Initial and Recurrent Hyperkalemia Events in Patients With CKD in Older Adults: A Population-Based Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The risk of hyperkalemia is elevated in chronic kidney disease (CKD); however, the initial and recurrent risk among older individuals is less clear. OBJECTIVES: We set out to examine the initial and 1-year recurrent risk of hyperkalemia by level of kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate, eGFR) in older adults (≥66 years old). DESIGN: Population-based, retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 905 167 individuals (≥66 years old) from 2008 to 2015. MEASUREMENTS: Serum potassium values. METHODS: ) and examined for the risk of incident hyperkalemia (K ≥ 5.5 mEq/L) using adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. The 1-year risk of recurrent hyperkalemia was examined using multivariable Andersen-Gill models. RESULTS: Among a population of 905 167 individuals (15% eGFR ≥ 90, 58% eGFR 60-89, 25% eGFR 30-59, 3% eGFR 15-29) with a potassium measurement, there were a total of 18 979 (2.1%) individuals with hyperkalemia identified. The event rate (per 1000 person-years) and adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of hyperkalemia was inversely associated with eGFR (mL/min; eGFR >90 mL/min: 8.8, referent, 60-89 mL/min: 11.8 HR 1.41; eGFR 30-59: 39.8, HR 4.37; eGFR 15-29: 133.6, 13.65) and with an increasing urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR, mg/mmol; ACR< 3: 14, referent, ACR 3-30: 35.1, HR 1.98; ACR >30: 93.7, 4.71). The 1-year event rate and adjusted risk of recurrent hyperkalemia was similarly inversely associated with eGFR (eGFR ≥ 90: 10.1, referent, eGFR 60-89: 14.4, HR 1.47; eGFR 30-59: 54.8, HR 4.90; eGFR 15-29: 208.0, HR 12.98). Among individuals with a baseline eGFR of 30 to 59 and 15 to 29, 0.9 and 3.8% had greater than 2 hyperkalemia events. The relative risk of initial and recurrent hyperkalemia was marginally higher with RAAS blockade. Roughly 1 in 4 individuals with hyperkalemia required hospitalization the day of or within 30 days after their hyperkalemia event. LIMITATIONS: Limited to individuals aged 66 years and above. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with low eGFR are at a high risk of initial and recurrent hyperkalemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".