The KDIGO Clinical Practice Guidelines for Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) provide a comprehensive framework for managing AKI, emphasizing the importance of standardized definitions and staging. AKI is a common and serious condition with significant short- and long-term consequences, including increased mortality and healthcare costs. The guidelines recommend using the AKI Network definition, which includes criteria such as serum creatinine increases and urine output. AKI is staged based on severity, with higher stages associated with increased risk of mortality and renal replacement therapy (RRT). However, the staging system is ungraded, reflecting the lack of systematic review evidence. The guidelines emphasize the need for early recognition and management of AKI risk factors, such as sepsis and hypovolemia. They also highlight the limitations of serum creatinine-based classification systems, particularly in catabolic patients, and note the impact of age and pre-existing sarcopenia on accuracy. The guidelines suggest assuming a baseline eGFR of 75 ml/min/1.73 m² in the absence of CKD history, though this is controversial. Key recommendations include the use of isotonic crystalloids over colloids for volume expansion, insulin therapy to target glucose levels, and avoiding aminoglycosides. For contrast-induced AKI (CI-AKI), the guidelines recommend assessing risk, using iso-osmolar or low-osmolar contrast, and intravenous fluids. N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is recommended for prevention, but its effectiveness is debated. Dialysis interventions are discussed, with recommendations for continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) and the use of citrate anticoagulation. However, the guidelines note the lack of strong evidence supporting many recommendations, emphasizing the need for further research. The guidelines are not prescriptive but provide nuanced guidance, acknowledging the limitations of current evidence and the importance of distinguishing expert opinion from evidence-based recommendations. The use of empirical definitions and staging systems for AKI remains controversial due to limited data on their effectiveness.The KDIGO Clinical Practice Guidelines for Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) provide a comprehensive framework for managing AKI, emphasizing the importance of standardized definitions and staging. AKI is a common and serious condition with significant short- and long-term consequences, including increased mortality and healthcare costs. The guidelines recommend using the AKI Network definition, which includes criteria such as serum creatinine increases and urine output. AKI is staged based on severity, with higher stages associated with increased risk of mortality and renal replacement therapy (RRT). However, the staging system is ungraded, reflecting the lack of systematic review evidence. The guidelines emphasize the need for early recognition and management of AKI risk factors, such as sepsis and hypovolemia. They also highlight the limitations of serum creatinine-based classification systems, particularly in catabolic patients, and note the impact of age and pre-existing sarcopenia on accuracy. The guidelines suggest assuming a baseline eGFR of 75 ml/min/1.73 m² in the absence of CKD history, though this is controversial. Key recommendations include the use of isotonic crystalloids over colloids for volume expansion, insulin therapy to target glucose levels, and avoiding aminoglycosides. For contrast-induced AKI (CI-AKI), the guidelines recommend assessing risk, using iso-osmolar or low-osmolar contrast, and intravenous fluids. N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is recommended for prevention, but its effectiveness is debated. Dialysis interventions are discussed, with recommendations for continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) and the use of citrate anticoagulation. However, the guidelines note the lack of strong evidence supporting many recommendations, emphasizing the need for further research. The guidelines are not prescriptive but provide nuanced guidance, acknowledging the limitations of current evidence and the importance of distinguishing expert opinion from evidence-based recommendations. The use of empirical definitions and staging systems for AKI remains controversial due to limited data on their effectiveness.