Background Postoperative AKI is a significant postoperative complication. Clinical risk prediction models are lacking for patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. SPARK Classification and GS AKI Index are tools that have shown fair discriminative ability to predict post-operative AKI in non-cardiac surgery and have external validation in their original cohorts. There is no study that compares the diagnostic accuracy of both tools. Objectives This study aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy of SPARK Classification vs GS-AKI Risk Index in predicting post-operative AKI among patients who will undergo non-cardiac surgery at a tertiary hospital in the Philippines. Methods This is a cross-sectional study, including adult patients who underwent non-cardiac surgeries from January 2019 to July 2021. The individual risk of post-operative AKI for both models were determined. Descriptive data was described using t-test and logistic regression. Measures of accuracy were described using sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, positive and negative likelihood ratio, and discriminative ability using concordance (c) statistic. Results Of the 340 patients in this study, 77 (22.65%) developed post-operative AKI and 24 (7.06%) developed critical AKI. Based on demographic data, older age, pre-existing renal disease, longer duration of surgery, anemia, hypoalbuminemia, and hyponatremia were associated with higher incidence of post-operative AKI. SPARK had a sensitivity ranging from 17-43% and specificity ranging from 58-93% for Class B to C. GS AKI had a sensitivity ranging from 10-26% and specificity ranging from 61-97% for Class I to V. SPARK had a discriminative power (c statistic) ranging from 0.46 to 0.61 while GS AKI had a discriminative power ranging from 0.41 to 0.54. Conclusion Based on this study, there is an association between higher risk classification in both SPARK and GS AKI and postoperative AKI. However, both clinical prediction models demonstrate poor discriminative power to predict post-operative AKI.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Unfunded Study

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Not Applicable

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This clinical trial has been approved by the SL-IERC to be of minimal risk. Reference number SL-20133 This Ethical Clearance carries with it Principal Investigator's commitment to comply with international and national guidelines on Good Clinical Practice. Granted by: Institutional Ethics Review Committee, St. Luke's Medical Center

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Not Applicable

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Not Applicable

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Not Applicable

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.