tion’, implying that most patients ‘should’ receive a particular action. In contrast, level 2 guidelines are essentially ‘suggestions’ and are deemed to be ‘weak’ or discretionary, recognising that management decisions may vary in different clinical contexts. Each recommendation was further graded from A to D by the quality of evidence underpinning them, with grade A referring to a high quality of evidence whilst grade D recognised a ‘very low’ evidence base. The overall strength and quality of the supporting evidence is summarised in table 1 . The guidelines focused on 4 key domains: (1) AKI definition, (2) prevention and treatment of AKI, (3) contrastinduced AKI (CI-AKI) and (4) dialysis interventions for the treatment of AKI. The full summary of clinical practice statements is available at www.kdigo.org, but a few key recommendation statements will be highlighted here.

/pdf/kdigo-clinical-practice-guidelines-for-acute-kidney-injury-27tybolw7l.pdf

KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury.

The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a process of nonhydrostatic pulmonary edema and hypoxemia associated with a variety of etiologies, carries a high morbidity, mortality (10 to 90%), and financial cost. The reported annual incidence in the United States is 150,000 cases, but this figure has been challenged, and it may be different in Europe. Part of the reason for these uncertainties are the heterogeneity of diseases underlying ARDS and the lack of uniform definitions for ARDS. Thus, those who wish to know the true incidence and outcome of this clinical syndrome are stymied. The American-European Consensus Committee on ARDS was formed to focus on these issues and on the pathophysiologic mechanisms of the process. It was felt that international coordination between North America and Europe in clinical studies of ARDS was becoming increasingly important in order to address the recent plethora of potential therapeutic agents for the prevention and treatment of ARDS.

The American-European Consensus Conference on ARDS: Definitions, mechanisms, relevant outcomes, and clinical trial coordination

Objective. —To develop and validate a new Simplified Acute Physiology Score, the SAPS II, from a large sample of surgical and medical patients, and to provide a method to convert the score to a probability of hospital mortality. Design and Setting. —The SAPS II and the probability of hospital mortality were developed and validated using data from consecutive admissions to 137 adult medical and/or surgical intensive care units in 12 countries. Patients. —The 13 152 patients were randomly divided into developmental (65%) and validation (35%) samples. Patients younger than 18 years, burn patients, coronary care patients, and cardiac surgery patients were excluded. Outcome Measure. —Vital status at hospital discharge. Results. —The SAPS II includes only 17 variables: 12 physiology variables, age, type of admission (scheduled surgical, unscheduled surgical, or medical), and three underlying disease variables (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, metastatic cancer, and hematologic malignancy). Goodness-of-fit tests indicated that the model performed well in the developmental sample and validated well in an independent sample of patients (P=.883 andP=.104 in the developmental and validation samples, respectively). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.88 in the developmental sample and 0.86 in the validation sample. Conclusion. —The SAPS II, based on a large international sample of patients, provides an estimate of the risk of death without having to specify a primary diagnosis. This is a starting point for future evaluation of the efficiency of intensive care units. (JAMA. 1993;270:2957-2963)

https://jamanetwork.com/HttpHandlers/ArticlePdfHandler.ashx?journal=JAMA&articleId=409979&pdfFileName=jama_270_24_035.pdf

A new Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a complex disorder for which currently there is no accepted definition. Having a uniform standard for diagnosing and classifying AKI would enhance our ability to manage these patients. Future clinical and translational research in AKI will require collaborative networks of investigators drawn from various disciplines, dissemination of information via multidisciplinary joint conferences and publications, and improved translation of knowledge from pre-clinical research. We describe an initiative to develop uniform standards for defining and classifying AKI and to establish a forum for multidisciplinary interaction to improve care for patients with or at risk for AKI. Members representing key societies in critical care and nephrology along with additional experts in adult and pediatric AKI participated in a two day conference in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, in September 2005 and were assigned to one of three workgroups. Each group's discussions formed the basis for draft recommendations that were later refined and improved during discussion with the larger group. Dissenting opinions were also noted. The final draft recommendations were circulated to all participants and subsequently agreed upon as the consensus recommendations for this report. Participating societies endorsed the recommendations and agreed to help disseminate the results. The term AKI is proposed to represent the entire spectrum of acute renal failure. Diagnostic criteria for AKI are proposed based on acute alterations in serum creatinine or urine output. A staging system for AKI which reflects quantitative changes in serum creatinine and urine output has been developed. We describe the formation of a multidisciplinary collaborative network focused on AKI. We have proposed uniform standards for diagnosing and classifying AKI which will need to be validated in future studies. The Acute Kidney Injury Network offers a mechanism for proceeding with efforts to improve patient outcomes.

/pdf/acute-kidney-injury-network-report-of-an-initiative-to-4dlxa7i1ph.pdf

Acute Kidney Injury Network: Report of an Initiative to Improve Outcomes in Acute Kidney Injury

Acute Kidney Injury Network: report of an initiative to improve outcomes in acute kidney injury

APACHE II--a severity of disease classification system.

We used 14 easily measured biologic and clinical variables to develop a simple scoring system reflecting the risk of death in ICU patients. The simplified acute physiology score (SAPS) was evaluated in 679 consecutive patients admitted to eight multidisciplinary referral ICUs in France. Surgery accounted for 40% of admissions. Data were collected during the first 24 h after ICU admission. SAPS correctly classified patients in groups of increasing probability of death, irrespective of diagnosis, and compared favorably with the acute physiology score (APS), a more complex scoring system which has also been applied to ICU patients. SAPS was a simpler and less time-consuming method for comparative studies and management evaluation between different ICUs.

A simplified acute physiology score for ICU patients.

ObjectiveTo assess the causes, the prognostic factors, and the outcome of patients with severe acute renal failure.DesignProspective, multicenter study.SettingTwenty French multidisciplinary intensive care units (ICUs).PatientsAll patients with severe acute renal failure were prospectively enrolled

Acute renal failure in intensive care units--causes, outcome, and prognostic factors of hospital mortality; a prospective, multicenter study. French Study Group on Acute Renal Failure.

A comparison of intensive care in the U.S.A. and France

Objective: To assess the quality of life of intensive care survivors 6 months after discharge. Design: Multicenter prospective study. Setting: Medical-surgical intensive care units (ICUs) of four French university hospitals. Patients: Among the 589 patients admitted to the four ICUs between 1 January and 31 March 1989, 329 were investigated. Measurements and results: A generic scale assessing health-related quality of life, the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), a satisfaction scale, the Perceived Quality of Life scale (PQOL) and a questionnaire on professional status were sent by mail 6 months after discharge. Data concerning age, severity of acute illness (assessed by the Simplified Acute Physiology Score) and main diagnosis were recorded. A total of 223 questionnaires (67.8 %) were analysable. The professional status remained unchanged in 79.7 % of the patients, despite a significant (p < 0.01) increase (15.3 vs 22.1 %) in sick leave. Quality of life, assessed with NHP, was fair (50th percentile = 0.73 on a 0 to 1 scale), whereas satisfaction measured by PQOL was lower (50th percentile = 0.61). Both scales correlated well (z = 9.853; p = 0.0001) but with a large dispersion. The NHP scale showed a severe reduction in energy, sleep and emotional reactions, whereas social isolation, pain and physical handicap were infrequent. Family support was rated with the PQOL score as very good, whereas dissatisfaction concerning recreational and professional activities was expressed. Subsequent sick leave was associated with a poor quality of life (p < 0.05). Quality of life was mainly a function of the diagnosis, not of age and severity of illness: patients admitted for suicide attempt or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease fared poorly. Conclusions: Quality of life measured with a health-related quality of life scale and a satisfaction scale 6 months after an ICU stay depended on the admission diagnosis. Different dimensions of quality of life were variably affected.

P. Loirat

Papers

APACHE II--a severity of disease classification system.

A simplified acute physiology score for ICU patients.

Acute renal failure in intensive care units--causes, outcome, and prognostic factors of hospital mortality; a prospective, multicenter study. French Study Group on Acute Renal Failure.

A comparison of intensive care in the U.S.A. and France

Quality of life 6 months after intensive care: results of a prospective multicenter study using a generic health status scale and a satisfaction scale