Prediction differences and implications of acute kidney injury with and without urine output criteria in adult critically ill patients

Abstract

Background: Due to the convenience of serum creatinine (SCr) monitoring and the relative complexity of urine output (UO) monitoring, most studies have predicted acute kidney injury (AKI) only based on SCr criteria. This study aimed to compare the differences between SCr alone and combined UO criteria in predicting AKI.

Methods: We applied machine learning methods to evaluate the performance of 13 prediction models composed of different feature categories on 16 risk assessment tasks (half used only SCr criteria, half used both SCr and UO criteria). The area under receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC), the area under precision recall curve (AUPRC) and calibration were used to assess the prediction performance.

Results: In the first week after ICU admission, the prevalence of any AKI was 29% under SCr criteria alone and increased to 60% when the UO criteria was combined. Adding UO to SCr criteria can significantly identify more AKI patients. The predictive importance of feature types with and without UO was different. Using only laboratory data maintained similar predictive performance to the full feature model under only SCr criteria [e.g. for AKI within the 48-h time window after 1 day of ICU admission, AUROC (95% confidence interval) 0.83 (0.82, 0.84) vs 0.84 (0.83, 0.85)], but it was not sufficient when the UO was added [corresponding AUROC (95% confidence interval) 0.75 (0.74, 0.76) vs 0.84 (0.83, 0.85)].

Conclusions: This study found that SCr and UO measures should not be regarded as equivalent criteria for AKI staging, and emphasizes the importance and necessity of UO criteria in AKI risk assessment.

Keywords: acute kidney injury; machine learning; risk assessment; serum creatinine; urine output.