Keywords: acute renal failure, epidemiology and outcomes, nephrotoxicity

Changes in the incidence of AKI using administrative codes

Most data illustrating a growth in hospitalized AKI have used administrative codes that rely on health-care providers to document that AKI has occurred. Xueet al.⁶ evaluated the growth of AKI between 1992 and 2001 among elderly Medicare beneficiaries. Medicare is the US government program designed to provide health-care coverage for people aged ⩾65 years and those with end-stage renal disease. By sampling 5 million hospitalizations, they found an increase in the standardized rates of acute renal failure (ARF) from 14.6/1000 discharges to 36.4/1000 discharges using diagnostic codes for ARF (11%/year) (Figure 1a). The rises in rates occurred whether ARF was coded as a principal or secondary diagnosis, arguing against the ‘adding-on' of these diagnoses to maximize reimbursement as a major determinant of these changes. Furthermore, the steady nature of the rise in this and other studies would not necessarily be expected from, for example, an abrupt change in reimbursement policies. Nevertheless, this study was limited by reporting of hospital-based incidences that can be affected by temporal variation in admission practices and case-mix.

Using both administrative codes and US census data, Waikaret al.⁷ examined thepopulation-based incidence of AKI within a nationally representative data set of hospitalizations between 1988 and 2002. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) captures patient-level data from a 20% stratified probability sample of teaching and nonteaching hospitals across the United States. During this pre-RIFLE time period, the population-based incidence of ARF rose from 610 to 2880 cases per million per year. As with the Medicare study, increases were seen using either primary or secondary ARF codes.

The decision to enter a discharge code of ARF is influenced by multiple factors including whether the event is deemed clinically significant or as part of health-care reimbursement. Therefore, it is important to understand how increasing awareness or other external factors may affect coding practices. Although difficult to measure directly, some insight can be gained by examining change in the performance of administrative codes over time against a known reference standard (for example, serum creatinine change). Increasing awareness among medical providers might manifest by either gains in the sensitivity for AKI codes or loss of specificity (that is, increase in false positives). Using a doubling of serum creatinine between nadir and peak hospital values, the authors detected improvement in the diagnostic sensitivity of the major International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes for ARF, Ninth Revision, between 1994 (17.4% of cases) and 2002 (29.3% of cases).⁷ However, the degree of improvement in the sensitivity observed was determined to be insufficient (70% needed in 2002) to account for the majority of growth observed.

Hwanget al.²⁰ examined the validity of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (implemented in Canada since 2000) codes for acute kidney failure among elderly patients in Canada. Compared with the period examined in an earlier report (1994–2002), this later study encompassed years following publication of the RIFLE (Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-stage Kidney Disease) criteria (2003–2010). Using a doubling of serum creatinine (prehospital to peak within 48 h), investigators reported a substantially higher diagnostic sensitivity of 61.6% (95% confidence interval: 57.5–65.5). Even when a milder injury standard was used (that is, a 50% increase in serum creatinine), the same diagnostic codes were still almost twice as sensitive at 56.4% (95% confidence interval: 53.2–59.7) than those observed in the earlier US study. Specificities in this and the study of Waikaret al.⁷ remained >95%, arguing against a large number of false positives contributing to these reported increases. Although geographical variation in practice and coding patterns make accurate comparisons between these two studies impossible, the higher sensitivities observed in the later time periods do suggest a trend toward increased AKI reporting.

More recently, Gramset al.²¹ evaluated the performance of discharge billing codes for AKI in hospitalized patients from the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) cohort between 1996 and 2008 using KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) criteria as the reference standard. The sensitivity of billing code–identified AKI improved from 9.7% (1996–2002) to 24.4% (2002–2008), with specificity remaining high in both time eras. Collectively, these findings indicate that the sensitivity of administrative codes for AKI vary by region, and have increased over time. Thus, studies relyingexclusively on coding to examine changes in AKI incidence or its related outcomes should be interpreted with caution.

Changes in the incidence of AKI using laboratory-based criteria

Despite these observations, several lines of evidence suggest that growth in AKI is occurring. Houet al.²² and Nashet al.²³ described early changes in incidence and risk factors for AKI between two tertiary care hospitals. They applied the same set of graded changes in serum creatinine during hospitalization and observed an increase in the hospital-based incidence of AKI from 4.9% in 1979 to 7.2% in 1996. However, these studies were conducted in two different medical centers where regional differences in admission practices may have contributed.

A decade ago, studies uncovering associations between incremental changes in serum creatinine and mortality led to the development of the first consensus definition for AKI.^14,24 Known as the RIFLE criteria,²⁵ this classification scheme introduced a consistent approach for defining and staging AKI, allowing for more standardized comparisons between settings. Numerous validation studies have since confirmed a dose-dependent relationship between the severity of AKI and poor outcomes, prompting even more sensitive iterations of these criteria in recent years (Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN)/KDIGO) (Table 1).^26,27

Although the usefulness of these newer criteria to clinical practice remain to be defined, their application within research settings has resulted in large increases in the reported incidence of AKI, driven largely by the inclusion of less severe AKI (Table 2a,b,c). Another important consideration is that creatinine-based definitions of AKI require quantifying acute changes from a so-called ‘baseline' value. Ideally, this value would reflect a given patient's steady-state kidney function just before the AKI insult. However, information on prehospital kidney function is often lacking, prompting the use of various surrogate estimates. These may include inpatient values (for example, admission, nadir) or the imputation of values such as back-calculating a baseline creatinine using estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 75 ml/min per 1.73 m² (eGFR 75) in patients with missing data.²⁵ However, this approach can inflate or reduce the reported incidence of AKI and its prognosis.^28,29 In one study of 4863 hospitalized adults, the use of eGFR 75 approach or the minimum inpatient serum creatinine increased the incidence of AKI from 25.5% to 38.3% or 35.9%, respectively, compared with when AKI was measured using a known outpatient baseline value.²⁸ These increases were likely owing, in part, to erroneously identifying patients with stable chronic kidney disease (CKD) as having AKI. The use of minimum inpatient creatinine also appeared to overestimate AKI incidence. Although the reasons are not clear, potential explanations include changes in serum creatinine resulting from volume depletion on admission, followed by active rehydration protocols that further lower nadir serum creatinine values, leading to overreporting of AKI. Conversely, the use of the first admission serum creatinine value as a baseline led to an underreporting of AKI incidence at 13.7%, possibly because of unrecognized community-acquired AKI. As the misclassifying effects of surrogate baselines can be pronounced when applied to a large portion of the study population, interpreting epidemiologic studies of AKI that liberally apply these surrogates should be made with these limitations in mind. It also highlights the importance of providing the best estimate of baseline kidney function possible using available clinical information (see ‘Limitations of serum creatinine as a biomarker of AKI' under the section ‘Future Directions').

The strongest evidence supporting the growth of nondialysis-requiring AKI comes from studies applying a fixed definition sequentially over time. Hsuet al. leveraged an integrated health-care system within Northern California (USA) to examine the population incidence of AKI between 1996 and 2003. Using previous criteria described by Houet al.,²² AKI was defined by an increase in serum creatinine level of 0.5 mg/dl for patients with a baseline serum creatinine level of ⩽1.9 mg/dl, 1.0 mg/dl for patients with a baseline level of 2.0–4.9 mg/dl, and 1.5 mg/dl for patients with a baseline level of ⩾5.0 mg/dl. In addition to improving sensitivity, this approach likely reduced other potential sources of bias. For example, a recent study suggests that clinicians may be more likely to code for AKI among CKD patients, possibly because their absolute baseline creatinine levels are already elevated.²⁰ Furthermore, given the nonlinear relationship between GFR and serum creatinine, patients with CKD require a smaller loss in kidney function to be classified as having AKI when applying a 0.3 mg/dl threshold for change than in patients with preserved kidney function. Thus, an increase in the hospital prevalence of patients with CKD over time may make it ‘easier' for a greater proportion of patients to be classified as having AKI. Requiring progressively larger increases in serum creatinine to meet diagnostic criteria as the baseline rises as in the above criteria reduces this potential for bias. Using these criteria, Hsuet al. reported that the community-based incidence of non-dialysis AKI increased from 3227 to 5224 per million patient-years (Figure 1b), confirming observations that growth is occurring and reminding us that the number of patients with AKI is substantially larger than captured by administrative data alone.

Changes in the incidence of dialysis-requiring AKI

There has also been a parallel increase in observed rates of AKI requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT). As RRT is a procedure tightly linked to reimbursement, it is less susceptible to variations in coding practices. One study found a high sensitivity (90.3%) and specificity (93.8%) using procedure codes for RRT linked to major AKI codes when using chart review as a diagnostic standard.³⁰ Using the same approach to interrogate the NIS, the incidence of AKI requiring RRT within the United States increased by sixfold from 40 to 270 patients per million population between 1988 and 2002. Hsuet al.⁹ observed a remarkably similar increase in the rates of AKI requiring RRT from 195 to 295 per million person-years between 1996 and 2003 using an integrated health-care system database in California (USA) (Figure 1c). Similar growth has been reported in other countries (Table 3). For example, Metcalfeet al.³¹ estimated the population-based incidence of AKI requiring RRT in Scotland (United Kingdom) at 203 cases per million in the year 2000, a rate mirroring the US estimate from the same year (222 cases per million population).³² A subsequent prospective study using data encompassing all hospitals within Scotland estimated that the population-based incidence of AKI requiring RRT grew to 286 (95% confidence interval: 269–302) cases per million in 2002.³¹ Concurrent growth within the United States also occurred with a similar population incidence of 270 per million population in 2002.⁷ A recent update using the NIS database by Hsuet al.³² reported continued increases by up to 10%/year between 2000 and 2009, with a near tripling in the absolute number of annual cases (Figure 1d). However, the extent to which these increases reflect changes in underlying patient characteristics, provider practices, or increased availability of RRT over time is not yet known (see the section ‘Potential reasons for growth in AKI' below).

In conclusion, studies have demonstrated a growing incidence of AKI among hospitalized patients. However, interpreting trends in AKI and its outcomes should be interpreted with potential increases in reporting and the inclusion of less severe AKI in mind. Nevertheless, population-based studies using more ‘objective' creatinine-based criteria coupled with a rapidly growing incidence of AKI requiring dialysis suggest that increases in AKI are indeed occurring and that the numbers of patients experiencing AKI are larger than those indicated by administrative data alone.

Earlier and more liberal use of dialysis

One possible explanation for the increasing incidence of AKI requiring RRT is more liberal application of dialytic support. However, between 1988 and 2002, Waikaret al.⁷ observed increases in the comorbidity burden and illness severity of patients receiving acute dialysis in the United States. For example, the proportion of AKI patients receiving dialysis with at least 3 comorbidities rose from 16.9 to 24.6% between the first and last third of the study. Furthermore, the proportion of those requiring mechanical ventilation also increased from 18.0% in 1988 to 32.4% in 2002. Although ‘code-creep' may have partially contributed to the former, the rise in mechanical ventilation is less likely to be affected by coding and do not support more liberal application of acute dialysis to less sick patients as the primary reason for these increases.

Other possibilities include increasing availability of RRT and earlier or lower thresholds for initiation, a trend observed with the initiation of chronic dialysis.^33,34 Although observational data do suggest potential benefit for earlier initiation in AKI,^35,36 few studies have examined secular trends in the timing of dialysis initiation during AKI.Table 4 lists the serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen levels at the time of RRT initiation within major observational studies and clinical trials within the past two decades. We have also included a few selected studies from the more distant past for comparison. Although it is clear that the timing of initiation has evolved since the ‘early days' of dialytic therapy, more recent data do not suggest an obvious trend toward earlier initiation over the past two decades using these criteria alone. However, as most studies included are clinical trials with specific criteria for RRT initiation, these findings may not mimic changes in real-world practice patterns. Furthermore, recent practice surveys suggest that nephrologists are more likely to initiate RRT based on more ‘imminent' indications such as hypervolemia, acidosis, or electrolyte disturbances rather than the degree of azotemia alone, particularly as severity of illness increases.^37,38 For example, attention to prognostic significance of fluid overload in critically ill patients with and without AKI has also increased in recent years, although its impact on acute dialysis practice is not yet known.^39,40,41,42 However, one study examining secular trends in dialysis-requiring AKI following elective major surgery within Ontario, Canada, found that the timing of dialysis postoperatively shrank from a median of 5 days (interquartile range: 3–9) in 1995 to 2 days (interquartile range: 1–6) in 2009.¹⁰ Further studies are required to determine whether and why more aggressive dialysis initiation is occurring and whether this strategy is yielding significant benefit. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that AKI requiring dialysis still represents a small fraction of patients experiencing AKI.

Increases in comorbidity burden that affect susceptibility to AKI

Another potential contributor to the growth in AKI is an increase in the number of patients hospitalized who are susceptible to this disease. As the absolute number of hospital deaths associated with AKI requiring dialysis has increased, the case–fatality ratio appears to be decreasing. The previously described study by Waikaret al.⁷ revealed declining mortality from as high as 41.3% in 1988 down to 28.1% in 2002, a decrease not entirely attributable by increased discharges to ongoing care facilities. The mortality associated with dialysis-requiring AKI has since decreased further to 23.5% in 2009 in a similar study by Hsuet al.³² Although improving therapies for diseases including myocardial infarction, sepsis, and acute lung injury may be contributing, similar progress for treatment of AKI itself has not occurred. The latter prompts the question over whether some of these improvements may be due to an increasing number of patients who require a less severe insult that prompts the need for RRT. For example, as CKD is the predominant premorbid risk factor for AKI,^43,44 an increase in the hospital prevalence of CKD would be a plausible explanation for both the increasing earlier initiation and the lower associated mortality rates observed. Although it has been pointed out that only modest increases in the population-based prevalence of CKD have occurred,^16,45,46 it is not clear whether the same holds true for hospitalized populations. A recent Canadian study found a near tripling in the prevalence of patients with CKD being considered for major surgery from 2.0% in 1995–1997 to 5.5% in 2006–2009.⁴⁷ Unfortunately, diagnostic codes have been shown to be relatively insensitive for capturing CKD with sensitivities ranging between 26.6 and 42.4% and may also be subject to ‘code-creep' over time.^48,49,50 One study examining the secular trends of renal dysfunction in patients hospitalized with heart failure found that the mean admission eGFR of patients admitted to Mayo Clinic hospitals between 1987 and 2002 decreased from 73±31 to 55±25 ml/min per 1.73 m².⁵¹ Although likely reflecting some increase in AKI, some of this trend may also be attributable to an increasing prevalence of CKD among patients with heart failure. Of importance, as heart failure hospitalizations continue to rise (Figure 2b),⁵² it is worth noting that nearly one-third of patients hospitalized for heart failure within the United States and more than half of the patients in the French intensive care units have admission creatinine values of >2 mg/dl.⁵³

In addition to lower eGFR, other risk factors that confer susceptibility to AKI may also be increasing in prevalence. For example, proteinuria has been identified to have a dose-dependent association with the risk of developing AKI.^54,55,56 The hypothesis that this may also be contributing is supported by analyses of the NIS data set indicating that the prevalence of diabetes among hospitalized patients was as high as 19.4% in 2008.⁵⁷ Similarly, obesity itself has recently been identified to be an independent risk factor for AKI, an effect potentially mediated by increases in the burden of oxidative stress.⁵⁸ Parallel increases in the prevalence of obesity among hospitalized patients are also being observed.⁵⁹ Last, one of the fastest growing group of patients experiencing AKI is the elderly,⁸ a group that constitutes ∼35% of hospitalizations within the United States.⁶⁰ In addition to being most likely to experience critical illnesses,^61,62 age-related structural and functional changes in the kidney including sclerosis, vascular rarefaction, and loss of GFR and autoregulatory capacity all combine to increase the risk for AKI in this growing population.⁶³

Other changes in case-mix

Medications

Early single-center studies were among the first to suggest an expanding role of medications in the changing epidemiology of AKI. In the previous series of studies by Houet al.²² and Nashet al.,²³ the contribution of medications grew from 7 to 16% over a 17-year span between two centers. This increase in prominence was marked by increases in the repertoire of potential nephrotoxic drugs available. In 1979, aminoglycosides accounted for 82% of AKI caused by drugs; however, by 1996, they accounted for only 29% of drug-related AKI. Large observational studies of critically ill patients estimate that medications now contribute to almost one-fifth of severe AKI in adults.⁸⁴ Even among children, nephrotoxin exposures (16% of cases) have supplanted primary renal disease (7% of cases) as a leading cause of AKI.⁸⁵ A recent matched case–control study in 2008 found that most (>80%) of all hospitalized children with and without AKI were exposed to at least one potentially nephrotoxic medication, with a median number of at least two (range: 0–8) for children who developed AKI.⁸⁶

In addition to newer chemotherapeutic agents, nephrotoxins are becoming increasingly varied with an ever-expanding repertoire of antimicrobial agents.⁸⁷ Recent attention has also been directed to commonly used interventions previously considered to be benign. These include a critical reexamination of certain intravenous fluid formulations including hydroxyethyl starches^88,89,90 and, more recently, chloride-rich solutions.⁹¹ The former have been associated with a higher incidence of AKI and RRT in recently conducted trials in critically ill patients, and no longer recommended for initial volume expansion.^92,93 Chloride-rich solutions have also been demonstrated to associate with an increased risk for AKI and RRT in a recent open-label sequential period study;⁹¹ however, these findings remain to be validated in randomized trials. As secular trends in the growth in use of chloride-rich solutions are difficult to quantify, their contribution to the increasing rates of AKI observed remain uncertain. However, increasing emphasis on early and aggressive fluid resuscitation as a component of standard therapy in diseases such as sepsis have occurred over the past decade.^94,95 These data compel us to examine the safety of intravenous solutions with the same level of scrutiny as other pharmacotherapeutics.

Even outside of hospitalization, an increasing spectrum of medications commonly administered in a chronic stable setting is becoming recognized for their nephrotoxic potential (Table 5). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug exposure, in particular, continues to be problematic in patients at risk for AKI, including those with hypertension, congestive heart failure, and CKD, and it is one of the five areas recently identified by the American Society of Nephrology Quality and Patient Safety Task Force ‘most open' to improvement.^96,97 In addition to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, proton-pump inhibitors and phosphate-based purgatives have been implicated in AKI, many of which do not require a prescription and therefore more difficult to study.

Aside from an increasing variety of nephrotoxic medications, growth in AKI over the past two decades has also occurred on a background of increasingly aggressive blood pressure control. This is particularly true among patients with CKD, the group identified to be at the highest risk for developing AKI.^43,44 Peraltaet al.⁹⁸ observed that nearly one-third of hypertensive patients with CKD were on ⩾3 antihypertensive drugs, including 50% on diuretics and 58% on renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibition. Increasing efforts to improve blood pressure control typically increases the number of medications prescribed, leading to a wider pulse pressure and a lowering of diastolic blood pressure. Even in the absence of frank hypotension, a fall in blood pressure in patients with impaired renal autoregulation, particularly those with CKD, hypertension, and the elderly, may lead to increased risk of AKI.⁹⁹

One component of the above strategy has included widespread adoption of RAAS inhibitors. No other class of medications has been so widely integrated into treatment for multiple chronic conditions, including proteinuric and nonproteinuric CKD, diabetes, coronary artery disease, systolic heart failure, and hypertension.^{100,101,102,103,104,105} Simultaneously, efforts to improve CKD awareness, including increased electronic reporting, have potentially increased their use.^106,107,108 However, although the renal benefits of lowering intraglomerular pressure are well established, it is also known to come at the expense of blunting regional hemodynamic autoregulation that may lower the threshold for developing or worsening AKI in circumstances that ‘stress the kidney'in susceptible individuals. One recent study observed that RAAS inhibition was among the most common medication classes associated with adverse drug events among patients hospitalized with AKI, including exacerbation of hypotension or AKI itself.¹⁰⁹ RAAS inhibition has also been associated with AKI in other conditions such as cardiac surgery and contrast exposure.^110,111 Analyses from the ON-TARGET and the VA NEPHRON-D studies, two randomized studies comparing single versus dual RAAS blockade, found the latter to be associated with a greater loss of kidney function over time, a finding largely driven by increases in AKI.^112,113 Not surprisingly, the use of a triple therapy combination, of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, diuretics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, was also recently reported to be associated with a 31% increased risk for AKI.¹¹⁴ In aggregate, these findings suggest that the changing pharmacoepidemiology of AKI is an important and emerging area of investigation.

Limitations of serum creatinine as a biomarker of AKI

As the potential contributors to AKI become more varied and common, a premium will be placed upon the ability to extend AKI phenotyping beyond describing the clinical setting in which the injury occurs. Most studies predominantly use changes in serum creatinine to stage AKI. In addition to how the choice of baseline creatinine can affect the reported incidence of AKI, a few important biological and measurement considerations of creatinine potentially limit accuracy in diagnosing AKI. Leaving aside the inherent difficulties in interpreting small changes in serum creatinine in neonates and infants, serum creatinine depends equally upon both creatinine generation and excretion. Creatinine generation can be influenced by multiple factors, and can be reduced in AKI. Whether changes in production rate is similar in all types of AKI is unknown, as intuitive differences between sepsis-associated AKI and drug-induced AKI, for example, likely exist.¹¹⁵ In addition, creatinine generation or release will also depend upon hepatic creatine synthesis, which will be reduced in liver disease, and affected by other endocrine disorders.¹¹⁶ Finally, it must also be recognized that serum creatinine is measured as a concentration and thus affected by variations in volume status, particularly among patients with congestive heart failure, one of the growing populations experiencing AKI discussed in this review. Recent attempts to quantify the impact of fluid accumulation on the characterization of AKI suggest that it can hinder a timely diagnosis or mask less severe injury.^40,117 In apost hoc analysis of the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial (FACTT), Liuet al.⁴⁰ found that AKI was potentially misclassified in up to 18% of patients after adjusting serum creatinine values for net fluid balance and estimated total body water. Most cases were patients in whom the diagnosis of AKI would have otherwise been ‘missed' without adjustment. These patients experienced mortality rates similar to those with AKI that persisted before and after adjustment. These data suggest that the incidence of AKI may actually be underestimated in some patients and that the impact of fluid accumulation in its diagnoses and staging is not trivial.

Conversely, modest increases in serum creatinine may not necessarily reflect parenchymal injury and may even be associated with improved prognosis in some circumstances. For example, Cocaet al.¹¹⁸ recently demonstrated that preoperative use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker before cardiac surgery associates with AKI using serum creatinine–based definitions but not with significant elevations in tubular injury markers compared with non-AKI patients. Testaniet al.^119,120 observed that the indices of hemoconcentration associated strongly with worsening renal function (that is, increases in serum creatinine) yet also with reduced mortality during treatment of decompensated heart failure. Collectively, these examples highlight the need to allow for complementary information regarding ongoing parenchymal damage to be added to observed functional changes. The ability to segregate tissue injury from changes in function is a knowledge gap that novel tissue injury biomarkers propose to fill.^121,122,123Figure 4 illustrates the conceptual framework proposed by the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) that describes how AKI might be classified using a combination of both functional (for example, serum creatinine, urine output) markers and damage (for example, tubular injury) biomarkers. This expands upon the current paradigm that infers injury by the presence of functional changes alone. The potential for enhanced phenotyping with newer injury markers might allow for the characterization of ‘subclinical' injury (upper right quadrant) that may eventually be accompanied by functional loss but still associate with worse outcomes, patients with loss of function who may be at risk for damage, and those with both ongoing damage and loss of function (lower right quadrant).¹²³ In addition to facilitating a timely and accurate diagnosis of ongoing parenchymal damage, recent studies suggest that these markers may potentially provide additional diagnostic and prognostic information that complement serum creatinine.^124,125,126

In the interim, future studies that use administrative codes alone to examine trends in the incidence of AKI and its associated outcomes should be interpreted in light of potential increases in reporting over time that includes less severe AKI. Whenever possible, the magnitude of these effects should be estimated by consistently applying a single laboratory-based definition throughout the survey period in at least a subset of patients. Greater emphasis should also be placed on providing population-based, rather than hospital-based, incidence rates to reduce the impact of variation in admission practices in disease reporting.¹²⁷ Attention to premorbid information on baseline kidney function is also essential to minimize potential bias and to anchor the study of the long-term effects of AKI.¹²⁸ If information on premorbid kidney function is not available, estimates of baseline kidney function should make use of clinical data available and sensitivity analyses performed.¹²⁹ Regardless of the further refinements in the diagnostic approach to this disease, it is important to remember that each iterative definition has demonstrated a dose-dependent association between increasingly severe AKI and poor outcomes.^13,130,131 Refinements to standardized definitions for other acute conditions such as acute myocardial infarction that also once heavily relied on coding but continue to incorporate newer and improved diagnostics along with robust validation efforts highlight an important path for investigators of AKI to follow.^132,133 Last, with data sources currently available, continued efforts should be undertaken to pinpoint the reasons for this observed growth, including identifying subgroups experiencing the most rapid increases in AKI and modifiable risk factors that can attenuate this growth.

1. Marketos SG, Eftychiadis AG, Diamandopoulos A. Acute renal failure according to ancient Greek and Byzantine medical writers. J R Soc Med. 1993;86:290–293. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Swan RC, Merrill JP. The clinical course of acute renal failure. Medicine. 1953;32:215. doi: 10.1097/00005792-195305000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Smith HJ.The Kidney: Structure and Function in Health and Diseasefourth printingOxford University Press: London, England; 1964810 [Google Scholar]
4. Uchino S, Kellum JA, Bellomo R, et al. Acute renal failure in critically ill patients: a multinational, multicenter study. Jama. 2005;294:813–818. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.7.813. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Mehta RL, Pascual MT, Soroko S, et al. Spectrum of acute renal failure in the intensive care unit: the PICARD experience. Kidney Int. 2004;66:1613–1621. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1755.2004.00927.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Xue JL, Daniels F, Star RA, et al. Incidence and mortality of acute renal failure in Medicare beneficiaries, 1992 to 2001. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;17:1135–1142. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2005060668. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Waikar SS, Curhan GC, Wald R, et al. Declining mortality in patients with acute renal failure, 1988 to 2002. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;17:1143–1150. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2005091017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Hsu RK, McCulloch CE, Dudley RA, et al. Temporal Changes in Incidence of Dialysis-Requiring AKI. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013;24:37–42. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2012080800. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Hsu CY, McCulloch CE, Fan D, et al. Community-based incidence of acute renal failure. Kidney Int. 2007;72:208–212. doi: 10.1038/sj.ki.5002297. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Siddiqui NF, Coca SG, Devereaux PJ, et al. Secular trends in acute dialysis after elective major surgery–1995 to 2009. CMAJ. 2012;184:1237–1245. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.110895. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Hsu CY, Vittinghoff E, Lin F, et al. The incidence of end-stage renal disease is increasing faster than the prevalence of chronic renal insufficiency. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:95–101. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-2-200407200-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Wald R, Quinn RR, Luo J, et al. Chronic dialysis and death among survivors of acute kidney injury requiring dialysis. JAMA. 2009;302:1179–1185. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Ricci Z, Cruz D, Ronco C. The RIFLE criteria and mortality in acute kidney injury: A systematic review. Kidney Int. 2008;73:538–546. doi: 10.1038/sj.ki.5002743. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Chertow GM, Burdick E, Honour M, et al. Acute kidney injury, mortality, length of stay, and costs in hospitalized patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005;16:3365–3370. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2004090740. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Coca SG, Singanamala S, Parikh CR. Chronic kidney disease after acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Kidney Int. 2011;81:442–448. doi: 10.1038/ki.2011.379. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Hsu CY. Where is the epidemic in kidney disease. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;21:1607–1611. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2010050546. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Siew ED, Himmelfarb J. The inexorable rise of AKI: can we bend the growth curve. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013;24:3–5. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2012111115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Chawla LS, Kimmel PL. Acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease: an integrated clinical syndrome. Kidney Int. 2012;82:516–524. doi: 10.1038/ki.2012.208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Lameire N, Van Biesen W, Vanholder R. The changing epidemiology of acute renal failure. Nat Clin Pract Nephrol. 2006;2:364–377. doi: 10.1038/ncpneph0218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Hwang YJ, Shariff SZ, Gandhi S, et al. Validity of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code for acute kidney injury in elderly patients at presentation to the emergency department and at hospital admission. BMJ Open. 2012;2:1–11. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001821. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Grams ME, Waikar SS, MacMahon B, et al. Performance and limitations of administrative data in the identification of AKI. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol CJASN. 2014;9:682–689. doi: 10.2215/CJN.07650713. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Hou SH, Bushinsky DA, Wish JB, et al. Hospital-acquired renal insufficieny: a prospective study. Am J Med. 1983;74:243. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(83)90618-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Nash K, Hafeez A, Hou S. Hospital-acquired renal insufficiency. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002;39:930–936. doi: 10.1053/ajkd.2002.32766. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Levy EM, Viscoli CM, Horwitz RI. The effect of acute renal failure on mortality. A cohort analysis. JAMA. 1996;275:1489–1494. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Bellomo R, Ronco C, Kellum JA, et al. 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. doi: 10.1186/cc2872. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Mehta RL, Kellum JA, Shah SV, et al. Acute Kidney Injury Network: report of an initiative to improve outcomes in acute kidney injury. Crit Care. 2007;11:R31. doi: 10.1186/cc5713. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO). Kidney Int Supp2012219
28. Siew ED, Matheny ME, Ikizler TA, et al. Commonly used surrogates for baseline renal function affect the classification and prognosis of acute kidney injury. Kidney Int. 2010;77:536–542. doi: 10.1038/ki.2009.479. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Bagshaw SM, Uchino S, Cruz D, et al. A comparison of observed versus estimated baseline creatinine for determination of RIFLE class in patients with acute kidney injury. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2009;24:2739–2744. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfp159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30. Waikar SS, Wald R, Chertow GM, et al. Validity of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification Codes for Acute Renal Failure. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;17:1688–1694. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2006010073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. Metcalfe W, Simpson M, Khan IH, et al. Acute renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy: incidence and outcome. QJM. 2002;95:579–583. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/95.9.579. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. Hsu RK, McCulloch CE, Dudley RA, et al. Temporal Changes in Incidence of dialysis-requiring Acute Kidney Injury. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 2013;24:37–42. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2012080800. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Rosansky S, Glassock RJ, Clark WF. Early start of dialysis: a critical review. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;6:1222–1228. doi: 10.2215/CJN.09301010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Rosansky SJ, Eggers P, Jackson K, et al. Early start of hemodialysis may be harmful. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:396–403. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Liu KD, Himmelfarb J, Paganini E, et al. Timing of initiation of dialysis in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;1:915–919. doi: 10.2215/CJN.01430406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. Shiao CC, Wu VC, Li WY, et al. Late initiation of renal replacement therapy is associated with worse outcomes in acute kidney injury after major abdominal surgery. Crit Care. 2009;13:R171. doi: 10.1186/cc8147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Thakar CV, Rousseau J, Leonard AC. Timing of dialysis initiation in AKI in ICU: international survey. Crit Care. 2012;16:R237. doi: 10.1186/cc11906. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Clark E, Wald R, Walsh M, et al. Timing of initiation of renal replacement therapy for acute kidney injury: a survey of nephrologists and intensivists in Canada. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27:2761–2767. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfr740. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. Wiedemann HP, Wheeler AP, Bernard GR, et al. Comparison of two fluid-management strategies in acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:2564–2575. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa062200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40. Liu KD, Thompson BT, Ancukiewicz M, et al. Acute kidney injury in patients with acute lung injury: impact of fluid accumulation on classification of acute kidney injury and associated outcomes. Crit Care Med. 2011;39:2665–2671. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318228234b. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Grams ME, Estrella MM, Coresh J, et al. Fluid balance, diuretic use, and mortality in acute kidney injury. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;6:966–973. doi: 10.2215/CJN.08781010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Butcher BW, Liu KD. Fluid overload in AKI: epiphenomenon or putative effect on mortality. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2012;18:593–598. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e32835a1c44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Grams ME, Astor BC, Bash LD, et al. Albuminuria and estimated glomerular filtration rate independently associate with acute kidney injury. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;21:1757–1764. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2010010128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44. Hsu CY, Ordonez JD, Chertow GM, et al. The risk of acute renal failure in patients with chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int. 2008;74:101–107. doi: 10.1038/ki.2008.107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. Coresh J, Astor BC, Greene T, et al. Prevalence of chronic kidney disease and decreased kidney function in the adult US population: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Am J Kidney Dis. 2003;41:1–12. doi: 10.1053/ajkd.2003.50007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46. Coresh J, Walser M, Hill S. Survival on dialysis among chronic renal failure patients treated with a supplemented low-protein diet before dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1995;6:1379–1385. doi: 10.1681/ASN.V651379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Siddiqui NF, Coca SG, Devereaux PJ, et al. Secular trends in acute dialysis after elective major surgery–1995 to 2009. CMAJ. 2012;184:1237–1245. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.110895. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48. Winkelmayer WC, Schneeweiss S, Mogun H, et al. Identification of individuals with CKD from Medicare claims data: a validation study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2005;46:225–232. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.04.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49. Fleet JL, Dixon SN, Shariff SZ, et al. Detecting chronic kidney disease in population-based administrative databases using an algorithm of hospital encounter and physician claim codes. BMC Nephrol. 2013;14:81. doi: 10.1186/1471-2369-14-81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50. Kern EF, Maney M, Miller DR, et al. Failure of ICD-9-CM codes to identify patients with comorbid chronic kidney disease in diabetes. Health Serv Res. 2006;41:564–580. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00482.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51. Owan TE, Hodge DO, Herges RM, et al. Secular trends in renal dysfunction and outcomes in hospitalized heart failure patients. J Card Fail. 2006;12:257–262. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2006.02.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52. Writing Group Members. Lloyd-Jones D, Adams RJ, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics–2010 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010;121:e46–e215. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.192667. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Adams KF, Jr, Uddin N, Patterson JH. Clinical predictors of in-hospital mortality in acutely decompensated heart failure-piecing together the outcome puzzle. Congest Heart Fail. 2008;14:127–134. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7133.2008.04641.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Grams ME, Astor BC, Bash LD, et al. Albuminuria and estimated glomerular filtration rate independently associate with acute kidney injury. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;21:1757–1764. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2010010128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55. James MT, Hemmelgarn BR, Wiebe N, et al. Glomerular filtration rate, proteinuria, and the incidence and consequences of acute kidney injury: a cohort study. Lancet. 2010;376:2096–2103. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61271-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56. Hsu RK, Hsu CY. Proteinuria and reduced glomerular filtration rate as risk factors for acute kidney injury. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2011;20:211–217. doi: 10.1097/MNH.0b013e3283454f8d. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57. Fraze T, Jiang JH, Burgess J.Hospital Stays for Patients with Diabetes, 2008 (Statistical Brief #93). Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP)http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb93.pdf,2010
58. Billings FTt, Pretorius M, Schildcrout JS, et al. Obesity and oxidative stress predict AKI after cardiac surgery. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;23:1221–1228. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2011090940. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59. Patil H, Astik G, House JA, et al. Prevalence of grade II and III obesity among patients hospitalized with cardiovascular diagnoses in 2002 v. 2009. Mo Med. 2012;109:397–401. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60. Nagamine M, Jiang J, Merril CT.Trends in elderly Hospitalizations, 1997-2004. Statistical Brief #14. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP)www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb14.pdf,2006
61. Rubenfeld GD, Caldwell E, Peabody E, et al. Incidence and outcomes of acute lung injury. N Eng J Med. 2005;353:1685–1693. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa050333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62. Martin GS, Mannino DM, Moss M. The effect of age on the development and outcome of adult sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:15–21. doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000194535.82812.ba. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63. Anderson S, Eldadah B, Halter JB, et al. Acute kidney injury in older adults. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;22:28–38. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2010090934. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64. Seymour CW, Rea TD, Kahn JM, et al. Severe sepsis in pre-hospital emergency care: analysis of incidence, care, and outcome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;186:1264–1271. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201204-0713OC. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65. Martin GS, Mannino DM, Eaton S, et al. The epidemiology of sepsis in the United States from 1979 through 2000. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1546–1554. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa022139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66. Dombrovskiy VY, Martin AA, Sunderram J, et al. Rapid increase in hospitalization and mortality rates for severe sepsis in the United States: a trend analysis from 1993 to 2003. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:1244–1250. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000261890.41311.E9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67. Fry AM, Shay DK, Holman RC, et al. Trends in hospitalizations for pneumonia among persons aged 65 years or older in the United States, 1988-2002. JAMA. 2005;294:2712–2719. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.21.2712. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68. Heywood JT, Fonarow GC, Costanzo MR, et al. High prevalence of renal dysfunction and its impact on outcome in 118,465 patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure: a report from the ADHERE database. J Card Fail. 2007;13:422–430. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2007.03.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
69. Fonarow GC, Adams KF, Jr, Abraham WT, et al. Risk stratification for in-hospital mortality in acutely decompensated heart failure: classification and regression tree analysis. JAMA. 2005;293:572–580. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.5.572. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
70. Forman DE, Butler J, Wang Y, et al. Incidence, predictors at admission, and impact of worsening renal function among patients hospitalized with heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:61–67. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2003.07.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71. Logeart D, Tabet JY, Hittinger L, et al. Transient worsening of renal function during hospitalization for acute heart failure alters outcome. Int J Cardiol. 2008;127:228–232. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2007.06.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72. Hassan A, Newman A, Ko DT, et al. Increasing rates of angioplasty versus bypass surgery in Canada, 1994-2005. Am Heart J. 2010;160:958–965. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2010.06.052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
73. Amin AP, Salisbury AC, McCullough PA, et al. Trends in the incidence of acute kidney injury in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:246–253. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.1202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
74. Neilson EG, Johnson KB, Rosenbloom ST, et al. The impact of peer management on test-ordering behavior. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:196–204. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-3-200408030-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75. Lenihan CR, Montez-Rath ME, Mora Mangano CT, et al. Trends in acute kidney injury, associated use of dialysis, and mortality after cardiac surgery, 1999 to 2008. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;95:20–28. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.05.131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76. Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:961–972. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0804626. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77. Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Sleeper LA, et al. Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:2375–2384. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1211585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
78. Salahudeen AK, Bonventre JV. Onconephrology: the latest frontier in the war against kidney disease. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013;24:26–30. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2012070690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
79. Lam AQ, Humphreys BD. Onco-nephrology: AKI in the cancer patient. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7:1692–1700. doi: 10.2215/CJN.03140312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
80. Perazella MA, Berns JS, Rosner MH. Cancer and the kidney: the growth of onco-nephrology. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2014;21:4–6. doi: 10.1053/j.ackd.2013.09.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
81. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, et al. Cancer Statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64:9–29. doi: 10.3322/caac.21208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
82. Salahudeen AK, Doshi SM, Pawar T, et al. Incidence rate, clinical correlates, and outcomes of AKI in patients admitted to a comprehensive cancer center. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013;8:347–354. doi: 10.2215/CJN.03530412. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
83. Perazella MA. Onco-nephrology: renal toxicities of chemotherapeutic agents. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7:1713–1721. doi: 10.2215/CJN.02780312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
84. Uchino S. The epidemiology of acute renal failure in the world. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2006;12:538–543. doi: 10.1097/01.ccx.0000247448.94252.5a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
85. Hui-Stickle S, Brewer ED, Goldstein SL. Pediatric ARF epidemiology at a tertiary care center from 1999 to 2001. Am J Kidney Dis. 2005;45:96–101. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2004.09.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
86. Moffett BS, Goldstein SL. Acute kidney injury and increasing nephrotoxic-medication exposure in noncritically-ill children. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;6:856–863. doi: 10.2215/CJN.08110910. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
87. Perazella MA. Drug use and nephrotoxicity in the intensive care unit. Kidney Int. 2012;81:1172–1178. doi: 10.1038/ki.2010.475. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
88. Myburgh JA, Finfer S, Bellomo R, et al. Hydroxyethyl starch or saline for fluid resuscitation in intensive care. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1901–1911. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1209759. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
89. Perner A, Haase N, Guttormsen AB, et al. Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer's acetate in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:124–134. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1204242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
90. Zarychanski R, Abou-Setta AM, Turgeon AF, et al. Association of hydroxyethyl starch administration with mortality and acute kidney injury in critically ill patients requiring volume resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2013;309:678–688. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
91. Yunos NM, Bellomo R, Hegarty C, et al. Association between a chloride-liberal vs chloride-restrictive intravenous fluid administration strategy and kidney injury in critically ill adults. JAMA. 2012;308:1566–1572. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.13356. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
92. Kellum JA, Lameire N. for the KAKIGWG. Diagnosis, evaluation, and management of acute kidney injury: a KDIGO summary (Part 1) Crit Care. 2013;17:204. doi: 10.1186/cc11454. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
93. Palevsky PM, Liu KD, Brophy PD, et al. KDOQI US commentary on the 2012 KDIGO clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61:649–672. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2013.02.349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
94. Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, et al. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1368–1377. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa010307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
95. Levy MM, Dellinger RP, Townsend SR, et al. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: results of an international guideline-based performance improvement program targeting severe sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36:222–231. doi: 10.1007/s00134-009-1738-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
96. Williams AW, Dwyer AC, Eddy AA, et al. Critical and honest conversations: the evidence behind the ‘Choosing Wisely' campaign recommendations by the American Society of Nephrology. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7:1664–1672. doi: 10.2215/CJN.04970512. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
97. Plantinga L, Grubbs V, Sarkar U, et al. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use among persons with chronic kidney disease in the United States. Ann Family Med. 2011;9:423–430. doi: 10.1370/afm.1302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
98. Peralta CA, Shlipak MG, Wassel-Fyr C, et al. Association of antihypertensive therapy and diastolic hypotension in chronic kidney disease. Hypertension. 2007;50:474–480. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.107.088088. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
99. Abuelo JG. Normotensive ischemic acute renal failure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:797–805. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra064398. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
100. Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Bain RP, et al. The effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition on diabetic nephropathy. The Collaborative Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1456–1462. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199311113292004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
101. Kramer BK, Schweda F.Ramipril in non-diabetic renal failure (REIN study). Ramipril Efficiency in Nephropathy study Lancet 1997350736author reply 736-737. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
102. Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Clarke WR, et al. Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:851–860. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa011303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
103. Yusuf S, Sleight P, Pogue J, et al. Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:145–153. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200001203420301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
104. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA. 2003;289:2560–2572. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.19.2560. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
105. KDOQI KDOQI Clinical Practice Guidelines and Clinical Practice Recommendations for Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease. Am J Kidney Dis. 2007;49:S12–154. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2006.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
106. National Kidney Foundation K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002;39:S1–266. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
107. Levey AS, Eckardt KU, Tsukamoto Y, et al. Definition and classification of chronic kidney disease: a position statement from Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Kidney Int. 2005;67:2089–2100. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1755.2005.00365.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
108. Jain AK, Cuerden MS, McLeod I, et al. Reporting of the estimated glomerular filtration rate was associated with increased use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-II receptor blockers in CKD. Kidney Int. 2012;81:1248–1253. doi: 10.1038/ki.2012.18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
109. Cox ZL, McCoy AB, Matheny ME, et al. Adverse drug events during AKI and its recovery. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013;8:1070–1078. doi: 10.2215/CJN.11921112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
110. Arora P, Rajagopalam S, Ranjan R, et al. Preoperative use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers is associated with increased risk for acute kidney injury after cardiovascular surgery. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;3:1266–1273. doi: 10.2215/CJN.05271107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
111. Rim MY, Ro H, Kang WC, et al. The effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade on contrast-induced acute kidney injury: a propensity-matched study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60:576–582. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2012.04.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
112. Mann JF, Schmieder RE, McQueen M, et al. Renal outcomes with telmisartan, ramipril, or both, in people at high vascular risk (the ONTARGET study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;372:547–553. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61236-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
113. Fried LF, Emanuele N, Zhang JH, et al. Combined Angiotensin inhibition for the treatment of diabetic nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1892–1903. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1303154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
114. Lapi F, Azoulay L, Yin H, et al. Concurrent use of diuretics, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor blockers with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of acute kidney injury: nested case-control study. BMJ. 2013;346:e8525. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e8525. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
115. Okusa M, Davenport A. Reading between the guidelines - The KIDGO Practice Guideline on acute kidney injury in the individual patient. Kidney Int. 2013;85:39–48. doi: 10.1038/ki.2013.378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
116. Davenport A, Cholongitas E, Xirouchakis E, et al. Pitfalls in assessing renal function in patients with cirrhosis–potential inequity for access to treatment of hepatorenal failure and liver transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011;26:2735–2742. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfr354. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
117. Macedo E, Bouchard J, Soroko SH, et al. Fluid accumulation, recognition and staging of acute kidney injury in critically-ill patients. Crit Care. 2010;14:R82. doi: 10.1186/cc9004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
118. Coca SG, Garg AX, Swaminathan M, et al. Preoperative angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blocker use and acute kidney injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013;28:2787–2799. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gft405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
119. Testani JM, Chen J, McCauley BD, et al. Potential effects of aggressive decongestion during the treatment of decompensated heart failure on renal function and survival. Circulation. 2010;122:265–272. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.933275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
120. Testani JM, Brisco MA, Chen J, et al. Timing of hemoconcentration during treatment of acute decompensated heart failure and subsequent survival: importance of sustained decongestion. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:516–524. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
121. Murray PT, Mehta RL, Shaw A, et al. Current use of biomarkers in acute kidney injury: report and summary of recommendations from the 10th Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative consensus conference. Kidney Int. 2014;85:513–521. doi: 10.1038/ki.2013.374. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
122. McCullough PA, Bouchard J, Waikar SS, et al. Implementation of novel biomarkers in the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of acute kidney injury: executive summary from the Tenth Consensus Conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Contrib Nephrol. 2013;182:5–12. doi: 10.1159/000349962. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
123. McCullough PA, Shaw AD, Haase M, et al. Diagnosis of acute kidney injury using functional and injury biomarkers: workgroup statements from the tenth acute dialysis quality initiative consensus conference. Contrib Nephrol. 2013;182:13–29. doi: 10.1159/000349963. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
124. Coca SG, Garg AX, Thiessen-Philbrook H, et al. Urinary biomarkers of AKI and mortality 3 years after cardiac surgery. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;25:1063–1071. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2013070742. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
125. Haase M, Devarajan P, Haase-Fielitz A, et al. The outcome of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin-positive subclinical acute kidney injury: a multicenter pooled analysis of prospective studies. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:1752–1761. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.11.051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
126. Belcher JM, Sanyal AJ, Peixoto AJ, et al. Kidney biomarkers and differential diagnosis of patients with cirrhosis and acute kidney injury. Hepatology. 2014;60:622–632. doi: 10.1002/hep.26980. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
127. Hsu RK, McCulloch CE, Ku E, et al. Regional variation in the incidence of dialysis-requiring AKI in the United States. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013;8:1476–1481. doi: 10.2215/CJN.12611212. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
128. Siew ED, Ikizler TA, Matheny ME, et al. Estimating baseline kidney function in hospitalized patients with impaired kidney function. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7:712–719. doi: 10.2215/CJN.10821011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
129. Siew ED, Peterson JF, Eden SK, et al. Use of multiple imputation method to improve estimation of missing baseline serum creatinine in acute kidney injury research. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013;8:10–18. doi: 10.2215/CJN.00200112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
130. Thakar CV, Christianson A, Freyberg R, et al. Incidence and outcomes of acute kidney injury in intensive care units: a Veterans Administration study. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:2552–2558. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a5906f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
131. Joannidis M, Metnitz B, Bauer P, et al. Acute kidney injury in critically ill patients classified by AKIN versus RIFLE using the SAPS 3 database. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35:1692–1702. doi: 10.1007/s00134-009-1530-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
132. Alpert JS, Thygesen K. A call for universal definitions in cardiovascular disease. Circulation. 2006;114:757–758. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.648030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
133. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, et al. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1581–1598. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.08.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
134. Chertow GM, Levy EM, Hammermeister KE, et al. Independent association between acute renal failure and mortality following cardiac surgery. Am J Med. 1998;104:343–348. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(98)00058-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
135. Mangano CM, Diamondstone LS, Ramsay JG, et al. Renal dysfunction after myocardial revascularization: risk factors, adverse outcomes, and hospital resource utilization. The Multicenter Study of Perioperative Ischemia Research Group. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:194–203. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-128-3-199802010-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
136. Hobson CE, Yavas S, Segal MS, et al. Acute kidney injury is associated with increased long-term mortality after cardiothoracic surgery. Circulation. 2009;119:2444–2453. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.800011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
137. Dasta JF, Kane-Gill SL, Durtschi AJ, et al. Costs and outcomes of acute kidney injury (AKI) following cardiac surgery. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23:1970–1974. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfm908. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
138. Kuitunen A, Vento A, Suojaranta-Ylinen R, et al. Acute renal failure after cardiac surgery: evaluation of the RIFLE classification. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;81:542–546. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2005.07.047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
139. Liangos O, Wald R, O'Bell JW, et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of acute renal failure in hospitalized patients: a national survey. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;1:43–51. doi: 10.2215/CJN.00220605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
140. Uchino S, Bellomo R, Goldsmith D, et al. An assessment of the RIFLE criteria for acute renal failure in hospitalized patients. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:1913–1917. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000224227.70642.4F. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
141. Ali T, Khan I, Simpson W, et al. Incidence and outcomes in acute kidney injury: a comprehensive population-based study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;18:1292–1298. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2006070756. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
142. Porter CJ, Juurlink I, Bisset LH, et al. A real-time electronic alert to improve detection of acute kidney injury in a large teaching hospital Nephrol Dial Transplant(advance online publication 16 April 2014; e-pub ahead of print). [DOI] [PubMed]
143. Brivet FG, Kleinknecht DJ, Loirat P, et al. Acute renal failure in intensive care units–causes, outcome, and prognostic factors of hospital mortality; a prospective, multicenter study. French Study Group on Acute Renal Failure. Crit Care Med. 1996;24:192–198. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199602000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
144. Hoste EA, Clermont G, Kersten A, et al. RIFLE criteria for acute kidney injury are associated with hospital mortality in critically ill patients: a cohort analysis. Crit Care. 2006;10:R73. doi: 10.1186/cc4915. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
145. Ostermann M, Chang RW. Acute kidney injury in the intensive care unit according to RIFLE. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:1837–1843. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000277041.13090.0A. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
146. Bagshaw SM, George C, Dinu I, et al. A multi-centre evaluation of the RIFLE criteria for early acute kidney injury in critically ill patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23:1203–1210. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfm744. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
147. Bagshaw SM, George C, Bellomo R. A comparison of the RIFLE and AKIN criteria for acute kidney injury in critically ill patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23:1569–1574. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfn009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
148. Bagshaw SM, George C, Bellomo R, et al. Early acute kidney injury and sepsis: a multicentre evaluation. Crit Care. 2008;12:R47. doi: 10.1186/cc6863. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
149. Cruz DN, Bolgan I, Perazella MA, et al. North East Italian Prospective Hospital Renal Outcome Survey on Acute Kidney Injury (NEiPHROS-AKI): targeting the problem with the RIFLE Criteria. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;2:418–425. doi: 10.2215/CJN.03361006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
150. Nisula S, Kaukonen KM, Vaara ST, et al. Incidence, risk factors and 90-day mortality of patients with acute kidney injury in Finnish intensive care units: the FINNAKI study. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39:420–428. doi: 10.1007/s00134-012-2796-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
151. Feest TG, Round A, Hamad S. Incidence of severe acute renal failure in adults: results of a community based study. BMJ. 1993;306:481–483. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6876.481. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
152. Khan IH, Catto GR, Edward N, et al. Acute renal failure: factors influencing nephrology referral and outcome. QJM. 1997;90:781–785. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/90.12.781. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
153. Liano F, Pascual J. Epidemiology of acute renal failure: a prospective, multicenter, community-based study. Madrid Acute Renal Failure Study Group. Kidney Int. 1996;50:811–818. doi: 10.1038/ki.1996.380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
154. Korkeila M, Ruokonen E, Takala J. Costs of care, long-term prognosis and quality of life in patients requiring renal replacement therapy during intensive care. Intensive Care Med. 2000;26:1824–1831. doi: 10.1007/s001340000726. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
155. Stevens PE, Tamimi NA, Al-Hasani MK, et al. Non-specialist management of acute renal failure. QJM. 2001;94:533–540. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/94.10.533. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
156. Cole L, Bellomo R, Silvester W, et al. A prospective, multicenter study of the epidemiology, management, and outcome of severe acute renal failure in a ‘closed' ICU system. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;162:191–196. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.162.1.9907016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
157. Robertson S, Newbigging K, Isles CG, et al. High incidence of renal failure requiring short-term dialysis: a prospective observational study. QJM. 2002;95:585–590. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/95.9.585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
158. Prescott GJ, Metcalfe W, Baharani J, et al. A prospective national study of acute renal failure treated with RRT: incidence, aetiology and outcomes. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2007;22:2513–2519. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfm264. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
159. Parsons DF, Darden EB., Jr Optimal conditions for methacrylate embedding of certain tissues and cells sensitive to polymerization damage. Exp Cell Res. 1961;24:466–483. doi: 10.1016/0014-4827(61)90447-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
160. Fischer RP, Griffen WO, Jr, Reiser M, et al. Early dialysis in the treatment of acute renal failure. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1966;123:1019–1023. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
161. Kleinknecht D, Jungers P, Chanard J, et al. Uremic and non-uremic complications in acute renal failure: evaluation of early and frequent dialysis on prognosis. Kidney Int. 1972;1:190–196. doi: 10.1038/ki.1972.26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
162. Gettings LG, Reynolds HN, Scalea T. Outcome in post-traumatic acute renal failure when continuous renal replacement therapy is applied early vs. late. Intensive Care Med. 1999;25:805–813. doi: 10.1007/s001340050956. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
163. Mehta RL, McDonald B, Gabbai FB, et al. A randomized clinical trial of continuous versus intermittent dialysis for acute renal failure. Kidney Int. 2001;60:1154–1163. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2001.0600031154.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
164. Schiffl H, Lang SM, Fischer R. Daily hemodialysis and the outcome of acute renal failure. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:305–310. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa010877. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
165. Ronco C, Bellomo R, Homel P, et al. Effects of different doses in continuous veno-venous haemofiltration on outcomes of acute renal failure: a prospective randomised trial. Lancet. 2000;356:26–30. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02430-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
166. Bouman CS, Oudemans-Van Straaten HM, Tijssen JG, et al. Effects of early high-volume continuous venovenous hemofiltration on survival and recovery of renal function in intensive care patients with acute renal failure: a prospective, randomized trial. Critical Care Med. 2002;30:2205–2211. doi: 10.1097/00003246-200210000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
167. Cho KC, Himmelfarb J, Paganini E, et al. Survival by dialysis modality in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;17:3132–3138. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2006030268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
168. Vinsonneau C, Camus C, Combes A, et al. Continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration versus intermittent haemodialysis for acute renal failure in patients with multiple-organ dysfunction syndrome: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2006;368:379–385. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69111-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
169. Uchino S, Bellomo R, Morimatsu H, et al. Continuous renal replacement therapy: a worldwide practice survey: The Beginning and Ending Supportive Therapy for the Kidney (B.E.S.T. Kidney) Investigators. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33:1563–1570. doi: 10.1007/s00134-007-0754-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
170. Carl DE, Grossman C, Behnke M, et al. Effect of timing of dialysis on mortality in critically ill, septic patients with acute renal failure. Hemodial Int. 2010;14:11–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1542-4758.2009.00407.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
171. Prescott GJ, Metcalfe W, Baharani J, et al. A prospective national study of acute renal failure treated with RRT: incidence, aetiology and outcomes. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2007;22:2513–2519. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfm264. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
172. Palevsky PM, Zhang JH, O'Connor TZ, et al. Intensity of renal support in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:7–20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0802639. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
173. Bellomo R, Cass A, Cole L, et al. Intensity of continuous renal-replacement therapy in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1627–1638. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0902413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
174. Leonard CE, Freeman CP, Newcomb CW, et al. Proton pump inhibitors and traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk of acute interstitial nephritis and acute kidney injury. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21:1155–1172. doi: 10.1002/pds.3329. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
175. Dormuth CR, Hemmelgarn BR, Paterson JM, et al. Use of high potency statins and rates of admission for acute kidney injury: multicenter, retrospective observational analysis of administrative databases. BMJ. 2013;346:f880. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f880. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
176. Bird ST, Etminan M, Brophy JM, et al. Risk of acute kidney injury associated with the use of fluoroquinolones. CMAJ. 2013;185:E475–E482. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.121730. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
177. Hurst FP, Bohen EM, Osgard EM, et al. Association of oral sodium phosphate purgative use with acute kidney injury. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;18:3192–3198. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2007030349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
178. Zhao YY, Weir MA, Manno M, et al. New fibrate use and acute renal outcomes in elderly adults: a population-based study. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:560–569. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-8-201204170-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
179. Schneider V, Levesque LE, Zhang B, et al. Association of selective and conventional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs with acute renal failure: a population-based, nested case-control analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164:881–889. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwj331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
180. Wikman P, Safont P, Del Palacio M, et al. The significance of antiretroviral-associated acute kidney injury in a cohort of ambulatory human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013;28:2073–2081. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gft210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
181. Gandhi S, Fleet JL, Bailey DG, et al. Calcium-channel blocker-clarithromycin drug interactions and acute kidney injury. JAMA. 2013;310:2544–2553. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.282426. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]