Marlies Ostermann

Prof. Marlies Ostermann

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

30Years (1997-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
27 February 2017 in Nature Reviews Nephrology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LCLakhmir S. Chawla
Lakhmir S. Chawla
RBRinaldo Bellomo
Rinaldo Bellomo
Azra BihoracAzra Bihorac
Azra Bihorac
SGStuart L. Goldstein
Stuart L. Goldstein
ESEdward D. Siew
Edward D. Siew
JKJohn A. Kellum
John A. Kellum
Consensus definitions have been reached for both acute kidney injury (AKI) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) and these definitions are now routinely used in research and clinical practice. The KDIGO guideline defines AKI as an abrupt decrease in kidney function occurring over 7 days or less, whereas CKD is defined by the persistence of kidney disease for a period of >90 days. AKI and CKD are increasingly recognized as related entities and in some instances probably represent a continuum of the disease process. For patients in whom pathophysiologic processes are ongoing, the term acute kidney disease (AKD) has been proposed to define the course of disease after AKI; however, definitions of AKD and strategies for the management of patients with AKD are not currently available. In this consensus statement, the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) proposes definitions, staging criteria for AKD, and strategies for the management of affected patients. We also make recommendations for areas of future research, which aim to improve understanding of the underlying processes and improve outcomes for patients with AKD.

6 February 2013 in Critical Care
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KKKianoush Kashani
Kianoush Kashani
AAAli Al-Khafaji
Ali Al-Khafaji
TAThomas Ardiles
Thomas Ardiles
Antonio ArtigasAntonio Artigas
Antonio Artigas
SBSean M Bagshaw
Sean M Bagshaw
JKJohn A Kellum
John A Kellum
Introduction: Acute kidney injury (AKI) can evolve quickly and clinical measures of function often fail to detect AKI at a time when interventions are likely to provide benefit. Identifying early markers of kidney damage has been difficult due to the complex nature of human AKI, in which multiple etiologies exist. The objective of this study was to identify and validate novel biomarkers of AKI. Methods: We performed two multicenter observational studies in critically ill patients at risk for AKI - discovery and validation. The top two markers from discovery were validated in a second study (Sapphire) and compared to a number of previously described biomarkers. In the discovery phase, we enrolled 522 adults in three distinct cohorts including patients with sepsis, shock, major surgery, and trauma and examined over 300 markers. In the Sapphire validation study, we enrolled 744 adult subjects with critical illness and without evidence of AKI at enrollment; the final analysis cohort was a heterogeneous sample of 728 critically ill patients. The primary endpoint was moderate to severe AKI (KDIGO stage 2 to 3) within 12 hours of sample collection. Results: Moderate to severe AKI occurred in 14% of Sapphire subjects. The two top biomarkers from discovery were validated. Urine insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7 (IGFBP7) and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-2 (TIMP-2), both inducers of G1 cell cycle arrest, a key mechanism implicated in AKI, together demonstrated an AUC of 0.80 (0.76 and 0.79 alone). Urine [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] was significantly superior to all previously described markers of AKI (P 0.72. Furthermore, [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] significantly improved risk stratification when added to a nine-variable clinical model when analyzed using Cox proportional hazards model, generalized estimating equation, integrated discrimination improvement or net reclassification improvement. Finally, in sensitivity analyses [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] remained significant and superior to all other markers regardless of changes in reference creatinine method. Conclusions: Two novel markers for AKI have been identified and validated in independent multicenter cohorts. Both markers are superior to existing markers, provide additional information over clinical variables and add mechanistic insight into AKI. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01209169.

1 August 2007 in Critical Care Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MOMarlies Ostermann
Marlies Ostermann
RCRené W. S. Chang
René W. S. Chang
To apply the RIFLE criteria "risk," "injury," and "failure" for severity of acute kidney injury to patients admitted to the intensive care unit and to evaluate the significance of other prognostic factors. Retrospective analysis of the Riyadh Intensive Care Program database. Riyadh Intensive Care Unit Program database of 41,972 patients admitted to 22 intensive care units in the United Kingdom and Germany between 1989 and 1999. Acute kidney injury as defined by the RIFLE classification occurred in 15,019 (35.8%) patients; 7,207 (17.2%) patients were at risk, 4,613 (11%) had injury, and 3,199 (7.6%) had failure. It was found that 797 (2.3%) patients had end-stage dialysis-dependent renal failure when admitted to an intensive care unit. None. : Patients with risk, injury, and failure classifications had hospital mortality rates of 20.9%, 45.6%, and 56.8%, respectively, compared with 8.4% among patients without acute kidney injury. Independent risk factors for hospital mortality were age (odds ratio 1.02); Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score on admission to intensive care unit (odds ratio 1.10); presence of preexisting end-stage disease (odds ratio 1.17); mechanical ventilation (odds ratio 1.52); RIFLE categories risk (odds ratio 1.40), injury (odds ratio 1.96), and failure (odds ratio 1.59); maximum number of failed organs (odds ratio 2.13); admission after emergency surgery (odds ratio 3.08); and nonsurgical admission (odds ratio 3.92). Renal replacement therapy for acute kidney injury was not an independent risk factor for hospital mortality. The RIFLE classification was suitable for the definition of acute kidney injury in intensive care units. There was an association between acute kidney injury and hospital outcome, but associated organ failure, nonsurgical admission, and admission after emergency surgery had a greater impact on prognosis than severity of acute kidney injury.

23 February 2023 in Nature Reviews Nephrology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AZAlexander Zarbock
Alexander Zarbock
MNMitra K. Nadim
Mitra K. Nadim
PPPeter Pickkers
Peter Pickkers
HGHernando Gomez
Hernando Gomez
SBSamira Bell
Samira Bell
LFLui Forni
Lui Forni
Sepsis-associated acute kidney injury (SA-AKI) is common in critically ill patients and is strongly associated with adverse outcomes, including an increased risk of chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular events and death. The pathophysiology of SA-AKI remains elusive, although microcirculatory dysfunction, cellular metabolic reprogramming and dysregulated inflammatory responses have been implicated in preclinical studies. SA-AKI is best defined as the occurrence of AKI within 7 days of sepsis onset (diagnosed according to Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcome criteria and Sepsis 3 criteria, respectively). Improving outcomes in SA-AKI is challenging, as patients can present with either clinical or subclinical AKI. Early identification of patients at risk of AKI, or at risk of progressing to severe and/or persistent AKI, is crucial to the timely initiation of adequate supportive measures, including limiting further insults to the kidney. Accordingly, the discovery of biomarkers associated with AKI that can aid in early diagnosis is an area of intensive investigation. Additionally, high-quality evidence on best-practice care of patients with AKI, sepsis and SA-AKI has continued to accrue. Although specific therapeutic options are limited, several clinical trials have evaluated the use of care bundles and extracorporeal techniques as potential therapeutic approaches. Here we provide graded recommendations for managing SA-AKI and highlight priorities for future research.

3 August 2017 in New England Journal of Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
AKAshish Khanna
Ashish Khanna
SEShane W. English
Shane W. English
XWXueyuan S. Wang
Xueyuan S. Wang
KHKealy Ham
Kealy Ham
JTJames Tumlin
James Tumlin
ADAdam M. Deane
Adam M. Deane
Vasodilatory shock that does not respond to high-dose vasopressors is associated with high mortality. We investigated the effectiveness of angiotensin II for the treatment of patients with this condition. We randomly assigned patients with vasodilatory shock who were receiving more than 0.2 μg of norepinephrine per kilogram of body weight per minute or the equivalent dose of another vasopressor to receive infusions of either angiotensin II or placebo. The primary end point was a response with respect to mean arterial pressure at hour 3 after the start of infusion, with response defined as an increase from baseline of at least 10 mm Hg or an increase to at least 75 mm Hg, without an increase in the dose of background vasopressors. A total of 344 patients were assigned to one of the two regimens; 321 received a study intervention (163 received angiotensin II, and 158 received placebo) and were included in the analysis. The primary end point was reached by more patients in the angiotensin II group (114 of 163 patients, 69.9%) than in the placebo group (37 of 158 patients, 23.4%) (odds ratio, 7.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.76 to 13.3; P<0.001). At 48 hours, the mean improvement in the cardiovascular Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (scores range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe dysfunction) was greater in the angiotensin II group than in the placebo group (−1.75 vs. −1.28, P=0.01). Serious adverse events were reported in 60.7% of the patients in the angiotensin II group and in 67.1% in the placebo group. Death by day 28 occurred in 75 of 163 patients (46%) in the angiotensin II group and in 85 of 158 patients (54%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.07; P=0.12). Angiotensin II effectively increased blood pressure in patients with vasodilatory shock that did not respond to high doses of conventional vasopressors. (Funded by La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company; ATHOS-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02338843.)

1 October 2020 in JAMA Network Open
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MOMarlies Ostermann
Marlies Ostermann
AZAlexander Zarbock
Alexander Zarbock
SGStuart Goldstein
Stuart Goldstein
KKKianoush Kashani
Kianoush Kashani
EMEtienne Macedo
Etienne Macedo
CRClaudio Ronco
Claudio Ronco
Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in hospitalized adults and children and associated with serious complications and high health care costs. Traditionally, 2 functional biomarkers, serum creatinine (sCr) and urine output, are used to define AKI,1 but these markers are limited by delayed changes following kidney injury and have low sensitivity and specificity. Several novel biomarkers have been shown to detect AKI earlier and are more sensitive than sCr (Table).2-19 For any prevention strategies to be effective, patients with high risk need to be identified before kidney insults result in kidney damage, and AKI needs to be diagnosed as early as possible.