Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Apr 14;17(4):e0267023. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267023

Incidence, risk factors, and prognosis of acute kidney injury in hospitalized patients with acute cholangitis

Tae Won Lee 1, Wooram Bae 1, Seongmin Kim 1, Jungyoon Choi 1, Eunjin Bae 1,2,3, Ha Nee Jang 4, Se-Ho Chang 2,3,4, Dong Jun Park 1,2,3,*
Editor: Mabel Aoun5
PMCID: PMC9009613  PMID: 35421169

Abstract

Background

The association between acute cholangitis (AC) and acute kidney injury (AKI) remains unclear. We investigated the incidence, and clinical course of AKI in patients with AC, and the long-term prognosis.

Methods

We performed a single-center retrospective study of patients hospitalized with AC in a tertiary care center from January 2011 to December 2017. The risk factors for AKI were evaluated, and AKI severity was analyzed using the Systemic Inflammatory Response System (SIRS), quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score, and 2018 Tokyo Guidelines (TG) grade. To calculate the relative risk of death based on AKI, hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained using Cox’s proportional hazard models.

Results

A total of 1,438 patients with AC were included, of whom 18.2% (n = 261) developed AKI. AKI patients were older, and had a lower systolic blood pressure and more comorbidities including hypertension (HT), chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular accidents. Disease severity (as assessed by SIRS, qSOFA, and the Tokyo Guidelines grade) was higher in the AKI group, as was the in-hospital mortality rate. Multivariate analysis revealed that age, HT, SIRS and qSOFA scores ≥ 2, and TG grade of III were significant risk factors for AKI. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed significantly higher mortality in the AKI than non-AKI group. AKI (HR = 1.853; 95% CI: 1.115–3.079) and TG grade III (HR = 2.139; 95% CI: 1.190–3,846) were independent predictors of all-cause AC mortality, even after adjusting for all covariates. The annual rate of decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate was faster in the AKI than non-AKI group (2.9 ± 6.7 vs. 0.5 ± 5.3 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

AKI development increased AC severity and mortality. Our results suggest that clinicians should monitor AKI status and perform appropriate management as soon as possible.

1. Introduction

Acute cholangitis (AC) is usually defined as a bacterial infection of the biliary tract caused by a lithiasic or tumoral obstruction [1, 2]. Intensive care unit (ICU) admission of AC patients is relatively common; AC accounts for 5% of all septic shock cases [3] and 10–29% of intraabdominal sepsis cases [4–6]. The mortality rate is 5–10% despite resuscitation, early administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics, and prompt decompression [7]. Early diagnosis and recognition of severe presentations is essential to allow clinicians to initiate appropriate management [8]. To this end, the recommendations of the Tokyo Guidelines (TG) Working Group have been regularly updated from 2007 to 2018, i.e., since an International Consensus Meeting in 2006 focusing on the diagnosis, severity assessment, and management of AC [9–13].

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is significantly associated with mortality, the length of hospital stay, and healthcare costs [14]. AKI is an important issue in patients with various infectious diseases. The incidence of AKI ranges from 5% to 51% in patients with sepsis [15–19]. AKI is an independent poor prognostic factor for sepsis. Many studies have shown that several factors contribute to AKI development and outcomes in septic patients [20–22]. In 2012, the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) consortium developed AKI clinical practice guidelines based on a careful review of the evidence [23]. The guidelines include chapters on AKI definition, staging, risk assessment, evaluation, prevention, and treatment. AKI according to the guidelines is defined as any of the following: Increase in serum creatinine (SCr) by X0.3 mg/dl within 48 hours; or Increase in SCr to X1.5 times baseline, which is known or presumed to have occurred within the prior 7 days; or Urine volume 0.5 ml/kg/h for 6 hours. Although two very old studies on renal failure associated with AC have appeared [24, 25], no study has applied the KDIGO guidelines to evaluate the incidence, risk factors, or clinical outcomes of AKI in association with AC, which was the goal of this study.

2. Materials and methods

Study population

We retrospectively studied 1,438 AC patients aged ≥ 18 years admitted to Gyeongsang National University Hospital between January 2011 and December 2017. Follow-up ended on December 31, 2020. AC patients were identified by searching the hospital database for ICD-10-CM codes K803 and K830. Information on demographic and clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, and comorbidities obtained at the time of admission, and in the outpatient clinic after discharge, were retrieved from electronic medical records (EMRs). The exclusion criteria were as follows: incomplete medical records, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and/or emergency department treatment only.

Definition and clinical assessments

According to KDIGO (23), AKI is defined when either of the following is present: an increase in serum creatinine > 0.3 mg/dL within 48 h, or a serum creatinine level > 1.5-fold that of the baseline that is known or presumed to have occurred within the last 7 days. Criteria involving the urine volume were excluded because the volume was not measured in the large majority of patients admitted to non-ICU wards. The baseline creatinine level was that recorded within 3 months before admission. In the absence of such data, the baseline creatinine level was estimated by consecutive blood tests during hospitalization (as described in the KDIGO guidelines). The AKI stage was evaluated according to the KDIGO guideline (23). The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was calculated using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula [1.86 × (plasma creatinine level)– 1.154 × (age)– 0.203)] × (0.74 if female) × (1.210 if black). Creatinine was measured using the Jaffe method. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) was defined as an eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Three decompression methods were used: surgical, endoscopic, and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). Endoscopic decompression involved placement of a naso-biliary tube and a biliary stent. AC severity was assessed using the Systemic Inflammatory Response System (SIRS) [26], quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) [27, 28], and TG grade [12]. The primary outcome was the incidence of AKI in AC patients. We sought to identify clinical and demographic variables predictive of AKI in AC patients. We explored the associations of SIRS and qSOFA scores ≥ 2 and the Tokyo Guidelines grade with AKI severity (in line with the KDIGO guidelines), and how AKI affected in-hospital mortality and 1-year mortality of AC patients. Finally, in patients whose renal function was assessed > 1 year after discharge, the annual decline in function was compared between the AKI and non-AKI groups. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Gyeongsang National University Hospital (GNUH) approved this study (IRB no. 2020-05-008) and waived the need for informed consent due to its retrospective study design.

Statistical analysis

Data are presented as means ± standard deviations or as frequencies (counts and percentages). The normality of continuous variables was examined using the Shapiro-Wilk test. When a normal distribution was confirmed, the independent t-test was used to analyze the data, which are shown as mean ± standard deviation. Continuous variables with non-normal distributions were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical variables were compared by the chi-squared or Fisher exact test. We used multivariate logistic regression used to identify significant risk factors for AKI. Variables that were significant in univariate logistic analysis were included in multivariate analysis, and the variables of the final predictive model were selected by the backward elimination method. Internal validity of the final multivariable model was assessed using repeated k-fold cross validation with 10 fold, 10 repeated, 75% train dataset and 25% test dataset of the total dataset. Next, logistic regression coefficients were employed to develop an equation for predicting AKI. Finally, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to determine a threshold with optimal sensitivity and specificity. Also calibration of the final multivariable model was assessed based on the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test and, visually, by plotting predicted probability of AKI development against the observed rate of the AKI in each decile. To explore the association between AKI and all-cause mortality, Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted by AKI status. To calculate the relative risks of death, hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived based on Cox’s proportional hazards models. All variables with p-values < 0.05 were included in the multivariate analysis. All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS for Windows software (ver. 24.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and R software (version 4.02; R Core Team,2020) (R: Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

3. Results

Clinical and laboratory characteristics by AKI status

From January 1 2011 to December 31 2017, 1,438 patients with AC were enrolled in this study; 488 were excluded. We divided all patients into AKI and non-AKI groups (Fig 1). Table 1 lists the baseline characteristics of all patients diagnosed with AC. The mean age was 70.9 years and 57% (n = 820) were male. AKI developed in 261 of the 1,438 patients. AKI patients were significantly older than non-AKI patients (74.8 ± 11.3 vs. 70.0 ± 13.4 years, p < 0.001). AKI patients exhibited higher rates of hypertension (HT) and CKD (48.3 vs. 32.4%, p < 0.001 and 11.9 vs. 7.1%, p = 0.015, respectively). The AC etiologies did not differ between the groups. Surgical decompression was more common in the non-AKI group (15.7 vs. 9.2%, p = 0.007) and PTBD was more preferred in the AKI group (14.8 vs. 24.9%, p < 0.001). The disease severity index (derived using the Tokyo Guidelines grade, and SIRS and qSOFA scores) correlated positively with AKI development (p < 0.001). The total white blood cell, bilirubin, and C-reactive protein levels were significantly higher in the AKI group (all p < 0.001). The bile culture-positive rate was higher in the AKI group (p = 0.027) but the blood-culture rate did not differ significantly between the two groups. Patients with AC were hospitalized for a mean of 10.6 ± 9.3 days. Moreover, patients in the AKI group had a significantly longer hospital stay than those in the non-AKI group (13.3 ± 11.3 vs. 10.0 ± 8.7 days, p < 0.001). The in-hospital mortality rate was much higher for the AKI group [13 (5.0%) vs. 12 (1.0%), p < 0.001].

Fig 1. Overall workflow of patient’s enrollment.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Table 1. Baseline characteristics for acute kidney injury in patients with acute cholangitis.

Total (N = 1438) Non-AKI (N = 1177) AKI (N = 261) P value
Age (yr) 70.9 ± 13.1 70.0 ± 13.4 74.8 ± 11.3 < 0.001
Female, n (%) 618 (43.0) 519 (44.1) 99 (37.9) 0.069
SBP, mmHg 121.0 ± 18.2 122.3 ± 17.8 115.1 ± 18.9 < 0.001
Body temperature, °C 36.6 ± 0.5 36.5 ± 0.5 36.7 ± 0.7 0.004
Comorbidities
 Hypertension, n (%) 507 (35.3) 381 (32.4) 126 (48.3) < 0.001
 Diabetes, n (%) 292 (20.3) 229 (19.5) 63 (24.1) 0.089
 CKD, n (%) 84 (5.8) 59 (5.0) 25 (9.6) 0.008
 Liver cirrhosis, n (%) 68 (4.7) 54 (4.6) 14 (5.4) 0.593
 Heart failure, n (%) 30 (2.1) 21 (1.8) 9 (3.4) 0.089
 OMI, n (%) 27 (1.9) 19 (1.6) 8 (3.1) 0.118
 CVA, n (%) 59 (4.1) 42 (3.6) 17 (6.5) 0.030
Etiology, n (%)
 Stone 438 (30.5) 364 (30.9) 74 (28.4) 0.414
 Tumor 196 (13.6) 159 (13.5) 37 (14.2) 0.776
Decompression, n (%)
 Endoscopic 410 (28.5) 323 (27.4) 87 (33.3) 0.076
 Surgical 209 (14.5) 185 (15.7) 24 (9.2) 0.007
 Percutaneous 239 (16.6) 174 (14.8) 65 (24.9) < 0.001
Severity assessment
 TOKYO grade < 0.001
  I 927 (64.5%) 852 (72.4%) 75 (28.7%)
  II 326 (22.7%) 246 (20.9%) 80 (30.7%)
  III 185 (12.9%) 79 (6.7%) 106 (40.6%)
 SIRS ≥ 2, n (%) 247 (17.2) 146 (12.4) 101 (38.7) < 0.001
 qSOFA score ≥ 2, n (%) 262 (18.2) 159 (13.5) 103 (39.5) < 0.001
Laboratory findings
 WBC, 109/L 10.7 ± 5.9 9.9 ± 5.0 14.0 ± 7.8 < 0.001
 Hemoglobin, g/dL 12.4 ± 1.9 12.5 ± 1.8 12.0 ± 1.9 < 0.001
 Platelet, 109/L 210.0 ± 95.0 219.9 ± 92.7 165.6 ± 92.6 < 0.001
 Creatinine, mg/dL 0.96 ± 0.57 0.80 ± 0.27 1.69 ± 0.93 < 0.001
 Total bilirubin, mg/dL 3.2 ± 3.5 2.9 ± 3.3 4.3 ± 4.2 < 0.001
 AST, U/L 172.9 ± 258.1 163.8 ± 220.5 213.7 ± 382.3 0.043
 ALT, U/L 138.9 ± 161.4 138.8 ± 157.8 139.5 ± 176.8 0.943
 Albumin, g/dL 3.7 ± 0.6 3.7 ± 0.6 3.3 ± 0.6 < 0.001
 CRP, mg/L 69.3 ± 76.3 55.0 ± 63.7 132.4 ±93.6 < 0.001
Positive culture
 Blood 204 (14.2) 167 (14.2) 37 (14.2) 0.996
 Bile 343 (23.9) 267 (22.7) 76 (29.1) 0.027
Hospital stay (days) 10.6 ± 9.3 10.0 ± 8.7 13.3 ± 11.3 < 0.001
In-hospital mortality, n (%) 25 (1.7) 12 (1) 13 (5) < 0.001
Open in a new tab

SBP, systolic blood pressure; CKD, chronic kidney disease; OMI, old myocardial infarction; CVA, cerebral vascular accident; WBC, white blood cell; AST, aspartate transaminase; ALT, alanine transaminase; CRP, c-reactive protein.

The incidence and independent risk factors of AKI in AC patients

As defined by the KDIGO guidelines, 261 (18.2%) patients developed AKI: 146 (55.9%) stage 1, 74 (28.4%) stage 2, and 41 (15.7%) stage 3 AKI. Table 2 shows the AKI-associated clinical variables. Age, HT, CKD, a previous cardiovascular accident (CVA), Tokyo Guidelines grade III, SIRS and qSOFA scores ≥ 2, and a positive bile culture were associated with AKI. Multivariate analysis revealed that age (HR = 1.021; 95% CI: 1.007–1.036, p = 0.004), HT (HR = 1.762; 95% CI: 1.277–2.430, p = 0.001), TG grade III (HR = 10.839; 95% CI: 7.414–15.846, p < 0.001), a SIRS score ≥ 2 (HR = 2.334; 95% CI: 1.575–3.456, p < 0.001), and a qSOFA score ≥ 2 (HR = 1.872; 95% CI: 1.271–2.757, p < 0.001) were independent risk factors for AKI development in AC patients (Table 2).

Table 2. Independent risk factors for the development of AKI.

Univariate logistic regression Multivariate logistic regression
OR (95%CI) P value OR (95%CI) P value
Age 1.032 (1.020–1.044) < 0.001 1.021 (1.007–1.036) 0.004
Hypertension 1.950 (1.486–2.559) < 0.001 1.762 (1.277–2.430) 0.001
CVA 1.883 (1.054–3.363) 0.033 0.944 (0.472–1.886) 0.870
Underlying CKD 1.777 (1.148–2.748) 0.010 0.635 (0.370–1.089) 0.099
TOKYO Grade III 14.518 (10.194–20.677) < 0.001 10.839 (7.414–15.846) < 0.001
SIRS 4.458 (3.291–6.038) < 0.001 2.334 (1.575–3.456) <0.001
qSOFA ≥ 2 3.943 (2.929–5.308) < 0.001 1.872 (1.271–2.757) 0.002
Positive bile culture 1.400 (1.037–1.890) 0.028 1.344 (0.945–1.912) 0.100
Open in a new tab

CVA, cerebral vascular accident; CKD, chronic kidney disease.

Relationships of the TG grade, SIRS, and qSOFA scores with AKI status

Severe AKI was significantly more common in AC patients with a higher Tokyo Guidelines grade (p < 0.001). SIRS and qSOFA scores ≥ 2 were strongly associated with more severe AKI (p = 0.006 and p = 0.002, respectively) (Table 3).

Table 3. The relationship between TOKYO grade, SIRS, and qSOFA and AKI stage determined by KDIGO guideline.

Stage I (N = 146) Stage II (N = 74) Stage III (N = 41) P value
TOKYO grade < 0.001
 Grade I, n (%) 59 (78.7%) 15 (20.0%) 1 (1.3%)
 Grade II, n (%) 56 (70.0%) 19 (23.8%) 5 (6.3%)
 Grade III, n (%) 31 (29.2%) 40 (37.7%) 35 (33.0%)
SIRS 0.006
 < 2, n (%) 102 (63.8%) 38 (23.8%) 20 (12.5%)
 ≥ 2, n (%) 44 (43.6%) 36 (35.6%) 21 (20.8%)
qSOFA 0.002
 < 2, n (%) 102 (64.6%) 35 (22.2%) 21 (13.3%)
 ≥ 2, n (%) 44 (42.7%) 39 (37.9%) 20 (19.4%)
Open in a new tab

AKI prediction in AC patients

The regression coefficients (standard error) for age, HT, TG grade III, SIRS score ≥ 2, and qSOFA score ≥ 2 for the multiple logistic regression model used to predict the risk of AKI were 0.016 (0.007), 0.592 (0.163), 2.420 (0.201), 0.914 (0.199), and 0.658 (0.196), respectively. Therefore, the regression equation for AKI prediction was as follows: AKI prediction score = (0.02 × age) + (0.6 × HT) + (2.4 × TG grade III) + (0.9 × SIRS score) + (0.7 × qSOFA score ≥ 2). This equation yields a numerical score predicting AKI in AC patients. The cutoff (determined using ROC curves) was ≥ 1.9 (area under the curve = 0.798; 95% CI: 0.767–0.828; sensitivity = 70.1%, specificity = 77.4%) (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of AKI prediction score to predict AKI in patient with acute cholangitis.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Validation of AKI prediction model

Repeated K-fold cross validation was performed for internal validation of AKI prediction model. We divided our patients into two datasets (75% train dataset versus 25% test dataset). As a result, the model accuracy in train and test is 0.846, which is considered a relatively valid model. The risk prediction model showed good calibration, with reasonable agreement between observed and predicted AKI outcome in our AC patients (S1 Fig).

Prediction of all-cause mortality from AKI

The early hospital mortality rate was higher in the AKI than non-AKI group (1% vs. 5%, p < 0.001) (Table 1). During a mean follow-up of 24.5 months, 176 (12.2%) patients died. The association of AKI with all-cause mortality was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis (Fig 3). All-cause mortality in the AKI group was higher than in the non-AKI group (p < 0.001). We then performed Cox’s regression analyses. In multivariate analysis, AKI (HR = 1.860; 95% CI: 1.338–2.586) was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality in AC patients, even after adjusting for all covariates (Table 4). In addition, AC TG grade III (HR = 2.302; 95% CI: 1.338–2.586) was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality, even after adjusting for several covariates (Table 4).

Fig 3. Kaplan survival analysis of survival associated with the presence of AKI in HD patients.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

Table 4. Hazard ratios for all-cause mortality risk factors in Acute cholangitis patients.

All-cause mortality
HR (95% CI) P
TOKYO classification
 Grade I 1.00 (ref)
 Grade II 1.222 (0.708–2.111) 0.471
 Grade III 2.139 (1.190–3.846) 0.011
Acute kidney injury
 No AKI 1.00 (ref)
 AKI 1.853 (1.115–3.079) 0.017
Open in a new tab

HR; hazard ratio, CI; confidence interval. Adjusted for age, SBP, hypertension, CVA, etiology, positive bile culture, decompression treatment, underlying CKD.

Effects of AKI on long-term renal function

To evaluate eGFR decline in the two groups, 878 patients whose GFRs were estimated in the outpatient clinic for at least 1 year were analyzed. During a mean follow-up of 3.4 ± 2.3 years, the annual rate of decline was faster in the AKI than non-AKI group (2.9 ± 6.7 vs. 0.5 ± 5.3 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, p < 0.001).

4. Discussion

In this retrospective study, the AKI incidence rate was 18.2%. In the KDIGO guidelines the proportion of AKI in stage I, II, and III disease are 55.9%, 28.4%, and 15.7% respectively. Independent risk factors for AKI associated with AC in this study (as revealed by multivariate analysis) were older age, HT, Tokyo Guidelines grade III, and SIRS and qSOFA scores ≥ 2. AKI severity was positively correlated was AC severity, as assessed by the TG grade, SIRS, and qSOFA. During follow-up, the all-cause mortality rate was higher in the AKI than non-AKI group, and AKI was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality in AC patients, even after adjusting for all covariates. In addition, the eGFR decline was faster in the AKI group.

The association between obstructive jaundice and acute renal failure (ARF) is well-recognized; ARF may develop in patients with jaundice caused either by operation or septicemia (or both), but is rarely described [25]. Bismuth et al. (1975) reported an association between AC and ARF in a large-scale trial [24], which included 283 hospitalized patients with confirmed cholangitis. Twenty-one patients (7.4%) rapidly developed renal insufficiency. ARF was defined as a blood urea nitrogen level > 40 mg/dL or a serum creatinine level > 2.0 mg/dL with a urine:blood urea ratio < 8. Six patients showed mild renal failure, while in two it was severe, and in the remainder moderate. In the present study, the AKI rates in stage I, II, and III disease were 56%, 28%, and 16%, respectively. The higher rate of AKI in our cohort may reflect more strict application of diagnostic criteria for early detection and treatment.

Sepsis is influenced by pathogenic and host factors that evolve over time, and is the primary cause of death from infection [30]. Sepsis was an important risk factor for AKI in several studies [21, 30, 31]. The SIRS criteria have been used since 1991 to classify sepsis [29], but lack the specificity required to diagnose systemic inflammation caused by infection. However, they have high sensitivity [32]. A SIRS score ≥ 2 was a significant independent risk factor for AKI in the present study. The qSOFA can quickly identify infected patients but requires clinical sufficient data [30]. Although the qSOFA score is not part of the new sepsis definition, it is an important part of sepsis work-up in the emergency room [31, 32]. A qSOFA score ≥ 2 was also an independent risk factor for AKI in this study, and correlated significantly with the KDIGO AKI stage.

The diagnostic and severity grades of the 2018 TG (TG18) are preferred worldwide for AC management. According to TG18, the 30-day mortality rate of patients with more severe disease than indicated by the TG13 criteria was significantly higher than that of other patients [12]. In a multicenter study performed in Japan and Taiwan, all grade III prognostic factors (apart from hepatic dysfunction) that were significant in multivariate analysis had roughly equal weights [33]. Another study found that intra-hepatic biliary stenosis and hypoalbuminemia predicted poor prognosis, whereas renal failure, hepatic dysfunction, AC accompanied by malignant disease, and hypoalbuminemia did not [34]. We found that the TG18 grade independently predicted AKI, and that AC severity (as defined by TG18) was positively correlated with AKI severity. A TG grade of III also predicted 1-year mortality. Our study is unique in that we are the first to define the incidence, risk factors, and clinical outcomes of AKI associated with AC.

AKI is an increasingly common problem associated with adverse short- and long-term outcomes. Even modest elevations in serum creatinine levels were associated with adverse outcomes in this study; an increase of ≥ 0.5 mg/dL was associated with a 6.5-fold increase in the risk of death. AKI was also significantly associated with mortality, length of hospital stay, and healthcare costs in the short term [14]. The two major negative long-term outcomes of AKI are higher mortality [35, 36] and the development of CKD after discharge [37–39]. A recent systematic review on long-term prognosis after AKI demonstrated that the development of CKD after AKI (compared to AKI alone) doubled the mortality rate and was associated with a 4-to-5-fold increase in adverse CKD outcomes [40]. We found that the in-hospital mortality rate was higher in the AKI than non-AKI group. During a mean follow-up of 24.5 months, 1-year mortality was also higher in the AKI group. Cox’s regression analyses showed that AKI was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality in AC patients after adjusting for all covariates. During a mean follow-up of 3.4 years, AKI development was associated with 1-year mortality (similar to previous studies) [36, 37, 40] and CKD progression [39, 40], according to the decline in eGFR.

We found that age, HT, TG grade III, and SIRS and qSOFA scores ≥ 2 predicted AKI in AC patients; the most influential factor was Tokyo Guidelines grade III. We developed a predictive AKI score based on these factors. This system sensitively and specifically predicts AKI in AC patients when using a cutoff ≥ 1.9. This allows clinicians to identify AC patients at high risk of AKI in the emergency room or ICU, and to schedule specific treatment. However, further studies are needed.

Our study had both strengths and limitations. First, as this was an observational, retrospective single-center study, the results should not be generalized. Also, we cannot entirely rule out selection bias. Second, we could not identify other possible causes of AKI because we relied on medical records. Third, we used the serum creatinine cutoff of the KDIGO guidelines to diagnose AKI, because urine output was not measured in most patients. Therefore, AKI incidence and severity may have been underestimated. However, we believe that these limitations may have been overcome by the large number of patients. The laboratory data were well-documented and consistent, and management was unform (because this was a single-center study). This is the first large-scale study with a high number of patients to describe the incidence, risk factors, and clinical outcomes of AKI in patients with AC. A further well-designed prospective study is needed for validation.

5. Conclusions

In this large retrospective study, we showed that age, HT, TG grade III, and SIRS and qSOFA scores ≥ 2 significantly predicted AKI in AC patients, which was associated with both in-hospital and 1-year mortality and rapid renal function decline. Our predictive AKI scoring system may aid clinicians who manage AC patients.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Calibration plot showing that predicted probability and actual probability are almost identical).

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file. (93KB, tif)
S1 Data

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file. (377.8KB, xlsx)
S1 Checklist

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file. (103.5KB, doc)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Rock Bum Kim (Regional Cardiovascular Disease Center, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, South Korea) for invaluable help in statistical analysis.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Friedman GD. Natural history of asymptomatic and symptomatic gallstones. Am J Surg. 1993;165:399–404. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9610(05)80930-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Beger HG, Schwarz A. Review article: Spectrum of biliary infections in the West and in the East. HPB Surg. 1995;8: 215–222. doi: 10.1155/1995/74384 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Leligdowicz A, Dodek PM, Norena M, Wong H, Kumar A, Kumar A. Association between source of infection and hospital mortality in patients who have septic shock. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;189:1204–1213. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201310-1875OC [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Baykara N, Akalın H, Arslantaş MK, Hancı V, Çağlayan Ç, Kahveci F, et al. Epidemiology of sepsis in intensive care units in Turkey: a multicenter, point-prevalence study. Crit Care. 2018;22:93. doi: 10.1186/s13054-018-2013-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Annane D, Aegerter P, Jars-Guincestre MC, Guidet B. Current epidemiology of septic shock: the CUB-Réa network. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;168:165–172. doi: 10.1164/rccm.2201087 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.SepNet Critical Care Trials Group. Incidence of severe sepsis and septic shock in German intensive care units: the prospective, multicentre INSEP study. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:1980–1989. doi: 10.1007/s00134-016-4504-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bornman PC, van Beljon JI, Krige JE. Management of cholangitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2003;10:406–414. doi: 10.1007/s00534-002-0710-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Touzani S, Bouazzaoui AE, Bouyarmane F et al. Factors associated with mortality in severe acute cholangitis in a Moroccan intensive care unit: A retrospective analysis of 140 cases. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2021; 2021: 4583493. doi: 10.1155/2021/4583493 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kimura Y, Takada T, Kawarada Y et al., “Definitions, pathophysiology, and epidemiology of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis: Tokyo Guidelines,” Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery. 2007;14:15–26. doi: 10.1007/s00534-006-1152-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sekimoto M, Takada T, Kawarada Y et al., “Need for criteria for the diagnosis and severity assessment of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis: Tokyo Guidelines,” Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery. 2007;14:11–14. doi: 10.1007/s00534-006-1151-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kimura Y, Takada T, Strasberg SM et al., “TG13 current terminology, etiology, and epidemiology of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis,” Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences.2013;20:8–23. doi: 10.1007/s00534-012-0564-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Miura F, Okamoto K, Takada T et al., “Tokyo Guidelines 2018: initial management of acute biliary infection and flowchart for acute cholangitis,” J Hepato-Biliary Pancreatic Sciences. 2018;25:31–40. doi: 10.1002/jhbp.509 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kiriyama S, Takada T, Hwang T-L, Akazawa H, Miura F, Gomi H, et al. Clinical application and verification of the TG13 diagnostic and severity grading criteria for acute cholangitis: an international multicenter observational study. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2017;24:329–337. doi: 10.1002/jhbp.458 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chertow GM, Burdick E, Honour M, Bonventre JV, Bates DW: Acute kidney injury, mortality, length of stay, and costs in hospitalized patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005;16: 3365–3370. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2004090740 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Uchino S, Kellum JA, Bellomo R, et al. Acute renal failure in critically ill patients: a multinational, multicenter study. JAMA. 2005;294:813–818. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.7.813 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Vincent JL, Sakr Y, Sprung CL, et al. Sepsis in European intensive care units: results of the SOAP study. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:344–353. doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000194725.48928.3a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ostermann M, Chang RWS. Acute kidney injury in the intensive care unit according to RIFLE. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:1837–1843. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000277041.13090.0A [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Akram AR, Singanayagam A, Choudhury G, et al. Incidence and prognostic implications of acute kidney injury on admission in patients with community acquired pneumonia. Chest. 2010;138:825–832. doi: 10.1378/chest.09-3071 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hoste EAJ, Clermont G, Kersten A, et al. RIFLE criteria for acute kidney injury are associated with hospital mortality in critically ill patients: a cohort analysis. Crit Care. 2006;10:R73. doi: 10.1186/cc4915 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Yegenaga I, Hoste E, Van Biesen W, et al. Clinical characteristics of patients developing ARF due to sepsis/ systemic inflammatory response syndrome: results of a prospective study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2004;43:817–824. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2003.12.045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Guerin C, Girard R, Selli JM, et al. Initial versus delayed acute renal failure in the intensive care unit. A multicenter prospective epidemiological study. Rhone- Alpes Area Study Group on Acute Renal Failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;161:872–879. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.161.3.9809066 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hoste EAJ, Lameire NH, Vanholder RC, et al. Acute renal failure in patients with sepsis in a surgical ICU: predictive factors, incidence, comorbidity, and outcome. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2003;14:1022–1030 doi: 10.1097/01.asn.0000059863.48590.e9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.KDIGO. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Acute Kidney Injury Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for Acute Kidney Injury. Kidney Int Suppl. 2012;2:1–138. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bismuth H, Kuntziger H, Corlette MB. Cholangitis with acute renal failure: priorities in therapeutics. Ann Surg. 1975;181:881–887. doi: 10.1097/00000658-197506000-00022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dawson JL. Renal failure in obstructive jaundice-clinical aspect. Postgrad Med J. 1975;51:510–511. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.51.598.510 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB, et al. Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. The ACCP/ SCCM Consensus Conference Committee. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine. Chest. 1992;101:1644–1655. doi: 10.1378/chest.101.6.1644 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Faust JS. No SIRS; quick SOFA instead. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;67:15–19. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.04.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Churpek MM, Snyder A, Han X, et al. qSOFA, SIRS, and Early Warning Scores for Detecting Clinical Deterioration in Infected Patients Outside the ICU. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;195:906–911 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sakhuja A, Kumar G, Gupta S, et al. Acute kidney injury requiring dialysis in severe sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;192:951–957. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201502-0329OC [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315:801–810. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0287 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Jeon D, Jang HN, Cho HS, Lee TW et al. Incidence, risk factors, and clinical outcomes of acute kidney injury associated with acute pyelonephritis in patients attending a tertiary care referral center. Ren Fail. 2019;41:204–210. doi: 10.1080/0886022X.2019.1591995 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, et al. 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/ SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29:530–538. doi: 10.1007/s00134-003-1662-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kiriyama S, Kozaka K, Takada T et al. Tokyo Guidelines 2018: diagnostic criteria and severity grading of acute cholangitis (with videos). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018; 25:17–30. doi: 10.1002/jhbp.512 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Sun G, Han L, Yang Y, Linghu E, Li W, Cai F, et al. Comparison of two editions of Tokyo guidelines for the management of acute cholangitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2014;21:113–119. doi: 10.1002/jhbp.9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Doyle F and Forni LG. Acute kidney injury: short-term and long-term effects. Critical Care 2016;20:188. doi: 10.1186/s13054-016-1353-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Coca SG, Yusuf B, Shlipak MG, et al. Long-term risk of mortality and other adverse outcomes after acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009;53:961–973. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2008.11.034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bydash JR, Ishani A. Acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease: a work in progress. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;6:2555–2557. doi: 10.2215/CJN.09560911 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Coca SG, Singanamala S, Parikh CR. Chronic kidney disease after acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Kidney Int. 2012;81:442–448. doi: 10.1038/ki.2011.379 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Chawla LS, Kimmel PL. Acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease: an integrated clinical syndrome. Kidney Int. 2012;82:516–524. doi: 10.1038/ki.2012.208 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Sawhney S, Mitchell M, Marks A, Fluck N, and Black C: Long-term prognosis after acute kidney injury (AKI): what is the role of baseline kidney function and recovery? A systematic review. BMJ Open. 2015;4:e006497. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006497 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mabel Aoun

10 Mar 2022

PONE-D-22-04137Incidence, risk factors, and prognosis of acute kidney injury in hospitalized patients with acute cholangitisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Park,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 24 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mabel Aoun, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“None”

At this time, please address the following queries:

a)        Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b)        State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c)        If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d)        If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 

“None”

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

6. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Editor, Thank you for the privilege of reviewing this manuscript. This is a well designed and nicely written study that describes the statistics of AKI in acute cholangitis patients.

I suggest this manuscript to published in its present form.

Best regards,

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting paper for several points: the use of KDIGO criteria for AKI, number of patients and the long follow up after discharge. Authors are just kindly requested to move AKI definition to the introduction

Reviewer #3: In this study, Lee et al used a retrospective cohort design to investigate the incidence, risk factors, and prognosis of acute kidney injury in 1438 patients hospitalized with acute cholangitis (AC) in a tertiary care center () from January 2011 to December 2017. The investigators found that age, history of hypertension at baseline, AC severity criteria (Tokyo Grade score, SIRS and qSOFA) were independent predictors of AKI in AC patients. They also report that AKI was independently associated with all-cause mortality, and they developed a prediction model for AKI in AC patients, that had good discriminant properties (C-statistic = 0.798) and the sensitivity and specificity of the scoring system at a cut-off of 1.9 were 70.1% and 77.4% respectively.

The strengths of this study include access to high quality inpatient data in a large number of patients with AC to be able to answer the research question but there are several concerns that need to be addressed before this manuscript can be considered for publication.

Major concerns

1. Variable selection for AKI prediction model. The authors mention using forward and backward stepwise procedures to select the predictors included in the prediction model. Can the authors comment on the reproducibility of these variable selection procedures? Would a different set of variables not be selected if this study was repeated in another sample? Perhaps deciding a priori to select variables known to be predictive of AKI based on prior data and fitting the model once may be produce a more reproducible model? Also, would be more advantageous to model age in a nonlinear fashion using restricted cubic splines?

2. Validation of prediction model. Did the authors use any methods to validate their prediction model such as cross-validation or bootstrapping? In the absence of any validation, can the authors comment on how this model would perform in another dataset?

3. Model calibration. The authors present AUROC values for discriminant analysis but it would be important to know if model calibration was also assessed.

4. Lag time for AKI diagnosis and Time to death. Can the authors describe if there was any lag time between study entry (on date of admission) and the date of AKI diagnosis? If so, please present the median and interquartile range. Also, if any such lag time exists for some patients, how was the time pre-AKI diagnosis modelled in the Cox proportional hazards models for all-cause mortality. Was that time attributed to unexposed person-time?

Minor concerns

1. Figure 1. In the methods, patients were admitted between January 2011 and December 2017. The Figure says 2016. Please correct.

2. Figure 2. Please include the AUROC (95% CI) on the graph.

3. Figure 3. Please clarify what the time axis represents. Is it time from cohort entry to end of follow-up?

4. Table 2. It may be better to present the multivariable odds ratios for all the variables in the table.

5. Table 3. In order to make inferences about the frequency of severe AKI in the different Ac severity categories, it would be better to prevent the row percentages.

6. Discussion (page 10, paragraph 2). The percentages for AKI stages (56%, 28% and 16%) cannot be interpreted as AKI rates. Please revise. Also please ensure that all data presented in the discussion is also presented in the results.

7. Please clarify in the manuscript text what short-term and long-term mortality means.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Tuncay Sahutoglu, M.D.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Apr 14;17(4):e0267023. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267023.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

28 Mar 2022

We appreciate your positive comments. Files responding to reviewer and editor comments are attached. Please check it.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (62.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Mabel Aoun

1 Apr 2022

Incidence, risk factors, and prognosis of acute kidney injury in hospitalized patients with acute cholangitis

PONE-D-22-04137R1

Dear Dr. Park,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mabel Aoun, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Mabel Aoun

5 Apr 2022

PONE-D-22-04137R1

Incidence, risk factors, and prognosis of acute kidney injury in hospitalized patients with acute cholangitis

Dear Dr. Park:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mabel Aoun

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Calibration plot showing that predicted probability and actual probability are almost identical).

    (TIF)

    Click here for additional data file. (93KB, tif)
    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    Click here for additional data file. (377.8KB, xlsx)
    S1 Checklist

    (DOC)

    Click here for additional data file. (103.5KB, doc)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (62.1KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES