%0 Journal Article
%T Validation of Two Scoring Tools to Predict Risk of Augmented Renal Clearance in Trauma Patients.
%A Farrar JE
%A Swanson JM
%A Hudson JQ
%A Byerly S
%A Filiberto DM
%A Dickerson RN
%J J Surg Res
%V 300
%N 0
%D 2024 Aug 13
%M 38875951
%F 2.417
%R 10.1016/j.jss.2024.05.026
%X BACKGROUND: Augmented renal clearance (ARC) is prevalent in trauma populations. Identification is underrecognized by calculated creatinine clearance or estimated glomerular filtration rate equations. Predictive scores may assist with ARC identification. The goal of this study was to evaluate validity of the ARCTIC score and ARC Predictor to predict ARC in critically ill trauma patients.
METHODS: This single center, retrospective study was performed at an academic level 1 trauma center. Critically ill adult trauma patients undergoing 24-h urine-collection were included. Patients with serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dL, kidney replacement therapy, suspected rhabdomyolysis, chronic kidney disease, or inaccurate urine collection were excluded. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for ARCTIC Score and ARC Predictor were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic curves were created for ARCTIC score and ARC Predictor models.
RESULTS: One-hundred and twenty-two patients with ARC and 78 patients without ARC were included. The ARCTIC score sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 89%, 54%, 75%, and 75%, respectively. The ARC Predictor demonstrated sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 77%, 88%, 91%, and 71%, respectively. Regression analyses revealed both ARCTIC score ≥6 and ARC Predictor threshold >0.5 as significant risk factors for ARC in presence of traumatic brain injury, obesity, injury severity score, and negative nitrogen balance (ARCTIC ≥6: odds ratio 8.59 [95% confidence interval 3.90-18.92], P < 0.001; ARC Predictor >0.5: odds ratio 20.07 [95% confidence interval 8.53-47.19], P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: These findings corroborate validity of two pragmatic prediction tools to identify patients at high risk of ARC. Future studies evaluating correlations between ARCTIC score, ARC Predictor, and clinical outcomes are warranted.