Validation of the Augmented Renal Clearance in Trauma Intensive Care scoring system for augmented renal clearance prediction in a trauma subgroup of a mixed ICU population

alexandrossfakianakis shared this article with you from Inoreader Validation of the Augmented Renal Clearance in Trauma Intensive Care scoring system for augmented renal clearance prediction in a trauma subgroup of a mixed ICU population via Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics (Left) ROC curves for ARC detection in trauma subgroup: comparison between ARCTIC score ROC curve and regression ROC curve. AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval. (Right) ROC curves for ARC detection in medical/surgical subgroup: comparison between ARCTIC score ROC curve and regression ROC curve. Abstract What is known and Objective Augmented renal clearance is prevalent in trauma patients and leads to subtherapeutic levels of renally eliminated medications with potentially unfavourable clinical outcomes. The Augmented Renal Clearance of Trauma in Intensive Care (ARCTIC) score has been developed to predict augmented renal clearance in critically ill trauma patients. Our primary objective was to validate this score among the trauma subgroup of a mixed intensive care patient cohort. Methods This single-centre, retrospective, observational cohort study assessed augmented renal clearance using a timed 24-h urine collection performed weekly. ARC was defined as a measured creatinine clearance of ≥130 ml/min/1.73 m2. ARCTIC score performance was evaluated through a receiver operator characteristic curves and analysis of sensitivities and specificities for the trauma subgroup, the medical/surgical subgroup and the pooled cohort. Results and Discussion Augmented renal clearance was observed in 33.9% (n = 58) of trauma patients (n = 171) and 15.7% (n = 24) of medical/surgical patients (n = 153). Examination of different cutoffs for the ARCTIC score in our trauma population confirmed that the optimal cutoff score was ≥6. Comparison between ROC curves for ARCTIC score and for regression model based upon our data in trauma patients indicated validation of the score in this subgroup. Comparison of sensitivities and specificities for ARCTIC score between trauma (93.1% and 41.6%, respectively) and medical/surgical subjects (87.5% and 49.6%, respectively) showed no clinical nor statistical difference, suggesting validation for the medical/surgical subgroup as well. What is new and Conclusion In our mixed ICU population, the ARCTIC score was validated in the trauma subgroup. We also found that the score performed well in the medical/surgical population. Future studies should assess the performance of the ARCTIC score prospectively. View on Web

Inoreader. Take back control of your news feed. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.