RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Despite evidence that low osmolar radiocontrast media is not associated with acute kidney injury, it is important to evaluate this association in critically ill patients with normal kidney function. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included 7,333 adults with an ICU stay at a six-hospital health system in south Florida. Patients who received contrast were compared with unexposed control subjects prior to and following propensity score (PS) matching derived from baseline characteristics, admission diagnoses, comorbidities, and severity of illness. Acute kidney injury (AKI), defined as initial onset (stage I) or increased severity, was determined from serum creatinine levels according to Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guidelines. RESULTS: Based on 2,306 PS-matched pairs obtained from 2,557 patients who received IV contrast and 4,776 unexposed control subjects, the increase in AKI attributable to contrast was 1.3% (19.3% vs 18.0%; P = .273), and no association was found between contrast and the pattern of onset and recovery. Hospital mortality increased by 14.3% subsequent to AKI (18.0 vs 3.6; P < .001), but the risk ratio in relation to patients with stable AKI did not vary when stratified according to contrast. Multivariable regression identified sepsis, metabolic disorders, diabetes, history of renal disease, and severity of illness as factors that were more strongly associated with AKI. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill adults with normal kidney function, low osmolar radiocontrast media did not substantively increase AKI. Rather than limiting the use of contrast in ICU patients, efforts to prevent AKI should focus on the susceptibility of patients with sepsis, diabetes complications, high Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation scores, and history of renal disease.
Asunto(s)
Lesión Renal Aguda , Medios de Contraste , Enfermedad Crítica , Lesión Renal Aguda/inducido químicamente , Lesión Renal Aguda/diagnóstico , Lesión Renal Aguda/epidemiología , Lesión Renal Aguda/prevención & control , Medios de Contraste/administración & dosificación , Medios de Contraste/efectos adversos , Medios de Contraste/química , Creatinina/sangre , Enfermedad Crítica/mortalidad , Enfermedad Crítica/terapia , Femenino , Florida/epidemiología , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos/estadística & datos numéricos , Pruebas de Función Renal/métodos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Concentración Osmolar , Evaluación de Procesos y Resultados en Atención de Salud , Puntaje de Propensión , Factores de Riesgo , Índice de Severidad de la EnfermedadRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether Telemedicine intervention can affect hospital mortality, length of stay, and direct costs for progressive care unit patients. DESIGN: Retrospective observational. SETTING: Large healthcare system in Florida. PATIENTS: Adult patients admitted to progressive care unit (PCU) as their primary admission between December 2011 and August 2016 (n = 16,091). INTERVENTIONS: Progressive care unit patients with telemedicine intervention (telemedicine PCU [TPCU]; n = 8091) and without telemedicine control (nontelemedicine PCU [NTPCU]; n = 8000) were compared concurrently during study period. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome was progressive care unit and hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay, progressive care unit length of stay, and mean direct costs. The mean age NTPCU and TPCU patients were 63.4 years (95% CI, 62.9-63.8 yr) and 71.1 years (95% CI, 70.7-71.4 yr), respectively. All Patient Refined-Diagnosis Related Group Disease Severity (p < 0.0001) and All Patient Refined-Diagnosis Related Group patient Risk of Mortality (p < 0.0001) scores were significantly higher among TPCU versus NTPCU. After adjusting for age, sex, race, disease severity, risk of mortality, hospital entity, and organ systems, TPCU survival benefit was 20%. Mean progressive care unit length of stay was lower among TPCU compared with NTPCU (2.6 vs 3.2 d; p < 0.0001). Postprogressive care unit hospital length of stay was longer for TPCU patients, compared with NTPCU (7.3 vs 6.8 d; p < 0.0001). The overall mean direct cost was higher for TPCU ($13,180), compared with NTPCU ($12,301; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although there are many studies about the effects of telemedicine in ICU, currently there are no studies on the effects of telemedicine in progressive care unit settings. Our study showed that TPCU intervention significantly decreased mortality in progressive care unit and hospital and progressive care unit length of stay despite the fact patients in TPCU were older and had higher disease severity, and risk of mortality. Increased postprogressive care unit hospital length of stay and total mean direct costs inclusive of telemedicine costs coincided with improved survival rates. Telemedicine intervention decreased overall mortality and length of stay within progressive care units without substantial cost incurrences.