 23(5):1569-1574; doi:10.1093/ndt/gfn009
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A comparison of the RIFLE and AKIN criteria for acute kidney injury in critically ill patients
1 Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Alberta Hospital, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 2 Australia New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) Adult Patient Database (APD) 3 Department of Intensive Care, Austin Hospital 4 Department of Medicine, Melbourne University, Melbourne, Australia
Correspondence and offprint requests to: Rinaldo Bellomo, Department of Intensive Care, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084, Australia. Tel: +61-3-9496-5992; Fax: +61-3-9496-3932; E-mail: rinaldo.bellomo{at}austin.org.au
 |
Abstract |
|---|
Background. The Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative Group has published a consensus definition/classification system for acute kidney injury (AKI) termed the RIFLE criteria. The Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) group has recently proposed modifications to this system. It is currently unknown whether there are advantages between these criteria.
Methods. We interrogated the Australian New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) Adult Patient Database (APD) for all adult admissions to 57 ICUs from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2005. We compared the performance of the RIFLE and AKIN criteria for diagnosis and classification of AKI and for robustness of hospital mortality.
Results. We included 120 123 critically ill patients, of which 27.8% had a primary diagnosis of sepsis. We found only small differences (<1%) in the number of patients classified as having some degree of kidney injury using either the AKIN or RIFLE definition or classification systems. AKIN slightly increased the number of patients classified as Stage I injury (category R in RIFLE) (from 16.2 to 18.1%) but decreased the number of patients classified as having Stage II injury (category I in RIFLE) (13.6% versus 10.1%). The area under the ROC curve for hospital mortality was 0.66 for RIFLE and 0.67 for AKIN in all patients and it was 0.65 for both in septic patients.
Conclusion. Compared to the RIFLE criteria, the AKIN criteria do not materially improve the sensitivity, robustness and predictive ability of the definition and classification of AKI in the first 24 h after admission to ICU.
Keywords: acute kidney injury; acute renal failure; AKIN; critically ill; RIFLE
Received for publication: 30.11.07
Accepted in revised form: 4. 1.08
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. M. Bagshaw, C. George, I. Dinu, and R. Bellomo Reply Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., September 5, 2008; (2008) gfn396v1. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|