Introduction:

what we now know as acute kidney injury (AKI) in the last century had at least 25 concepts and 35 different definitions; In this century, the RIFLE, AKIN, and KDIGO definitions and classification systems for severity were developed, based on creatinine, urine output, and need for renal replacement therapy. In the last decade, biomarkers of AKI have been studied; It is suggested that research be carried out on whether a combination of damage and functional biomarkers together with clinical information, in high-risk patients, could help improve the diagnostic accuracy of the proposed new definition of AKI.

Objective:

to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of the proposed new definition of AKI in critically ill patients.

Material and methods:

an observational, analytical, prospective and longitudinal study was carried out in patients older than 18 years, admitted to intensive care at the Hospital Central Sur de Alta Especialidad in the period from May 1, 2022 to July 10 2022.

Results:

in the study group (41 patients), the mean age was 62.5 ± 14.22 years; and 33 (80.5%) were men. The mean weight, height and body mass index (BMI) were 78.5 ± 18.61, 1.65 ± 0.08 and 28.93 ± 6.72 kg/m2, respectively; 14 (34.1%) patients were overweight and 16 (39%) patients were obese; 29 (70.7%) had sepsis. In 24 (58.5%) patients, the source of infection was pulmonary, 3 (7.3%) abdominal, and 2 (4.9%) urinary tract. Of the patients, 33 (80.5%) are classified as 1S and 1B. The uNGAL at admission had a mean of 451.36 ± 688.11. The sensitivity of KDIGO plus uNGAL was 67%, specificity 16%. The sensitivity of KDIGO plus NGAL was 75%, specificity 19%. The sensitivity of KDIGO plus uNGAL was 88%, specificity 25%. The percentage of mortality predicted by the SAPS 3 scale was 56.26 ± 23.7% and by the MPM III scale 43.94 ± 23.59. the observed mortality was 24 (58.5%); and the standardized mortality rate with SAPS 3 was 1.04, and with MPM III 1.33.

Conclusions:

the diagnostic performance of the new definition of acute kidney injury proposed was not good due to multiple factors, among the 2 most important, the preventive management of acute kidney injury that is currently provided to patients and the size of the sample. It is necessary to continue the study to achieve a representative sample of the population and to have an accurate conclusion about the diagnostic performance of the new proposed definition of acute kidney injury.