Why have detection, understanding and management of kidney hypoxic injury lagged behind those for the heart?

Abstract

The outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has dramatically improved over recent decades, thanks to early detection and prompt interventions to restore coronary blood flow. In contrast, the prognosis of patients with hypoxic acute kidney injury (AKI) remained unchanged over the years. Delayed diagnosis of AKI is a major reason for this discrepancy, reflecting the lack of symptoms and diagnostic tools indicating at real time altered renal microcirculation, oxygenation, functional derangement and tissue injury. New tools addressing these deficiencies, such as biomarkers of tissue damage are yet far less distinctive than myocardial biomarkers and advanced functional renal imaging technologies are non-available in the clinical practice. Moreover, our understanding of pathogenic mechanisms likely suffers from conceptual errors, generated by the extensive use of the wrong animal model, namely warm ischemia and reperfusion. This model parallels mechanistically type I AMI, which properly represents the rare conditions leading to renal infarcts, whereas common scenarios leading to hypoxic AKI parallel physiologically type II AMI, with tissue hypoxic damage generated by altered oxygen supply/demand equilibrium. Better understanding the pathogenesis of hypoxic AKI and its management requires a more extensive use of models of type II-rather than type I hypoxic AKI.