In May 2004, a new classification, the RIFLE (Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of kidney function, and End-stage kidney disease) classification, was proposed in order to define and stratify the severity of acute kidney injury (AKI). This system relies on changes in the serum creatinine (SCr) or glomerular filtration rates and/or urine output, and it has been largely demonstrated that the RIFLE criteria allows the identification of a significant proportion of AKI patients hospitalized in numerous settings, enables monitoring of AKI severity, and is a good predictor of patient outcome. Three years later (March 2007), the Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) classification, a modified version of the RIFLE, was released in order to increase the sensitivity and specificity of AKI diagnosis. Until now, the benefit of these modifications for clinical practice has not been clearly demonstrated. Here we provide a critical and comprehensive discussion of the two classifications for AKI, focusing on the main differences, advantages and limitations.

Introduction: Whether discernible advantages in terms of sensitivity and specificity exist with Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) criteria versus Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of Kidney Function, End-stage Kidney Disease (RIFLE) criteria is currently unknown. We evaluated the incidence of acute kidney injury and compared the ability of the maximum RIFLE and of the maximum AKIN within intensive care unit hospitalization in predicting inhospital mortality of critically ill patients. Methods: Patients admitted to the Department of Intensive Medicine of our hospital between January 2003 and December 2006 were retrospectively evaluated. Chronic kidney disease patients undergoing dialysis or renal transplant patients were excluded from the analysis. Results: In total, 662 patients (mean age, 58.6 ± 19.2 years; 392 males) were evaluated. AKIN criteria allowed the identification of more patients as having acute kidney injury (50.4% versus 43.8%, P = 0.018) and classified more patients with Stage 1 (risk in RIFLE) (21.1% versus 14.7%, P = 0.003), but no differences were observed for Stage 2 (injury in RIFLE) (10.1% versus 11%, P = 0.655) and for Stage 3 (failure in RIFLE) (19.2% versus 18.1%, P = 0.672). Mortality was significantly higher for acute kidney injury defined by any of the RIFLE criteria (41.3% versus 11%, P < 0.0001; odds ratio = 2.78, 95% confidence interval = 1.74 to 4.45, P < 0.0001) or of the AKIN criteria (39.8% versus 8.5%, P < 0.0001; odds ratio = 3.59, 95% confidence interval = 2.14 to 6.01, P < 0.0001). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve for inhospital mortality was 0.733 for RIFLE criteria (P < 0.0001) and was 0.750 for AKIN criteria (P < 0.0001). There were no statistical differences in mortality by the acute kidney injury definition/classification criteria (P = 0.72). Conclusions: Although AKIN criteria could improve the sensitivity of the acute kidney injury diagnosis, it does not seem to improve on the ability of the RIFLE criteria in predicting inhospital mortality of critically ill patients.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Various recent studies using modern standardized classifications for AKI reported a variable incidence of AKI after major abdominal surgery ranging from 3 to 35%. Several patient-related, procedure-related factors and postoperative complications were identified as risk factors for AKI in this setting. AKI following major abdominal surgery has been shown to be associated with poor short- and long-term outcomes. Herein, we provide a contemporary and critical review of AKI after major abdominal surgery focusing on its incidence, risk factors, pathogeny and outcomes.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is characterized by an acute decrease in renal function that can be multifactorial in its origin and is associated with complex pathophysiological mechanisms. In the short term, AKI is associated with an increased length of hospital stay, health care costs, and in-hospital mortality, and its impact extends into the long term, with AKI being associated with increased risks of cardiovascular events, progression to chronic kidney disease (CKD), and long-term mortality. Given the impact of the prognosis of AKI, it is important to recognize at-risk patients and improve preventive, diagnostic, and therapy strategies. The authors provide a comprehensive review on available diagnostic, preventive, and treatment strategies for AKI.

Sepsis-associated kidney injury is common in critically ill patients and significantly increases morbidity and mortality rates. Several complex pathophysiological factors contribute to its presentation and perpetuation, including macrocirculatory and microcirculatory changes, mitochondrial dysfunction, and metabolic reprogramming. Recovery from acute kidney injury (AKI) relies on the evolution towards adaptive mechanisms such as endothelial repair and tubular cell regeneration, while maladaptive repair increases the risk of progression to chronic kidney disease. Fundamental management strategies include early sepsis recognition and prompt treatment, through the administration of adequate antimicrobial agents, fluid resuscitation, and vasoactive agents as needed. In septic patients, organ-specific support is often required, particularly renal replacement therapy (RRT) in the setting of severe AKI, although ongoing debates persist regarding the ideal timing of initiation and dosing of RRT. A comprehensive approach integrating early recognition, targeted interventions, and close monitoring is essential to mitigate the burden of SA-AKI and improve patient outcomes in critical care settings.