Development and Validation of a Model for Predicting the Risk of Acute Kidney Injury Associated With Contrast Volume Levels During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 11 2019
01 11 2019
Historique:
entrez:
23
11
2019
pubmed:
23
11
2019
medline:
17
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Determining the association of contrast volume during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) is important for optimizing PCI safety. To quantify how the risk of AKI is associated with contrast volume, accounting for the possibility of nonlinearity and heterogeneity among different baseline risks. This prognostic study used data from the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry for 1694 US hospitals. Derivation analysis included 2 076 694 individuals who underwent PCI from July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2015. Validation analysis included 961 863 individuals who underwent PCI from July 1, 2015, to March 31, 2017. Data analysis took place from July 2018 to May 2019. Contrast volume during PCI. Acute kidney injury was defined using 3 thresholds for preprocedure to postprocedure creatinine level increase (ie, ≥0.3 mg/dL, ≥0.5 mg/dL, and ≥1.0 mg/dL). A model quantifying the association of contrast volume with AKI was developed, and the existence of nonlinearity and heterogeneity were examined by likelihood ratio tests. The model was derived in the training set (a random 50% of the derivation cohort), and performance was evaluated in the test set (the remaining 50% of the derivation cohort) and an independent validation set by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration slope of observed vs predicted risks. The 2 076 694 patients in the derivation set had a mean (SD) age of 65.1 (12.1) years, and 662 525 (31.9%) were women; 133 306 (6.4%) had creatinine level increases of at least 0.3 mg/dL, 66 626 (3.2%) had creatinine level increases of at least 0.5 mg/dL, and 28 378 (1.4%) had creatinine level increases of at least 1.0 mg/dL. In the validation set of 961 843 patients (mean [SD] age, 65.7 [12.1] years; 305 577 [31.8%] women), these rates were 62 913 (6.5%), 34 229 (3.6%), and 15 555 (1.6%), respectively. The association of contrast volume and AKI risk was nonlinear (χ226 = 1436.2; P < .001) and varied by preprocedural risk (χ220 = 105.6; P < .001). In the test set, the model yielded an AUC of 0.777 (95% CI, 0.775-0.779) for predicting risk of a creatinine level increase of at least 0.3 mg/dL, 0.839 (95% CI, 0.837-0.841) for predicting risk of a creatinine level increase of at least 0.5 mg/dL, and 0.870 (95% CI, 0.867-0.873) for predicting risk of a creatinine level increase of at least 1.0 mg/dL; it achieved a calibration slope of 0.998 (95% CI, 0.989-1.007), 0.999 (95% CI, 0.989-1.008), and 0.986 (95% CI, 0.973-0.998), respectively, for the AKI severity levels. The model had similar performance in the validation set (creatinine level increase of ≥0.3 mg/dL: AUC, 0.794; 95% CI, 0.792-0.795; calibration slope, 1.039; 95% CI, 1.030-1.047; creatinine level increase of ≥0.5 mg/dL: AUC, 0.845; 95% CI, 0.843-0.848; calibration slope, 1.063; 95% CI, 1.054-1.074; creatinine level increase of ≥1.0 mg/dL: AUC, 0.872; 95% CI, 0.869-0.875; calibration slope, 1.103; 95% CI, 1.089-1.117). The association of contrast volume with AKI risk is complex, varies by baseline risk, and can be predicted by a model. Future research to evaluate the effect of the model on AKI is needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31755952
pii: 2755869
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.16021
pmc: PMC6902830
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Creatinine
AYI8EX34EU
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1916021Subventions
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : P30 DK079310
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States
Références
Am Heart J. 2012 May;163(5):829-34
pubmed: 22607861
Am J Cardiol. 2002 Nov 15;90(10):1068-73
pubmed: 12423705
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010 Aug;3(4):346-50
pubmed: 20587788
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Jan;7(1):1-9
pubmed: 24456715
Int J Artif Organs. 2005 May;28(5):441-4
pubmed: 15883957
Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Mar;94(12):e615
pubmed: 25816028
Crit Care. 2007;11(2):R31
pubmed: 17331245
Am J Med. 1989 Jun;86(6 Pt 1):649-52
pubmed: 2729314
Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc. 2014 Jul-Sep;29(3):299-307
pubmed: 25372901
J Card Fail. 2003 Feb;9(1):13-25
pubmed: 12612868
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001 Jun 15;37(8):2240-5
pubmed: 11419906
J Card Fail. 2002 Jun;8(3):136-41
pubmed: 12140805
Am Heart J. 2013 Apr;165(4):600-8
pubmed: 23537978
J Am Heart Assoc. 2014 Dec;3(6):e001380
pubmed: 25516439
Am Heart J. 2008 Feb;155(2):260-6
pubmed: 18215595
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997 Feb;29(2):459-65
pubmed: 9015006
Stat Methods Med Res. 1995 Sep;4(3):187-96
pubmed: 8548102
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 Jan 1;79(1):70-5
pubmed: 21990069
JAMA Cardiol. 2017 Sep 1;2(9):1007-1012
pubmed: 28678988
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007 Aug 14;50(7):584-90
pubmed: 17692741
Am J Cardiol. 2004 Jun 15;93(12):1515-9
pubmed: 15194023
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000 Nov 1;36(5):1542-8
pubmed: 11079656
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Nov 2;44(9):1780-5
pubmed: 15519007
Crit Care Clin. 2017 Apr;33(2):379-396
pubmed: 28284301
PLoS Med. 2018 Nov 27;15(11):e1002703
pubmed: 30481186
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Jan;61(1):76-86
pubmed: 18083464