Early identification of acute kidney injury in the ICU with real-time urine output monitoring: a clinical investigation

• Main Authors: Dafna Willner, Aliza Goldman, Hagar Azran, Tal Stern, Dvora Kirshenbom, Guy Rosenthal
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2021-08-01
• Series: BMC Nephrology
• Subjects: Acute kidney injury; KDIGO criteria; Oliguria; Urine output; Electronic monitoring; Serum creatinine
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-021-02485-w

Abstract Background KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) provides two sets of criteria to identify and classify acute kidney injury (AKI): serum creatinine (SCr) and urine output (UO). Inconsistencies in the application of KDIGO UO criteria, as well as collecting and classifying UO data, have prevented an accurate assessment of the role this easily available biomarker can play in the early identification of AKI. Study goal To assess and compare the performance of the two KDIGO criteria (SCr and UO) for identification of AKI in the intensive care unit (ICU) by comparing the standard SCr criteria to consistent, real-time, consecutive, electronic urine output measurements. Methods Ninety five catheterized patients in the General ICU (GICU) of Hadassah Medical Center, Israel, were connected to the RenalSense™ Clarity RMS™ device to automatically monitor UO electronically (UOelec). UOelec and SCr were recorded for 24–48 h and up to 1 week, respectively, after ICU admission. Results Real-time consecutive UO measurements identified significantly more AKI patients than SCr in the patient population, 57.9% (N = 55) versus 26.4% (N = 25), respectively (P < 0.0001). In 20 patients that had AKI according to both criteria, time to AKI identification was significantly earlier using the UOelec criteria as compared to the SCr criteria (P < 0.0001). Among this population, the median (interquartile range (IQR)) identification time of AKI UOelec was 12.75 (8.75, 26.25) hours from ICU admission versus 39.06 (25.8, 108.64) hours for AKI SCr. Conclusion Application of KDIGO criteria for AKI using continuous electronic monitoring of UO identifies more AKI patients, and identifies them earlier, than using the SCr criteria alone. This can enable the clinician to set protocol goals for earlier intervention for the prevention or treatment of AKI.