The relative renal safety of iodixanol and low-osmolar contrast media in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Insights from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2).

Contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) is a common complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Current guidelines support the use of iodixanol (Visipaque®, GE Healthcare, Princeton, New Jersey) in patients at high risk for CI-AKI. Recent trials and meta-analyses have shown no difference in CI-AKI when iodixanol is compared to low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM). We evaluated the incidence of CI-AKI, in-hospital dialysis and in-hospital death in 58,957 patients who underwent PCI in 2007 and 2008 in a large regional consortium of 31 hospitals and who were treated with iodixanol (n = 17,814) or LOCM (n = 41,143). Propensity-matched analysis was performed to adjust for differences in baseline variables. Patients treated with iodixanol compared to those treated with LOCM were slightly older, had more medical comorbidities and a higher baseline creatinine (1.35 ± 1.07 mg/dL versus 1.10 ± 0.85 mg/dL; p < 0.0001). In propensity-matched, risk-adjusted models, there was no significant difference between iodixanol and LOCM in the risk of CIAKI (4.54% vs. 4.14%; p = 0.14), need for dialysis (0.37% vs. 0.43%; p = 0.35) or death (1.46% vs. 1.39%; p = 0.18). Among patients undergoing PCI, the use of iodixanol was more frequent in older patients with more comorbidities and worse baseline renal function. There was no difference in the adjusted risk of CI-AKI among patients treated with iodixanol compared with those treated with LOCM.

Relationship between operator volume and adverse outcome in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention practice: an analysis of a quality-controlled multicenter percutaneous coronary intervention clinical database.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to evaluate the volume-outcome relationship in a large, quality-controlled, contemporary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) database. BACKGROUND: Whether the relationship between physician volume of PCI and outcomes still exists in the era of coronary stents is unclear. METHODS: Data on 18,504 consecutive PCIs performed by 165 operators in calendar year 2002 were prospectively collected in a regional consortium. Operators' volume was divided into quintiles (1 to 33, 34 to 89, 90 to 139, 140 to 206, and 207 to 582 procedures/year). The primary end point was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) including death, coronary artery bypass grafting, stroke or transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, and repeat PCI at the same site during the index hospital stay. RESULTS: The unadjusted MACE rate was significantly higher in quintiles one and two of operator volume when compared with quintile five (7.38% and 6.13% vs. 4.15%, p = 0.002 and p = 0.0001, respectively). A similar trend was observed for in-hospital death. After adjustment for comorbidities, patients treated by low volume operators had a 63% increased odds of MACE (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29 to 2.06, p < 0.0001 for quintile [Q]1; adjusted OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.90, p < 0.0001 for Q2 vs. Q5), but not of in-hospital death. Overall, high volume operators had better outcomes than low volume operators in low-risk and high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although the relationship between operator volume and in-hospital mortality is no longer significant, the relationship between volume and any adverse outcome is still present. Technological advancements have not yet completely offset the influence of procedural volume on proficiency of PCIs.