Outcomes of ultra-low contrast percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with increased risk of contrast induced nephropathy (CIN) and requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT). OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate our single center experience of ultra-low contrast PCI in patients with CKD and to characterize 1 year outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of ultra-low contrast PCI at our institution between 2016 and 2022. Patients with CKD3b-5 (eGFR <45 mL/min/1.73m2), not on RRT who underwent ultra-low contrast PCI ( < 30 mL of contrast during PCI) were included. Primary outcomes included change in eGFR post-procedurally, and death, RRT requirement, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year follow-up. RESULTS: One hundred patients were included in the study. The median age was 67 years old and 28% were female. The median baseline eGFR was 21.5 mL/min/1.73m2 (IQR 14.08-32.0 mL/min/1.73m2). A median of 8.0 mL (IQR 0-15 mL) of contrast was used during PCI. Median contrast use to eGFR ratio was 0.37 (IQR 0-0.59). There was no significant difference between pre-and postprocedure eGFR (p = 0.84). At 1 year, 8% of patients died, 11% required RRT and 33% experienced MACE. The average time of RRT initiation was 7 months post-PCI. Forty-four patients were undergoing renal transplant evaluation, of which 17 (39%) received a transplant. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced CKD, ultra-low contrast PCI is feasible and safe with minimal need for peri-procedural RRT. Moreover, ultra-low contrast PCI may allow for preservation of renal function in anticipation of renal transplantation.

Racial Differences in Iliac Crest Cancellous Bone Composition: Implications for Preoperative Planning in Spinal Fusion Procedures.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether race, specifically American white and American black, correlates with the ratio of cancellous to total bone at the iliac crest. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Studies have demonstrated higher proximal femur bone density in American blacks than American whites. However, whether differences occur at the iliac crest, a common site for autologous graft material in spinal fusion surgery, is not well studied. Understanding such differences could aid orthopedic surgeon decision-making regarding graft options. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on 133 sequential patients ages 18-75 who underwent computed tomography scan of the pelvis, at a single academic medical center from January 1, 2014, to January 1, 2016. The cohort included 46 American white (21 females, 25 males) and 87 American black participants (40 females, 37 males), an average age of 51.8 years. Groups were matched regarding age, sex, body mass index, and Charlson Comorbidity Score. Measurements of cortical and cancellous bone thickness in the right and left iliac crests were performed using bone window protocol on computed tomography scans. Statistical significance was determined using a 2-tailed t test. RESULTS: The interobserver interclass correlation coefficient reliability (N=2) for measurements at the right iliac crest is 0.895 (95% confidence interval, 0.852-0.925), and the interclass correlation coefficient for the left iliac crest is 0.912 (95% confidence interval, 0.877-0.938). A statistically significant difference in the mean cancellous bone ratio was found between American black (0.667±0.065) and American white (0.750±0.051) groups (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: At the iliac crest, American black patients had a lower mean ratio of cancellous to the total bone as compared with American white patients. This population may benefit from alternative graft options. While iliac crest autograft remains the first option for fusion surgeries, alternative options should be considered to ensure that each patient receives the best-personalized care.

Infra-adjacent Segment Disease After Lumbar Fusion: An Analysis of Pelvic Parameters.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the incidence and risk factors associated with the development of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction following lumbosacral fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Adjacent segment degeneration to both proximal and distal areas of spinal fusion is a postoperative complication of lumbar fusion. Various studies examined supra-adjacent degeneration following lumbar fusion, but few focused on infra-adjacent degeneration. In lumbosacral fusion, fusion extends to the sacrum, placing increased stress on the SIJ. METHODS: A total of 2069 sequential patients who underwent lumbosacral fusion surgery from 2008 to 2018 at a single academic medical center were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who subsequently developed SIJ dysfunction were identified. SIJ dysfunction was defined as patients who met the diagnostic criteria with physical examination and received an SIJ injection with clinical evidence of improvement. Controls, without subsequent SIJ dysfunction, were matched with cases based on levels of fusion, age, sex, and body mass index. Pre-and postoperative pelvic parameters were measured, including pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope, lumbar lordosis, lumbosacral angle, L4 incidence and L5 incidence. RESULTS: Of 2069 patients who underwent lumbosacral fusion, 81 patients (3.9%) met criteria for SIJ dysfunction. Measurements were made for 47 of 81 patients who had SIJ dysfunction, that had both pre- and post-operative imaging. Measurements for 44 matched controls were taken. Postoperative PT was significantly lower in SIJ dysfunction patients compared to controls (20.82°â€Š±â€Š2.19° vs. 27.28°â€Š±â€Š2.30°; P < 0.05), as was L5 incidence (28.64°â€Š±â€Š3.38° vs. 37.11°â€Š± 3.50°; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Incidence of the SIJ dysfunction after lumbosacral fusion surgery was 3.9% and these patients had a significantly lower PT and L5 incidence compared to the control group. Significantly low PT may be derived from weak hamstring muscles, predisposing a patient to SIJ dysfunction. Therefore, hamstring muscle strengthening exercise for patients with decreased PT after lumbosacral fusion may decrease the incidence of SIJ dysfunction.Level of Evidence: 3.

Coronary artery calcification and epicardial adipose tissue as independent predictors of mortality in COVID-19.

Recent epidemiological studies have demonstrated that common cardiovascular risk factors are strongly associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) and epicardial fat (EAT) have shown to outperform traditional risk factors in predicting cardiovascular events in the general population. We aim to determine if CAC and EAT determined by Computed Tomographic (CT) scanning can predict all-cause mortality in patients admitted with COVID-19 disease. We performed a retrospective, post-hoc analysis of all patients admitted to Montefiore Medical Center with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis from March 1st, 2020 to May 2nd, 2020 who had a non-contrast CT of the chest within 5 years prior to admission. We determined ordinal CAC scores and quantified the epicardial (EAT) and thoracic (TAT) fat volume and examined their relationship with inpatient mortality. A total of 493 patients were analyzed. There were 197 deaths (39.95%). Patients who died during the index admission had higher age (72, [64-80] vs 68, [57-76]; p < 0.001), CAC score (3, [0-6] vs 1, [0-4]; p < 0.001) and EAT (107, [70-152] vs 94, [64-129]; p = 0.023). On a competing risk analysis regression model, CAC ≥ 4 and EAT ≥ median (98 ml) were independent predictors of mortality with increased mortality of 63% (p = 0.003) and 43% (p = 0.032), respectively. As a composite, the group with a combination of CAC ≥ 4 and EAT ≥ 98 ml had the highest mortality. CAC and EAT measured from chest CT are strong independent predictors of inpatient mortality from COVID-19 in this high-risk cohort.

Comparative outcome analysis of spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia in lumbar fusion surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal anesthesia (SA) has been shown in several studies to be a viable alternative to general anesthesia (GA) in laminectomies, discectomies, and microdiscectomies. However, the use of SA in spinal fusion surgery has been very scarcely documented in the current literature. Here we present a comparison of SA to GA in lumbar fusion surgery in terms of perioperative outcomes and cost. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed the charts of all patients who underwent 1- or 2-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery by a single surgeon, at a single institution, from 2015 to 2018. Data collected included demographics, operative and recovery times, nausea/vomiting, postoperative pain, and opioid requirement. Costs were included in the analysis if they were: 1) non-fixed; 2) incurred in the operating room (OR); and 3) directly related to patient care. All cost data represents net costs and was obtained from the hospital revenue cycle team. Patients were grouped for statistical analysis based on anesthetic modality. RESULTS: A total of 29 patients received SA and 46 received GA. Both groups were similar in terms of age, gender, BMI, number of levels operated upon, preoperative diagnosis, and medical comorbidities. The SA group spent less time in the OR (163.86 ± 9.02 vs. 195.63 ± 11.27 min, p < 0.05), PACU (82.00 ± 7.17 vs. 102.98 ± 8.46 min, p < 0.05), and under anesthesia (175.03 ± 9.31 vs. 204.98 ± 10.15 min, p < 0.05) than the GA group. Post-surgery OR time was significantly less with SA than with GA (6.00 ± 1.09 vs. 17.26 ± 3.05 min, p < 0.05); however, pre-surgery OR time was similar between groups (50.17 ± 3.08 vs. 56.17 ± 5.34 min, p = 0.061). The SA group also experienced less maximum postoperative pain (3.31 ± 1.41 out of 10 vs. 5.96 ± 0.84/10, p < 0.05) and required less opioid analgesics (2.38 ± 1.37 vs. 5.39 ± 0.84 doses, p < 0.05). Both groups experienced similar nausea or vomiting rates and adverse events postoperatively. Net operative cost was found to be $812.31 (5.6%) less with SA than with GA, although this difference was not significant (p = 0.225). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, SA is almost never used in lumbar fusion, and a cost-effectiveness comparison with GA has not been recorded. In this retrospective study, we demonstrate that the use of SA in lumbar fusion surgery leads to significantly shorter operative and recovery times, less postoperative pain and opioid usage, and slight cost savings over GA. Thus, we conclude that this anesthetic modality represents a safe and cost-effective alternative to GA in lumbar fusion.