Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with cardiovascular disease and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Contemporary management and outcomes of AMI in patients with CKD have not been reported. METHODS: We analyzed United States National Inpatient Sample data for patients admitted with AMI with or without CKD from 2007 to 2012. Propensity score matching was used to identify patients with AMI and CKD with similar baseline characteristics who were managed invasively (cardiac catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], or coronary artery bypass graft surgery [CABG]) or conservatively. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Among 753,782 patients admitted with AMI, 17.8% had a diagnosis of CKD. Patients with CKD had lower odds of invasive management (49.9% vs. 73.1%; adjusted OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.57-0.58), were less likely to undergo revascularization (adjusted OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.59-0.61), and had higher in-hospital mortality (8.4% vs. 5.0%; adjusted OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.51-1.59) than those without CKD. In a propensity-matched cohort of 89,630 CKD patients treated for AMI with invasive vs. conservative management, invasive management was associated with lower in-hospital mortality overall (5.9% vs. 10.9%, p<0.001; OR=0.51 (0.49-0.54)) as well as in subgroups by MI type and severity of CKD. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AMI and CKD are less likely to receive invasive management, coronary revascularization, and have higher in-hospital mortality than patients without CKD. Invasive management of AMI was associated with lower in-hospital mortality versus conservative management in all patients, regardless of CKD severity.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing coronary angiography (CA), adequate hydration and minimizing volume of contrast media (CM) are class 1b recommendations for preventing contrast induced nephropathy (CIN). Current data are insufficient to justify specific recommendations about isoosmolar vs. low-osmolar contrast media by the ACCF/AHA/SCAI guidelines. METHODS: Randomized trials comparing IOCM to LOCM in CKD stage 3 and above patients undergoing CA, and reporting incidence of CIN (defined by a rise in creatinine of 25% from baseline) were included in the analysis. The secondary outcome of the study was the incidence of serum creatinine increase by >1mg/dl. RESULTS: A total of 2839 patients were included in 10 trials, in which 1430 patients received IOCM and 1393 received LOCM. When compared to LOCM, IOCM was not associated with significant benefit in preventing CIN (OR=0.72, [CI: 0.50-1.04], P=0.08, I2=59%). Subgroup analysis revealed non-significant difference in incidence of CIN based on baseline use of N-acetylcystine (NAC), diabetes status, ejection fraction, and whether percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary angiography alone was performed. The difference between IOCM and LOCM was further attenuated when restricted to studies with larger sample size (>250 patients) (OR=0.93; [CI: 0.66-1.30]) or when compared with non-ionic LOCM (OR=0.79, [CI: 0.52-1.21]). CONCLUSION: In patients with CKD stage 3 and above undergoing coronary angiography, use of IOCM showed overall non-significant difference in incidence of CIN compared to LOCM. The difference was further attenuated when IOCM was compared with non-ionic LOCM.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the outcomes with use of renin angiotensin system (RAS) blockers compared with other antihypertensive agents in people with diabetes. DESIGN/METHODS:Meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION/METHODS:PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials databases for randomized trials of RAS blockers versus other antihypertensive agents in people with diabetes mellitus. Outcomes were death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, heart failure, revascularization, and end stage renal disease. RESULTS:The search yielded 19 randomized controlled trials that enrolled 25,414 participants with diabetes for a total of 95,910 patient years of follow-up. When compared with other antihypertensive agents, RAS blockers were associated with a similar risk of death (relative risk 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.05), cardiovascular death (1.02, 0.83 to 1.24), myocardial infarction (0.87, 0.64 to 1.18), angina pectoris (0.80, 0.58 to 1.11), stroke (1.04, 0.92 to 1.17), heart failure (0.90, 0.76 to 1.07), and revascularization (0.97, 0.77 to 1.22). There was also no difference in the hard renal outcome of end stage renal disease (0.99, 0.78 to 1.28) (power of 94% to show a 23% reduction in end stage renal disease). CONCLUSIONS:In people with diabetes, RAS blockers are not superior to other antihypertensive drug classes such as thiazides, calcium channel blockers, and β blockers at reducing the risk of hard cardiovascular and renal endpoints. These findings support the recommendations of the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension and eighth Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure to also use other antihypertensive agents in people with diabetes but without kidney disease.