McDonald, Jennifer S.

Objectives The aim of this study was to determine whether intra-arterial administration of contrast material is associated with a higher risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) compared with that of intravenous (IV) administration in a cohort of patients that received both routes of administration. Materials and Methods All patients who received both a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) and a diagnostic or interventional cardiac catheterization between 2000 and 2014 were identified. Patients who lacked sufficient preprocedure and postprocedure serum creatinine results, who were on preexisting renal dialysis, or who underwent additional contrast-enhanced procedures within 7 days of either procedure were excluded. The rate of AKI (serum creatinine ≥0.3 mg/dL or 50% above baseline) was compared after CT scan and cardiac catheterization using McNemar test. Results A total of 1969 patients met all study inclusion criteria. The rate of AKI after CT scan was similar to the rate after catheterization when examining all patients (9.9% CT vs 11% catheterization, P = 0.12). A similar rate of AKI after both procedures was observed regardless of procedure order, catheterization type, and patient baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate. Conclusions Intra-arterial administration of contrast material during cardiac catheterization had a similar risk of AKI as compared with that of CT scanning involving IV administration in a cohort of patients who underwent both procedures. These findings suggest that previously reported much higher rates of AKI after cardiac catheterization compared with that of IV contrast administration reflect higher baseline clinical risk factors for AKI in the former cohort compared with that in the latter.

Background and Purpose— Clinical equipoise of carotid revascularization therapies remains controversial. We sought to determine whether adverse outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) were similar using propensity score–matched analysis of retrospective data from a large hospital discharge database. Methods— All CEA and CAS cases were identified from the 2006 to 2011 Premier Perspective Database and subjected to 1:1 propensity score matching using 33 clinical covariates associated with carotid revascularization. A primary composite end point of peri- or postoperative mortality, stroke, or acute myocardial infarction and a modified composite end point excluding acute myocardial infarction were used to compare our findings with recent prospective controlled trials. Multivariate regression and Cox-proportional hazard ratio survival analysis were performed to compare revascularization therapy outcomes. Results— After 1:1 propensity score matching, 24 004 (12 002 CEA and CAS) asymptomatic and 3506 (1753 CEA and CAS) symptomatic procedures were included. The risk of the primary composite end point was significantly higher after CAS than CEA in both asymptomatic (odds ratio, 1.40 [1.19–1.65]; P <0.0001) and symptomatic (odds ratio=2.31 [1.78–3.00]; P <0.0001) presentations, irrespective of age ( P =0.28) or sex ( P =0.35). Similar findings were observed using the modified composite end point for both asymptomatic (odds ratio, 1.49 [1.25–1.78]; P <0.0001) and symptomatic (odds ratio, 3.02 [2.25–4.07]; P <0.0001) presentations. Acute myocardial infarction risk was not significantly different between revascularization therapies, regardless of clinical presentation ( P =0.71 and 0.24). Conclusions— Among individuals undergoing carotid artery revascularization from a large sample of US hospitals, CAS was associated with higher risk of perioperative mortality, stroke, and unfavorable discharges compared with CEA for all ages and clinical presentations.

Background and Purpose— Reversal of anticoagulation with protamine might predispose to a higher risk of stroke in patients with carotid stenting. We evaluated a national, multihospital patient database to examine the risk of stroke in patients with carotid stenting receiving protamine compared with those who did not. Methods— The Premier Perspective database was used to identify patients who were electively hospitalized for carotid stenting from 2006 through 2011. The incidence of in-hospital mortality and morbidity was compared between patients who did and did not receive protamine after propensity score adjustment via 1:1 matching to reduce selection bias. Results— Of 6664 patients with carotid stenting treated at 193 hospitals, 556 (8%) received protamine on the day of the procedure. After matching by propensity score, patients who received protamine had a similar likelihood of stroke or transient ischemic attack ( P =0.77), in-hospital mortality ( P =0.12), discharge to long-term care ( P =0.15), and access site complications ( P =0.90) as compared with patients who did not receive protamine. Conclusions— Protamine administration is not associated with additional risk of adverse events after carotid stenting.

Background and Purpose— Acute intraprocedural thrombus formation complicating endovascular cerebral aneurysm treatment is often treated with intra-arterial or intravenous administration of thrombolytic agents or glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (GpIIb/IIIa) inhibitors. We sought to evaluate the morbidity and mortality associated with such treatments using a large multihospital database. Methods— Using the Premier Perspective Database, we examined outcomes for patients receiving endovascular coiling for ruptured and unruptured aneurysms requiring rescue therapy, defined as treatment with GpIIb/IIIa inhibitors and fibrinolytic therapy. We compared discharge status, length of stay, and complication rates across 3 groups: (1) patients receiving GpIIb/IIIa inhibitors only, (2) patients receiving fibrinolytic therapy only, and (3) patients receiving both GpIIb/IIIa inhibitors and fibrinolytics. Student t test was used to compare continuous variables, and Fisher exact test was used to compare categorical variables. Results— Seven-percent (254/3627) of patients treated for unruptured aneurysms received rescue therapy. When compared with patients receiving GpIIb/IIIa inhibitors alone, patients receiving only fibrinolytics had significantly higher rates of discharge to institutions other than home (37.5% [9/24] versus 7.4% [15/201]; P <0.0001). Eight-percent of patients (338/4204) treated for ruptured aneurysms received rescue therapy. When compared with patients receiving GpIIb/IIIa inhibitors alone, patients receiving only fibrinolytics had significantly higher rates of mortality (26.0% [18/69] versus 14.5% [35/241]; P =0.02) and discharge to institutions other than home (59.4% [41/69] versus 36.5% [88/241]; P <0.0001). Conclusions— Pharmacological rescue therapy occurred in 7% to 8% of endovascular coiling patients with unruptured and ruptured intracranial aneurysms. Rescue therapy with thrombolytic agents resulted in significantly more morbidity and mortality than rescue therapy with GpIIb/IIIa inhibitors.

Background and Purpose— Endovascular therapy has increasingly become the most common treatment for unruptured cerebral aneurysms in the United States. We evaluated a national, multi-hospital database to examine recent utilization trends and compare periprocedural outcomes between clipping and coiling treatments of unruptured aneurysms. Methods— The Premier Perspective database was used to identify patients hospitalized between 2006 to 2011 for unruptured cerebral aneurysm who underwent clipping or coiling therapy. A logistic propensity score was generated for each patient using relevant patient, procedure, and hospital variables, representing the probability of receiving clipping. Covariate balance was assessed using conditional logistic regression. Following propensity score adjustment using 1:1 matching methods, the risk of in-hospital mortality and morbidity was compared between clipping and coiling cohorts. Results— A total of 4899 unruptured aneurysm patients (1388 clipping, 3551 coiling) treated at 120 hospitals were identified. Following propensity score adjustment, clipping patients had a similar likelihood of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49–4.44; P =0.47) but a significantly higher likelihood of unfavorable outcomes, including discharge to long-term care (OR, 4.78; 95% CI, 3.51–6.58; P <0.0001), ischemic complications (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 2.39–4.99; P <0.0001), hemorrhagic complications (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.33–3.57; P <0.0001), postoperative neurological complications (OR, 3.39; 95% CI, 2.25–5.22; P <0.0001), and ventriculostomy (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.01–4.61; P =0.0320) compared with coiling patients. Conclusions— Among patients treated for unruptured intracranial aneurysms in a large sample of hospitals in the United States, clipping was associated with similar mortality risk but significantly higher periprocedural morbidity risk compared with coiling.