Evidence Hub

The association between stress hyperglycemia ratio and clinical outcomes in patients with sepsis-associated acute kidney injury: a secondary analysis of the MIMIC-IV database

Yuanjun Zhou, Liping Zhong, Yuting Zhong, Yilin Liao

BMC Infectious Diseases, 2024

1,161 participants · 18 citations

Abstract

The stress hyperglycemia ratio (SHR) is associated with poor outcomes in critically ill patients. However, the relationship between SHR and mortality in patients with sepsis-associated acute kidney injury (SA-AKI) remains unclear. The data of patients with SA-AKI, identified based on the KDIGO criteria, were retrospectively collected from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center between 2008 and 2019. SHR was calculated as follows: (glycemia [mmol/L]) / (1.59 × HbA1c [%] – 2.59). Primary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year mortality. The cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality was assessed using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. Multivariable-adjusted logistic and Cox models and restricted cubic spline curves were used to analyze the correlation between SHR and all-cause mortality. Post-hoc subgroup analysis was performed to compare the effects of SHR across different subgroups. 1161 patients with SA-AKI were identified and categorized into four SHR quartiles as follows: Q1 (0.26, 0.90), Q2 (0.91, 1.08), Q3 (1.09, 1.30), and Q4 (1.31, 5.42). The median age of patients was 69 years, with 42.7% of the patients being women and 20.2% of the patients having chronic kidney disease. The 30-day and 1-year mortality were 22.1% and 35.0% respectively. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis indicated a gradual decrease in survival probability with increasing SHR quartiles. An increased SHR exhibited a strong correlation with 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% confidence interval…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,161 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free