S'abonner

Incidence, Recognition, and Follow-up of Laboratory Evidence of Acute Kidney Injury in Primary Care Practices: Analysis of 93,259 Creatinine Results - 18/12/24

Doi : 10.1016/j.amjmed.2024.08.032 
Jose Mena, MD a, Marc Rodriguez, MD, MBA f, Scot B. Sternberg, MS a, Timothy Graham a, Leonor Fernandez, MD a, James Benneyan, PhD c, Talya Salant, MD, PhD a, e, Amie Pollack, PhD a, Dru Ricci, BA a, Russell S. Phillips, MD a, b, Umber Shafiq, MPH a, Mark D. Aronson, MD a, Gordon D. Schiff, MD b, d, 1, Bradley M. Denker, MD a, 1,
a Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Mass 
b Harvard Medical School, Center for Primary Care, Boston, Mass 
c Healthcare Systems Engineering Institute, Northeastern University, Boston, Mass 
d Center for Patient Safety Research and Practice, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass 
e Bowdoin Street Health Center, Boston, Mass 
f George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC 

Requests for reprints should be addressed to 171 Pilgrim Road, Boston, MA 02215.171 Pilgrim RoadBostonMA02215

Abstract

Background

Community-acquired acute kidney injury (CA-acute kidney injury) is under-recognized in the outpatient setting and is associated with adverse outcomes.

Methods

We analyzed the incidence of CA-acute kidney injury in an academic primary care practice and community health center and assessed recognition and follow-up as determined by repeat creatinine measurement (closed-loop). We reviewed 93,259 specimens for 36,593 unique patients from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2021.

Results

There were 220 unique patients with CA-acute kidney injury, defined as a > 75% increase in creatinine from baseline (incidence: 150/100,000; 0.15% per year). One hundred thirty seven patients (62.3%) had repeat serum creatinine performed within 30 days. Chart reviews of the 83 (37.72%) patients with open loops found there was no follow-up creatinine ordered in 69/83 (83.1%) patients. Mean baseline creatinine was higher and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was lower in the closed-loop group (0.92 ± 0.4 mg/dL; 84.45 ± 27.49 mL/min) vs the open-loop group (0.63 ± 0.34 mg/dL; 105.19 ± 26.67 mL/min) (P < .0001). Preexisting chronic kidney disease was more prevalent in closed-loop patients (35/137; 25.6%) compared with those with open loops (3/83; 3.6%). Patients with baseline chronic kidney disease were more likely to have closed loops. Progression to new chronic kidney disease was common among CA-acute kidney injury patients, occurring in 25% of open-loop and 24.1% of closed-loop patients. New baseline eGFR was lower in all groups.

Conclusions

Clinicians frequently overlooked a clinically significant change in eGFR, especially when the baseline creatinine and incident creatinine levels were in the “normal” range.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Keywords : Acute kidney injury, Chronic kidney disease, Creatinine, Glomerular filtration rate, Primary care


Plan


 Funding: This work was supported in part by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (grant 1R18HS027282).
 Conflict of Interest: None.
 Authorship: All authors had access to the data and a role in writing this manuscript. JM: Writing – original draft, Investigation. MR: Data curation. SBS: Writing – review & editing, Project administration, Investigation, Formal analysis. TG: Investigation, Data curation. LF: Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis. JB: Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis. TS: Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis. AP: Writing – review & editing. DR: Writing – review & editing. RSP: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. US: Formal analysis, Data curation. MDA: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. GDS: Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. BMD: Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Conceptualization.


© 2024  Elsevier Inc. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 138 - N° 1

P. 79-86 - janvier 2025 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Effectiveness of Audit and Feedback and Academic Detailing Interventions to Support Safer Opioid Prescribing in Primary Care
  • Meagan Lacroix, Fred Abdelmalek, Karl Everett, Monica Taljaard, Lena Salach, Lindsay Bevan, Victoria Burton, Hui Jia, Jennifer Shuldiner, Celia Laur, Emily Nicholas Angl, Noah M. Ivers, Mina Tadrous
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Introduction to the Long COVID Mechanisms, Risk Factors, and Recovery: From Cells to Society
  • Lawrence D. Hayes

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2025 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.