You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Acute kidney injury and in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients with cirrhosis: a cohort study
  1. José António Lopes1,
  2. Maria João Melo1,
  3. Ana Cortesão Costa1,
  4. Mário Raimundo1,
  5. Paula Alexandrino2,
  6. António Gomes da Costa1,
  7. José Velosa2
  1. 1Department of Nephrology and Renal Transplantation, Lisboa, Portugal
  2. 2Intensive Care Unit, Department of Gastrenterology and Hepatology, Hospital de Santa Maria, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Norte, EPE, Lisboa, Portugal
  1. Correspondence to Professor José António Lopes, Department of Nephrology and Renal Transplantation, Hospital de Santa Maria, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Norte, EPE, Avenida Professor Egas Moniz, Lisboa 1649-035, Portugal; jalopes93{at}hotmail.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301190

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    As acute kidney injury (AKI) has not been formally defined in patients with cirrhosis, members of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative and the International Club of Ascites formed a working group in March 2010 to discuss the definition of renal dysfunction (acute and chronic) in patients with cirrhosis. The final consensus proposal of the working party was to accept the definition of AKI in cirrhosis as an increase in serum creatinine (SCr) of >50% from baseline or a rise in SCr of >26.4 mmol/l (>0.3 mg/dl) in <48 h, irrespective of whether the cause of the acute deterioration in renal function is related to a functional or structural disorder.1 It was further agreed that these new empirical diagnostic criteria of AKI for cirrhosis will be validated to determine whether these smaller increases in SCr are associated with poor outcomes.

    In …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None.

    • Patient consent Since this was a retrospective and observational study that did not evaluate a specific therapeutic or prophylactic intervention, patient written consent was considered not to be necessary.

    • Ethics approval Since this was a retrospective and observational study that did not evaluate a specific therapeutic or prophylactic intervention, study approval was waived by the ethical committee of our hospital according to institutional guidelines.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.