Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
Kidney360 ; 3(7): 1253-1262, 2022 07 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35919535

ABSTRACT

Background: Adjudication of inpatient AKI in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) was based on billing codes and admission and discharge notes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of intensive versus standard BP control on creatinine-based inpatient and outpatient AKI, and whether AKI was associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality. Methods: We linked electronic health record (EHR) data from 47 clinic sites with trial data to enable creatinine-based adjudication of AKI. Cox regression was used to evaluate the effect of intensive BP control on the incidence of AKI, and the relationship between incident AKI and CVD and all-cause mortality. Results: A total of 3644 participants had linked EHR data. A greater number of inpatient AKI events were identified using EHR data (187 on intensive versus 155 on standard treatment) as compared with serious adverse event (SAE) adjudication in the trial (95 on intensive versus 61 on standard treatment). Intensive treatment increased risk for SPRINT-adjudicated inpatient AKI (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.09 to 2.08) and for creatinine-based outpatient AKI (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.70), but not for creatinine-based inpatient AKI (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.48). Irrespective of the definition (SAE or creatinine based), AKI was associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality, but only creatinine-based inpatient AKI was associated with increased risk for CVD. Conclusions: Creatinine-based ascertainment of AKI, enabled by EHR data, may be more sensitive and less biased than traditional SAE adjudication. Identifying ways to prevent AKI may reduce mortality further in the setting of intensive BP control.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury , Cardiovascular Diseases , Hypertension , Acute Kidney Injury/epidemiology , Antihypertensive Agents/adverse effects , Blood Pressure , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Creatinine/pharmacology , Electronic Health Records , Humans , Hypertension/complications , Risk Factors , Treatment Outcome
2.
Heart ; 106(13): 977-984, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32269131

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The History Electrocardiogram Age Risk factor Troponin (HEART) Pathway and Emergency Department Assessment of Chest pain Score (EDACS) are validated accelerated diagnostic pathways designed to risk stratify patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain. Data from large multisite prospective studies comparing these accelerated diagnostic pathways are limited. METHODS: The HEART Pathway Implementation is a prospective three-site cohort study, which accrued adults with symptoms concerning for acute coronary syndrome. Physicians completed electronic health record HEART Pathway and EDACS risk assessments on participants. Major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction and coronary revascularisation) at 30 days were determined using electronic health record, insurance claims and death index data. Test characteristics for detection of major adverse cardiac events were calculated for both accelerated diagnostic pathways and McNemar's tests were used for comparisons. RESULTS: 5799 patients presenting to the emergency department were accrued, of which HEART Pathway and EDACS assessments were completed on 4399. Major adverse cardiac events at 30 days occurred in 449/4399 (10.2%). The HEART Pathway identified 38.4% (95% CI 37.0% to 39.9%) of patients as low-risk compared with 58.1% (95% CI 56.6% to 59.6%) identified as low-risk by EDACS (p<0.001). Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 0.4% (95% CI 0.2% to 0.9%) of patients classified as low-risk by the HEART Pathway compared with 1.0% (95% CI 0.7% to 1.5%) of patients identified as low-risk by EDACS (p<0.001). Thus, the HEART Pathway had a negative predictive value of 99.6% (95% CI 99.1% to 99.8%) for major adverse cardiac events compared with a negative predictive value of 99.0% (95% CI 98.5% to 99.3%) for EDACS. CONCLUSIONS: EDACS identifies a larger proportion of patients as low-risk than the HEART Pathway, but has a higher missed major adverse cardiac events rate at 30 days. Physicians will need to consider their risk tolerance when deciding whether to adopt the HEART Pathway or EDACS accelerated diagnostic pathway. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02056964.


Subject(s)
Acute Coronary Syndrome/diagnosis , Angina Pectoris/diagnosis , Clinical Decision Rules , Coronary Artery Disease/diagnosis , Electrocardiography , Myocardial Infarction/diagnosis , Troponin/blood , Acute Coronary Syndrome/mortality , Acute Coronary Syndrome/therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Angina Pectoris/mortality , Angina Pectoris/therapy , Biomarkers/blood , Clinical Decision-Making , Comorbidity , Coronary Artery Disease/mortality , Coronary Artery Disease/therapy , Female , Heart Disease Risk Factors , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Myocardial Infarction/mortality , Myocardial Infarction/therapy , North Carolina , Predictive Value of Tests , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Sex Factors , Time Factors , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...