Due to the existence of different AKI definitions, analyzing AKI incidence and associated outcomes is challenging. We investigated the incidence of AKI events defined by 4 different definitions (standard AKIN and KDIGO, and modified AKIN-4 and KDIGO-4) and its association with in-hospital mortality.
A total of 7242 adult Greek subjects were investigated. To find the association between AKI stages and in-hospital mortality, we considered both the number of AKI events and the most severe stage of AKI reached by each patient, adjusted for age, sex, and AKI staging, using multivariable logistic regression. To predict mortality in AKI patients, as defined by the four definitions, a classification task with two prediction models (random forest and logistic regression) was also conducted.
The incidence of AKI using the KDIGO-4 was 6.72% for stage 1a, 15.71% for stage 1b, 8.06% for stage2, and 2.97% for stage3; however, these percentages for AKIN-4 were 11%, 5.83%, 1.75%, and 0.33% for stage 1a, stage 1b, stage 2, and stage 3, respectively. Results showed KDIGO-4 is more sensitive in detecting AKI events. In-hospital mortality increased as the stage of AKI events increased for both KDIGO-4 and AKIN-4; however, KDIGO-4 (KDIGO) had a higher odds ratio at a higher stage of AKI compared to AKIN-4 (AKIN). Lastly, when using KDIGO, random forest and logistic regression models performed almost equally with a c-statistic of 0.825 and 0.854, respectively.
The present study confirms that within the KDIGO AKI stage 1, there are two sub-populations with different clinical outcomes (mortality).

OBJECTIVE: The KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) definition of acute kidney injury (AKI) is frequently used in studies to examine the epidemiology of AKI. This definition is variably interpreted and applied to routinely collected health care data. The aim of this study was to examine this variation and to achieve consensus in how AKI should be defined for research using routinely collected health care data.
UNASSIGNED: Scoping review via searching Medline and EMBASE for studies using health care data to examine AKI by using the KDIGO creatinine-based definition. An international panel of experts formed to participate in a modified Delphi process to attempt to generate consensus about how AKI should be defined when using routinely collected laboratory data.
UNASSIGNED: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews was followed. For the Delphi process, 2 rounds of questions were distributed via internet-based questionnaires to all participants with a prespecified cutoff of 75% agreement used to define consensus.
RESULTS: The scoping review found 174 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The KDIGO definition was inconsistently applied, and the methods for application were poorly described. We found 58 (33%) of papers did not provide a definition of how the baseline creatinine value was determined, and only 34 (20%) defined recovery of kidney function. Of 55 invitees to the Delphi process, 35 respondents participated in round 1, and 25 participated in round 2. Some consensus was achieved in areas related to how to define the baseline creatinine value, which patients should be excluded from analysis of routinely collected laboratory data, and how persistent chronic kidney disease or nonrecovery of AKI should be defined.
CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi panel members predominantly came from the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada, and there were low response rates for some questions in round 1.
CONCLUSIONS: The current methods for defining AKI using routinely collected data are inconsistent and poorly described in the available literature. Experts could not achieve consensus for many aspects of defining AKI and describing its sequelae. The KDIGO guidelines should be extended to include a standardized definition for how AKI should be defined when using routinely collected data.

Renal dysfunction is a common, life-threatening complication occurring in patients with liver disease. Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) has been defined as a purely \"functional\" type of renal failure that often occurs in patients with cirrhosis in the setting of marked abnormalities in arterial circulation, as well as overactivity of the endogenous vasoactive systems.4,5 In 2007, the International Club of Ascites (ICA) classified HRS into types 1 and 2 (HRS-1 and HRS-2).5 HRS-1 is characterised by a rapid deterioration of renal function that often occurs because of a precipitating event, while HRS-2 is a moderate and stable or slowly progressive renal dysfunction that often occurs without an obvious precipitant. Clinically, HRS-1 is characterised by acute renal failure while HRS-2 is mainly characterised by refractory ascites. Nevertheless, after these two entities were first described, new concepts, definitions, and diagnostic criteria have been developed by nephrologists for renal dysfunction in the general population and hospitalised patients. In particular, the definitions and characterisation of acute kidney injury (AKI), acute kidney disease and chronic kidney disease have been introduced/refined.6 Accordingly, a debate among hepatologists of the ICA led to a complete revision of the nomenclature and diagnosistic criteria for HRS-1, which was renamed HRS-AKI.7 Additionally, over recent years, greater granularity has been gained regarding the pathogenesis of HRS; it is now increasingly recognised that it is not a purely \"functional\" entity with haemodynamic derangements, but that systemic inflammation, oxidative stress and bile salt-related tubular damage may contribute significantly to its development. That is, HRS has an additional structural component that would not only make traditional diagnostic criteria less reliable, but would explain the lack of response to pharmacological treatment with vasoconstrictors plus albumin that correlates with a progressive increase in inflammation. Because classification, nomenclature, diagnostic criteria and pathogenic theories have evolved over the years since the traditional classification of HRS-1 and HRS-2 was first described, it was considered that all these novel aspects be reviewed and summarised in a position paper. The aim of this position paper authored by two hepatologists (members of ICA) and two nephrologists involved in the study of renal dysfunction in cirrhosis, is to complete the re-classification of HRS initiated by the ICA in 2012 and to provide an update on the definition, classification, diagnosis, pathophysiology and treatment of HRS.