Contemporary practice patterns related to the risk of acute kidney injury in the catheterization laboratory: Results from a survey of Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) cardiologists.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of the present study was to survey the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) member cardiologists to evaluate contemporary practice patterns with regards to contrast use, acute kidney injury (AKI) risk assessment, and prevention in patients undergoing invasive angiography. We sought to compare the physician responses against guideline statements and evidence-based data from clinical studies. METHODS: A 20-question online survey based on a modified Likert scale was sent out via email to the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) member cardiologists. The survey questions focused on prophylaxis methods, medication management, risk assessment, contrast agent use, and postprocedure care. A scoring system was developed which examined the individual responses to analyze the 10 questions with the greatest strength of evidence in the literature and guidelines. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 506 individuals. Selected responses of note included the use of standardized volume expansion protocols: 64.8%, use of iso-osmolar contrast (iodixanol) in the majority of patients at risk of AKI: 55%, and 27% of individuals reported diluting contrast with saline for patients at risk of AKI during coronary angiography. For questions with support from guideline documents, 56.9% of the responses were scored as concordant with evidence-based data. Individuals who reported that the risk of AKI was often or always important in planning angiography for "at risk patients" were more likely to closely monitor renal function (76.7% vs. 40.0%, P = 0.003), obtain nephrology consultation (45.2% vs. 13.3%, P = 0.016) and use iso-osmolar contrast agents (56.0% vs. 26.7%, P = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of cardiologists participating in this survey, reported practice patterns consistent with guideline and evidence-based recommendations. However, over 40% of responses to questions were inconsistent with these recommendations, suggesting continued opportunities for education and quality improvement concerning AKI prevention. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Preventing tomorrow's sudden cardiac death today: part II: Translating sudden cardiac death risk assessment strategies into practice and policy.

Although current evidence supporting a more precise strategy for identifying patients at highest risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) is sparse, strategies for translating existing and future evidence into clinical practice and policy are needed today. A great many unanswered questions exist. Examples include the following: At what level of risk for SCD should we pursue further testing or therapy? How should clinical strategies ethically and economically balance alternative outcomes? How can we best translate optimal strategies into clinical practice so as to prevent tomorrow's SCDs? On July 20 and 21, 2006, a group of individuals with expertise in clinical cardiovascular medicine, biostatistics, economics, and health policy was joined by government (Food and Drug Administration; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality), professional societies (Heart Rhythm Society), and industry to discuss strategies for risk assessment and prevention of SCD. The meeting was organized by the Duke Center for the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death and the Duke Clinical Research Institute. This article, the second of 2 documents, summarizes the policy discussions of that meeting, discusses an analytic framework for evaluating the risks and benefits associated with SCD prevention and risk stratification, and addresses the translation of SCD risk assessment strategies into practice and policy.