National Cardiovascular Data Registry-Acute Kidney Injury (NCDR) vs. Mehran risk models for prediction of contrast-induced nephropathy and need for dialysis after coronary angiography in a German patient cohort.

BACKGROUND: Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is a major adverse event in patients undergoing coronary angiography. The Mehran risk model is the gold-standard for CIN risk prediction. However, its performance in comparison to more contemporary National Cardiovascular Data Registry-Acute Kidney Injury (NCDR-AKI) risk models remains unknown. We aimed to compare both in this study. METHODS AND RESULTS: Predictions of Mehran and NCDR-AKI risk models and clinical events of CIN and need for dialysis were assessed in a total of 2067 patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention. Risk models were compared regarding discrimination (receiver operating characteristic analysis), net reclassification improvement (NRI) and calibration (graphical and statistical analysis). The NCDR risk model showed superior risk discrimination for predicting CIN (NCDR c-index 0.75, 95% CI 0.72-0.78; vs. Mehran c-index 0.69, 95% CI 0.66-0.72, p < 0.01), and continuous NRI (0.22; 95% CI 0.12-0.32; p < 0.01) compared to the Mehran model. The NCDR risk model tended to underestimate the risk of CIN, while the Mehran model was more evenly calibrated. For the prediction of need for dialysis, NCDR-AKI-D also discriminated risk better (c-index 0.85, 95% CI 0.79-0.91; vs. Mehran c-index 0.75, 95% CI 0.66-0.84; pNCDRvsMehran < 0.01), but continuous NRI showed no benefit and calibration analysis revealed an underestimation of dialysis risk. CONCLUSION: In German patients undergoing coronary angiography, the modern NCDR risk model for predicting contrast-induced nephropathy showed superior discrimination compared to the Mehran model while showing less accurate calibration. Results for the outcome 'need for dialysis' were equivocal.

Modern NCDR and ACTION risk models outperform the GRACE model for prediction of in-hospital mortality in acute coronary syndrome in a German cohort.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Risk prediction with the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk model is guideline-recommended in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. However, the performance of more contemporary scores derived from ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) and National Cardiovascular Data (NCDR) registries remains incompletely understood. We aimed to compare these models in German ACS patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1567 patients with (Non-)ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI: 1002 patients, STEMI: 565 patients) undergoing invasive management at University Hospital Düsseldorf (Germany) from 2014 to 2018 were included. Overall in-hospital mortality was 7.5% (NSTEMI 3.7%, STEMI 14.5%). Parameters for calculation of GRACE 1.0, GRACE 2.0, ACTION and NCDR risk models and in-hospital mortality were assessed and risk model performance was compared. The GRACE 1.0 risk model for prediction of in-hospital mortality discriminated risk superior (c-index 0.84) to its successor GRACE 2.0 (c-index 0.79, pGRACE1.0vsGRACE2.0 = 0.0008). The NCDR model performed best in discrimination of risk in ACS overall (c-index 0.89; pACTIONvsNCDR < 0.0001; pGRACEvsNCDR < 0.0001) and showed superior performance compared to GRACE in NSTEMI and STEMI subgroups (pGRACEvsNCDR both < 0.02). ACTION and GRACE risk models performed comparable to each other (both c-index 0.84, pGRACEvsACTION = 0.68), with advantages for ACTION in NSTEMI patients (c-index 0.87 vs. 0.84 (GRACE); pGRACEvsACTION = 0.02). ACTION and GRACE 2.0 showed the most accurate calibration of all models. CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary German patient population with ACS, modern NCDR and ACTION risk models showed superior performance in prediction of in-hospital mortality compared to the gold-standard GRACE model.

Validation of National Cardiovascular Data Registry risk models for mortality, bleeding and acute kidney injury in interventional cardiology at a German Heart Center.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) risk scores for mortality, bleeding and acute kidney injury (AKI) are accurate outcome predictors of coronary catheterization procedures in North American populations. However, their application in German clinical practice remained elusive and we thus aimed to verify their use. METHODS: NCDR scores for mortality, bleeding and AKI and corresponding clinical outcomes were retrospectively assessed in patients undergoing catheterization for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or for elective coronary procedures at a German Heart Center from 2014 to 2017. Risk model performance was assessed using receiver-operating-characteristic curves (discrimination) and graphical analysis/logistic regression (calibration). RESULTS: A total of 1637 patients were included, procedures were performed for STEMI (565 patients, 34.5%), NSTEMI (572 patients, 34.9%) and elective purposes (500 patients, 30.5%); 6% (13% of STEMI and 5% of NSTEMI patients) presented in cardiogenic shock and 3% with resuscitated cardiac arrest. Radial access was used in 38% of procedures and cross-over was necessary in 5%; PCI was performed in 60% of procedures. In-hospital mortality was 6.3% (STEMI 14.5%; NSTEMI 3.7%; elective 0%) and major bleedings occurred in 5.6% (STEMI 10.6%; NSTEMI 5.4%; elective 0.2%); AKI was detected in 18.1% of patients (STEMI 23.7%; NSTEMI 27.3%; elective 1.4%), amounting to KDIGO stage I/II/III in 11.5%/3.5%/3.2%. NCDR risk models discriminated very well for mortality [AUC 0.93 with 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-0.95] and well for major bleeding (AUC 0.82, CI 0.78-0.86) and any AKI (AUC 0.83, CI 0.81-0.86). Discrimination in the subgroup of patients with PCI was comparable (mortality: AUC 0.90; major bleeding: AUC 0.78; any AKI: AUC 0.79). However, calibration showed considerable underestimation of mortality and AKI in high-risk patients, while major bleeding was consistently overestimated (Hosmer-Lemeshow p < 0.02 for all outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: The NCDR risk models showed excellent performance in discriminating high-risk from low-risk patients in contemporary German interventional cardiology. Model calibration for adverse event probability prediction, however, is limited and demands recalibration, especially in high-risk patients.