Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • JASN Podcasts
    • Article Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Editorial Team
  • Editorial Fellowship
    • Editorial Fellowship Team
    • Editorial Fellowship Application Process
  • More
    • About JASN
    • Advertising
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Impact Factor
    • Reprints
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • CJASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • CJASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • JASN Podcasts
    • Article Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Editorial Team
  • Editorial Fellowship
    • Editorial Fellowship Team
    • Editorial Fellowship Application Process
  • More
    • About JASN
    • Advertising
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Impact Factor
    • Reprints
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Follow JASN on Twitter
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow JASN on RSS
  • Community Forum
Editorials
You have accessRestricted Access

The Rise of Prevalence and the Fall of Mortality of Patients with Acute Renal Failure: What the Analysis of Two Databases Does and Does Not Tell Us

Norbert Lameire, Wim Van Biesen and Raymond Vanholder
JASN April 2006, 17 (4) 923-925; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2006020152
Norbert Lameire
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wim Van Biesen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Raymond Vanholder
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading

Acute renal failure (ARF) remains one of the most enigmatic syndromes in nephrology, with reported incidence rates varying from 0.9 to 20% and mortality rates between 25 to 80% (1). There is little doubt that these discrepancies are caused by large differences in the definition of ARF (2), case-mix (3), and experience with treatment of ARF and its concomitant pathology.

In this issue of JASN, two papers describe the epidemiologic and prognostic evolution of ARF over the last decade (4,5). Both papers are based on a retrospective analysis of databases containing a very large number of patients and, interestingly, covering to some extent similar patient populations.

The main message of both papers is that, in contrast to other recent data (6), the death rates attributable to ARF are declining over time despite a rise in the occurrence of ARF in the same period.

One study (5) is based on the US Renal Data System and covers Medicare patients who were identified by International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) discharge codes, while the other (4) covers a nationwide inpatient sample database of hospital discharges.

Why the Increase in ARF Prevalence?

Why are the reported values for prevalence (from 15 to 35 per 1000 hospitalizations [5] versus from 61 to 288 per 100,000 population [4]) and death rates (decreasing from 49.7% to 40.3% [5] and from 40.4% to 20.3% [4], respectively) so very different in both studies, although they are based on samples extracted from similar populations? Either the two samples had in fact quite different characteristics, calling into question the extrapolation to the overall US population, or there is a bias, most likely related to differences in definitions of ARF used in these databases at different time points. That the latter may play a role is suggested by the validation test in the study by Waikar et al. (4). The sensitivity of that registry for ARF was only 17.4% in 1994, and “rose” to 29.3% in 2002. This observation implies that: (1) administrative databases are not very sensitive for the diagnosis ARF, and many cases, most likely the less severe ones, may have been missed, resulting probably in underestimated prevalences; (2) the increase in sensitivity over time means that the interpretation of the instructions on data collection for these databases has not remained constant over the registration period. This is not only a likely explanation for the increase in ARF prevalence, but since more “less severe” ARF cases were probably recently included, it could also at least partly explain the improved outcomes.

However, the difference in “reporting sensitivity” might not completely explain the increased prevalence of ARF. Among other reasons, increased age of the population is often the most proposed explanation. However, panel B of Figure 1 of the paper of Xue et al. (5) reveals that the increased prevalence is present in all age categories. In the paper by Waikar et al. (4), age was also not different in the different time periods. A more likely explanation is a change in the spectrum of ARF itself. One recent national survey showed major differences between patients with and without a discharge diagnosis of ARF (7). Older age, male gender, much higher frequency of comorbidities, diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, and nonrenal organ dysfunction were observed in the ARF patients.

In addition, HIV and related treatments, more frequent nonrenal organ transplantations, and more aggressive diagnostic and therapeutic interventions also contribute to the changing spectrum (8). Another explanation is the increasing prevalence of diabetes patients who are increasingly being treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and aldosterone antagonists, which all carry an increased risk for ARF, particularly during episodes of dehydration (9,10). Optimism or “self applause” is thus not warranted yet, as it is highly possible that the increase in ARF is to a large extent iatrogenic. In addition, the increased awareness on the part of nonnephrologist intensive care unit (ICU) specialists of the potential presence of ARF has probably also increased. This increased awareness has been accompanied by a more widespread use of so-called “nonrenal indications” for dialysis (11,12) and an “earlier start” of dialysis in ICU patients. Unfortunately, the evaluation of the beneficial impact of these strategies is also prone to the same confounders as the ones present in the analysis of the epidemiology of ARF. All these considerations might explain why the prevalence of both ARF and, more particularly, dialysis requiring ARF has increased.

Why the Decrease in Mortality Rates?

Although there might be few reasons to celebrate the increasing prevalence of ARF, nephrologists could still be proud of the decreasing mortality rates, as reported in both articles.

However, some skepticism and caution should also prevail here. First of all, the reported mortality rates in these two studies are still horrifying: Nearly 2 out of 3 patients suffering from ARF will not be alive 90 d after the onset of ARF. This overall result is not only sobering but the “improvement ” could be more artificial than real. As pointed out before, it is possible that in recent years less severe cases of ARF have been registered in both data bases, explaining the better survival. In the paper by Waikar et al. (4), the mean Deyo-Charlson severity index for the period 1993 to 1997 was comparable to that for the period 1998 to 2002. Table 3 of that paper gives us the comorbidity-adjusted odds ratio for mortality, with the period 1988 to 1992 as reference. The observation that, in this timeframe, data on the race of 50% of the patients is missing lowers to some extent the confidence in using this period as a reliable reference. But still, when looking at the 1993 to 1997 and 1998 to 2002 cohorts, there appears to be an improvement in outcome. In the paper by Xue et al. (5), a decreasing trend of comorbidity-corrected mortality rate has also been observed. There is, however, a striking increase in ICU stay and sepsis diagnosis, one of the comorbid conditions corrected for, so that it is not unlikely that, over time, patients were more rapidly admitted into ICU with less comorbidity. It is also possible that the basis for the diagnosis of “sepsis” in 1992 in these administrative databases was different from that in 2002 (13). In that regard, the observation reported in Table 2 that more patients were diagnosed with “sepsis” than were hospitalized in the ICU is puzzling and could mean that some of these “septic patients” were not ill enough to be admitted in the ICU. The diagnosis of “sepsis” in one episode may thus not be the same as in another episode.

But, if we accept that indeed the prognosis of ARF has improved over the last decade, which factors then have contributed to this success? All of the “golden oldies,” like dopamine, renal vasodilators, growth factors, and diuretics, have been evaluated during this decade and benchmarked as “not effective” (14,15), or even potentially deleterious. For the new drugs, there is little doubt that “the magic bullets” that may work well in animal studies to treat ARF have failed when tested in real clinical conditions (1,16). There has, however, been some progress made. This is illustrated by the positive influence of the use of norepinephrine on the outcome of ARF and sepsis, at least as observed in mainly uncontrolled trials (17), the impact of early resuscitation (18) and of activated protein C in severely ill septic patients with a high risk of dying (19), and the maintenance of euglycemia in critically ill patients (20,21). With regard to ARF requiring dialysis, it seems unlikely that the dose of dialysis recommendations, based on the landmark study of Ronco et al. (22), have yet influenced clinical practice enough to improve outcomes, but this will come. Even if more centers are now using more continuous techniques (continuous venovenous hemofiltration) as renal replacement therapy, the evidence that this improves outcomes is still lacking (23).

If the outcome of ARF patients is really improving, it is most likely the result of “better” general and supportive care. This “improved care,” although difficult to define, may be due to greater attention to clinical details, and more consistent involvement of interested “organ specialists” in the care of these often very ill patients. This mix of “intensivist” and “organ specialist” knowledge is, in our opinion, the most important progress of the last decade, but its impact is of course quite difficult to measure (24). This integrated care is not only important for further improvement of the outcome of the ARF patient, but it is crucial for nephrologists as well. If we still want to be involved in the care of these patients, and we must be, then our physical presence in the ICU is required, even at hours that are less convenient. In addition, the curriculum for training fellows in nephrology must include intensive training in ICU medicine.

In conclusion, we sincerely hope that the optimistic results described in both of these papers (4,5) will be confirmed in future prospective clinical studies. In addition, in view of the hypothesis that the rising prevalence of ARF is due to a more aggressive diagnostic and therapeutic approach to the disease, prevention of ARF in patients at risk is still the most efficient way to improve the outcome of this syndrome with its high associated mortality and economic cost.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.jasn.org.

  • © 2006 American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    Lameire N, Van BW, Vanholder R: Acute renal failure. Lancet 365 : 417 –430, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Mehta RL, Chertow GM: Acute renal failure definitions and classification: Time for change? J Am Soc Nephrol 14 : 2178 –2187, 2003
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    Mehta RL, Pascual MT, Soroko S, Savage BR, Himmelfarb J, Ikizler TA, Paganini EP, Chertow GM: Spectrum of acute renal failure in the intensive care unit: The PICARD experience. Kidney Int 66 : 1613 –1621, 2004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    Waikar SS, Curhan GC, Wald R, McCarthy EP, Chertow GM: Declining mortality in patients with acute renal failure, 1998 to 2002. J Am Soc Nephrol 17 : 1143 –1150, 2006
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    Xue JL, Daniels F, Star RA, Kimmel PL, Eggers PW, Molitoris BA, Himmelfarb J, Collins AJ: Incidence and mortality of acute renal failure in Medicare beneficiaries, 1992 to 2001. J Am Soc Nephrol 17 : 1135 –1142, 2006
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    Ympa YP, Sakr Y, Reinhart K, Vincent JL: Has mortality from acute renal failure decreased? A systematic review of the literature. Am J Med 118 : 827 –832, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    Liangos O, Wald R, O’Bell JW, Price L, Pereira BJ, Jaber BL: Epidemiology and outcomes of acute renal failure in hospitalized patients: A national survey. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 1 : 43 –51, 2006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Lameire N, Van Biesen W, Vanholder R: The changing epidemiology of acute renal failure. Nature Clin Nephrol 2006 , in press
  9. ↵
    McGuigan J, Robertson S, Isles C: Life threatening hyperkalaemia with diarrhoea during ACE inhibition. Emerg Med J 22 : 154 –155, 2005
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    Stirling C, Houston J, Robertson S, Boyle J, Allan A, Norrie J, Isles C: Diarrhoea, vomiting and ACE inhibitors: An important cause of acute renal failure. J Human Hypert 17 : 419 –423, 2003
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    Kellum J, Bellomo R, Mehta R, Ronco C: Blood purification in non-renal critical illness. Blood Purif 21 : 6 –13, 2003
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    Ricci Z, Ronco C, D’Amico G, De FR, Rossi S, Bolgan I, Bonello M, Zamperetti N, Petras D, Salvatori G, Dan M, Piccinni P: Practice patterns in the management of acute renal failure in the critically ill patient: An international survey. Nephrol Dial Transplant 21 : 690 –696, 2006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    Poeze M, Ramsay G, Gerlach H, Rubulotta F, Levy M: An international sepsis survey: A study of doctors’ knowledge and perception about sepsis. Crit Care 8 : R409 –R413, 2004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    Kellum JA, Decker M: Use of dopamine in acute renal failure: A meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 29 : 1526 –1531, 2001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    Uchino S, Doig GS, Bellomo R, Morimatsu H, Morgera S, Schetz M, Tan I, Bouman C, Nacedo E, Gibney N, Tolwani A, Ronco C, Kellum JA: Diuretics and mortality in acute renal failure. Crit Care Med 32 : 1669 –1677, 2004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    Venkataraman R: Prevention of acute renal failure. Crit Care Clin 21 : 281 –289, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    Schetz M: Vasopressors and the kidney. Blood Purif 20 : 243 –251, 2002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    Rivers EP, McIntyre L, Morro DC, Rivers KK: Early and innovative interventions for severe sepsis and septic shock: Taking advantage of a window of opportunity. CMAJ 173 : 1054 –1065, 2005
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    Bernard GR, Margolis BD, Shanies HM, Ely EW, Wheeler AP, Levy H, Wong K, Wright TJ: Extended evaluation of recombinant human activated protein C United States Trial (ENHANCE US): A single-arm, phase 3B, multicenter study of drotrecogin alfa (activated) in severe sepsis. Chest 125 : 2206 –2216, 2004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    Van den Berghe G, Wouters P, Weekers F, Verwaest C, Bruyninckx F, Schetz M, Vlasselaers D, Ferdinande P, Lauwers P, Bouillon R: Intensive insulin therapy in the critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 345 : 1359 –1367, 2001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    Van den Berghe G, Wilmer A, Hermans G, Meersseman W, Wouters PJ, Milants I, Van Wijngaerden E, Bobbaers H, Bouillon R: Intensive insulin therapy in the medical ICU. N Engl J Med 354 : 449 –461, 2006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    Ronco C, Bellomo R, Homel P, Brendolan A, Dan M, Piccinni P, La GG: Effects of different doses in continuous veno-venous haemofiltration on outcomes of acute renal failure: A prospective randomised trial. Lancet 356 : 26 –30, 2000
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    Tonelli M, Manns B, Feller-Kopman D: Acute renal failure in the intensive care unit: A systematic review of the impact of dialytic modality on mortality and renal recovery. Am J Kidney Dis 40 : 875 –885, 2002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    Mehta RL, McDonald B, Gabbai F, Pahl M, Farkas A, Pascual MT, Zhuang S, Kaplan RM, Chertow GM: Nephrology consultation in acute renal failure: Does timing matter? Am J Med 113 : 456 –461, 2002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 17 (4)
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 17, Issue 4
April 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in JASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Rise of Prevalence and the Fall of Mortality of Patients with Acute Renal Failure: What the Analysis of Two Databases Does and Does Not Tell Us
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The Rise of Prevalence and the Fall of Mortality of Patients with Acute Renal Failure: What the Analysis of Two Databases Does and Does Not Tell Us
Norbert Lameire, Wim Van Biesen, Raymond Vanholder
JASN Apr 2006, 17 (4) 923-925; DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2006020152

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
The Rise of Prevalence and the Fall of Mortality of Patients with Acute Renal Failure: What the Analysis of Two Databases Does and Does Not Tell Us
Norbert Lameire, Wim Van Biesen, Raymond Vanholder
JASN Apr 2006, 17 (4) 923-925; DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2006020152
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Why the Increase in ARF Prevalence?
    • Why the Decrease in Mortality Rates?
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • A Novel Pathological Mechanism of Tertiary Lymphoid Structure Formation in the Renal Pelvis
  • Disarming the Old Foe. Restoring T-Cell Immune Function with mTor-Inhibitors to Tackle Cytomegalovirus Infection
  • Genome-wide Admixture Mapping of eGFR and CKD Identify European and African Ancestry-of-Origin Loci in US Hispanics/Latinos
Show more Editorials

Cited By...

  • Epidemiology of Acute Kidney Injury
  • Defining Acute Renal Failure: RIFLE and Beyond
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Annual Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Resources
  • Editorial Fellowship Program
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • JASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About JASN
  • JASN Email Alerts
  • JASN Key Impact Information
  • JASN Podcasts
  • JASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe to ASN Journals

© 2022 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1046-6673 Online ISSN - 1533-3450

Powered by HighWire