The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines are currently used in acute kidney injury (AKI) diagnosis and include both serum creatinine (SCR) and urine output (UO) criteria. Currently, many AKI-related studies have inconsistently defined AKI, which possibly affects the comparison of their results. Therefore, we hypothesized that the different criteria in the KDIGO guidelines vary in measuring the incidence of AKI and its association with clinical outcomes. We retrospectively analyzed that data of patients admitted to the intensive care unit after non-cardiac surgery in 2019. Three different criteria used to define AKI were included: UOmean, mean UO < 0.5 mL/kg/h over time; UOcont, hourly UO < 0.5 mL/kg/h over time; or SCR, KDIGO guidelines SCR criteria. A total of 777 patients were included, and the incidence of UOmean-AKI was 33.1%, the incidence of UOcont-AKI was 7.9%, and the incidence of SCR-AKI was 2.0%. There were differences in the length of ICU stay and hospital stay between AKI and non-AKI patients under different criteria. We found differences in the incidence and clinical outcomes of AKI after non-cardiac surgery when using different KDIGO criteria.

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.