Literature DB >> 30143056

Risk of renal events following intravenous iodinated contrast material administration among inpatients admitted with cancer a retrospective hospital claims analysis.

Chaan S Ng1, Sanjeeva P Kalva2, Candace Gunnarsson3, Michael P Ryan4, Erin R Baker4, Ravindra L Mehta5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is little published evidence examining the use of contrast material (CM) and the risk of acute renal adverse events (AEs) in individuals with increasingly common risk factors including cancer and chronic kidney disease (CKD). The objective of this study was to use real world hospital data to test the hypothesis that inpatients with cancer having CT procedures with iodinated CM would have higher rates of acute renal AEs in comparison to inpatients without cancer.
METHODS: Inpatient hospital visits in the Premier Hospital Database from January 1, 2010 through September 30, 2015 were eligible for inclusion. The outcome of interest was a composite of acute renal AEs including: acute kidney injury, acute renal failure requiring dialysis, contrast induced-acute kidney injury and renal failure. Multivariable models, adjusted for differences in patient demographics and comorbid conditions, were used to estimate the incremental risk of acute renal AEs by CT (with or without iodinated CM), CKD stage and type of cancer.
RESULTS: Among 29,850,475 inpatient visits across 611 hospitals, 7.4% had record of a CT scan, 5.9% had CKD, and 3.4% had the primary diagnosis of cancer. The baseline risk for an acute renal AE in patients without cancer or CKD and no CT or CM was 0.5%. The absolute risk increases from baseline by 0.2% with a CT and by 0.8% with iodinated CM. Patients with CKD having a CT scan with iodinated CM have an absolute risk of 4.1 to 9.7% depending on the stage of CKD. For patients with cancer, the absolute risk increases, varying from 0.3 to 2.3% depending on the type of cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: Inpatients with cancer are at higher likelihood of developing acute renal AEs following CT with iodinated CM compared to those without a cancer. Understanding the underlying risks of acute renal AEs among complex inpatient admissions is an important consideration in treatment choices for oncology patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acute renal event; Cancer; Computed tomography; Contrast-induced acute kidney injury; Contrast-induced nephropathy; Iodinated contrast media

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30143056      PMCID: PMC6109283          DOI: 10.1186/s40644-018-0159-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Imaging        ISSN: 1470-7330            Impact factor:   3.909


Background

Adverse events (AEs) following intravascular administration of iodinated contrast material (CM) occur in 0.02 to 0.04% of patients. These include kidney injury, respiratory or cardiac arrest, convulsions, and loss of consciousness [1-3]. Renal insufficiency has been noted as both contributing to the risk of a post-CM AEs and as a result thereof [4-6]. However, the incidence of nephropathy specifically caused by iodinated CM is not well understood. As noted by the American College of Radiology, most published studies focus on the diagnosis of post-contrast acute kidney injury (PC-AKI), which is defined as sudden deterioration in renal function within 48 h following the intravascular administration of iodinated CM. PC-AKI is a correlative diagnosis, a subset of PC-AKI cases are contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN or CI-AKI), which is a causative diagnosis [7]. CI-AKI is commonly defined as an increase in serum creatinine (SCr) greater than 25% or 44.2umol/L (0.5 mg/dL) from baseline within 2 or 3 days of intravascular CM administration in the absence of an alternative cause [5, 8]. CI-AKI has an estimated incidence of 8 to 20% of cancer patients who undergo contrast-enhanced CT [6, 9–11]. However, most studies do not include a control group for analysis, which is problematic due to the variation in SCr observed in hospitalized patients regardless of CM administration [5]. Depending on the definition utilized, AKI has been reported in 6 to 35% of inpatients without CM exposure [5, 12]. Cancer treatments as well as the timing of treatment and CT imaging have been investigated as risk factors for acute reactions to iodinated CM [13, 14]. Other than chronic kidney disease (CKD), risk factors for CI-AKI include diabetes, hypertension, malignancy, age > 65 years, use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and timing of CT within 45 days after last chemotherapy [9, 15]. Regardless of the cause, cancer patients who develop renal failure may have worse prognosis and survival [16-19]. While the biomedical literature indicates that the rate of AEs associated CM use is low, there is little evidence examining the use of CM and the risk of renal AEs in individuals with increasingly common risk factors including cancer and CKD. The objective of this study was to use real world hospital data to test the hypothesis that patients with cancer having CT with iodinated CM would have higher rates of acute renal AEs than those without cancer.

Methods

Data source

Data for the study were derived from the Premier Hospital Database, which currently contains data from more than 350 million patient encounters, or one in every five discharges in the United States (US) [20]. The database contains data from standard hospital discharge files, including a patient’s demographic and disease state, and information on billed services, including medications, laboratory, diagnostics and therapeutic services in de-identified patient daily service records. In addition, information on hospital characteristics, including geographic location, bed size and teaching status are also available. Preliminary comparisons between patient and hospital characteristics for the hospitals included in the database and those of the probability sample of hospitals and patients selected for the National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) suggest that the patient populations are similar with regard to patient age, gender, length of stay, mortality, primary discharge diagnosis, and primary procedure groups [21]. All data used to perform this analysis were de-identified and accessed in compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. As a retrospective analysis of a de-identified database, the research was exempt from IRB review under 45 CFR 46.101(b)(4).

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

Any inpatient hospital visit in the Premier Hospital Database from January 1, 2010 through September 30, 2015 was eligible for inclusion. Inpatient was defined as a visit which included an overnight stay. Patient visits were excluded if a patient had a record of end stage renal disease requiring dialysis (ESRD ICD-9 code: 585.6), kidney transplantation (ICD-9 code: V42.0, 996.81, or 55.6×) or AKI (ICD-9 code: 584.9) upon admission (determined by a variable that indicated the patient had the condition upon admission). To isolate the risk of renal events among oncology patients hospitalized for diagnosis or treatment of cancer, visits with a secondary or historical diagnosis of cancer were excluded. Visits where the primary diagnosis or reason for the inpatient stay was cancer were included (Table 5 in Appendix).

Variables of interest

Patient visits with a record of primary cancer were further categorized by the following types of cancer: Bone, Breast, Colorectal, Endocrine, Gastrointestinal, Gynecological, Hemolymph, Leukemia, Liver, Lung, Neurological, Respiratory, Skin, Urinary and Miscellaneous (rare cancers). The primary outcome of interest was a composite of adverse renal events, defined as one or more of the following: AKI, acute renal failure requiring dialysis, CI-AKI or renal failure (ICD-9 codes Table 6 in Appendix). Acute renal events were identified as being outcomes if there was a record of the event during the hospitalization and the event of interest was not recorded as present on admission. To identify usage of CM, keyword text mining was performed on patients’ charge master billing files. Using product brand names and generic keywords for CM use, the following categories were created: iodinated, non-iodinated, or unknown type. If no evidence of CM usage was found on the visit, the visit was assumed to have no CM usage. CM usage could have occured during a CT or CTA scan, see Table 7 of Appendix for codes used to define CT and CTA scans. In order to quantify the effect of CKD, a dichotomous variable was made for CKD status based on the presence of CKD stage recorded in the visit. Additionally, an ordinal variable was created for CKD stage (0 = no disease, stage 1, stage 2, stage 3, stages 4 &5) (Table 8 in Appendix). It is important to note, that patients with unspecified CKD were only included in the dichotomous variable and excluded in the staging variable due to the non-specificity of their renal disease status. The following variables were summarized prior to statistical modeling: patient demographics (age, race, gender, insurance type, and admission type), visit characteristics (whether or not the patient underwent a CT, CM usage and type), patient conditions (primary cancer, type of cancer, CKD severity, and overall disease severity as measured by the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI Table 9 in Appendix)) [22]. All components of the composite of renal AEs were described prior to multivariable modeling by the following key model inputs: CKD by severity, CT (with or without iodinated CM) and cancer type.

Statistical analyses

All multivariable renal AE models adjusted for differences in both patient demographics and comorbid conditions. The hospital fixed-effects specification was used to account for time-invariant variation across a hospital that was otherwise unobservable. This methodological choice was made to compensate for the non-random relationship between patients and hospital choice which may result in variation across hospitals in both patient mix (e.g. the share and severity of oncology patients) and in the rate of renal events which may lead to a spurious correlation. By limiting the analysis to variation within hospitals, we study patients treated in a similar environment using similar standards of care and hospital protocols. The decision to utilize a particular product or drug during a hospital visit may depend on formal hospital guidelines, physician practice patterns or preferences, negotiated reimbursement schedules with insurance companies, and other local (geographic and/or hospital) characteristics. All analysis was performed in SAS version 9.4 (Cary, NC).

Results

A total of 29,850,475 inpatient visits across 611 hospitals met the study inclusion criteria (Fig. 1). The average age of patients at the time of the inpatient visit was 45 years (standard deviation (sd) 27.5). The majority of patients were female (60%), Caucasian (65%), and the most frequent insurer was Medicare (34%). Emergency and urgent hospitalizations made up 61% of all visits. Overall, 7% of inpatient visits had a record of a CT and 80% of visits had no record of CM (Table 1).
Fig. 1

Attrition Diagram

Table 1

Patient Visit Characteristics

Total
NPercent
Total Visits29,850,475100%
Age
 Median48
 Mean45.0
 Standard deviation27.50
Race
 Caucasian19,314,45464.7%
 African-American4,052,60113.6%
 Other6,483,42021.7%
Gender
 Female17,831,76959.7%
 Male12,015,26340.3%
 Unknown34430.0%
Insurance
 Commercial1,681,3085.6%
 Medicare10,010,10833.5%
 Medicaid6,968,56923.3%
 Managed Care8,043,14026.9%
 Other3,147,35010.5%
Admission Type
 Emergency13,780,88346.2%
 Urgent4,466,92615.0%
 Elective7,507,44425.2%
 Other/Unknown4,095,22213.7%
CT Scan2,195,3747.4%
Contrast Used
 Iodinated2,290,1837.7%
 Non-Iodinated463,9561.6%
 Both73,8390.2%
 Unknown3,258,04610.9%
 None23,764,45179.6%
Attrition Diagram Patient Visit Characteristics The population had a mean ECI score of 2.1 (sd 2.17), comorbid conditions and frequencies are shown in Table 2. Among the 6% of visits with CKD, the CKD stage was: stage 1 (0.7%), stage 2 (5.6%), stage 3 (36.5%), stage 4/5 (12.4%) and stage unspecified (44.8%). Cancer was the primary diagnosis in 3.4% of visits. The highest percentage of primary cancer visits reported were: gastrointestinal (16.1%), urinary (14.6%) and lung (13.1%).
Table 2

Patient Comorbidities

Total
NPercent
Total Visits29,850,475100%
Elixhauser Comorbidities
 Congestive Heart Failure2,956,9769.9%
 Cardiac Arrhythmia4,708,60415.8%
 Valvular Disease1,269,4704.3%
 Pulmonary Circulation Disorders896,9993.0%
 Peripheral Vascular Disorders1,392,8474.7%
 Hypertension (Uncomplicated)10,030,30533.6%
 Hypertension (Complicated)1,768,1625.9%
 Paralysis470,5051.6%
 Other Neurological Disorders2,076,6217.0%
 Chronic Pulmonary Disease5,651,85918.9%
 Diabetes (Uncomplicated)4,479,12015.0%
 Diabetes (Complicated)962,6323.2%
 Hypothyroidism2,680,9999.0%
 Renal Failure1,781,5786.0%
 Liver Disease1,017,9753.4%
 Peptic Ulcer Disease (excluding bleeding)219,4640.7%
 AIDS/HIV77,7090.3%
 Lymphoma50,9770.2%
 Metastatic Cancer375,8801.3%
 Solid Tumor without Metastasis816,7232.7%
 Rheumatoid Arthritis Collagen582,0161.9%
 Coagulopathy988,2783.3%
 Obesity3,335,09511.2%
 Weight Loss985,7993.3%
 Fluid and Electrolyte Disorders5,086,69517.0%
 Blood Loss Anemia260,3420.9%
 Deficiency Anemia711,9872.4%
 Alcohol Abuse1,672,8625.6%
 Drug Abuse1,684,0085.6%
 Psychoses920,0473.1%
 Depression4,026,00713.5%
Elixhauser Comorbidity Index
 Median2
 Mean2.1
 Std Dev2.17
Chronic Kidney Disease
 No CKD28,085,08494.0%
 CKD1,765,3915.9%
Stage of Chronic Kidney DiseaseN% Overall% of CKD
 Stage 111,9580.0%0.7%
 Stage 299,0040.3%5.6%
 Stage 3644,3982.2%36.5%
 Stage 4 & 5219,2550.7%12.4%
 Unspecified790,7762.6%44.8%
Diagnosis of Cancer
 No Cancer28,828,21997.0%
 Primary Cancer1,022,2563.4%
Type of Primary CancerN% Overall% of Cancer
 Bone29910.0%0.3%
 Breast77,4280.3%7.6%
 Colorectal127,2750.4%12.5%
 Endocrine37,7690.1%3.7%
 Gastrointestinal164,3230.6%16.1%
 Gynecological64,0340.2%6.3%
 Hemolymph42,5720.1%4.2%
 Leukemia37,8690.1%3.7%
 Liver18,0220.1%1.8%
 Lung133,8370.4%13.1%
 Miscellaneous120,5560.4%11.8%
 Neurological29,7240.1%2.9%
 Respiratory90340.0%0.9%
 Skin70730.0%0.7%
 Urinary149,7490.5%14.6%

CKD Chronic Kidney Disease

Patient Comorbidities CKD Chronic Kidney Disease The unadjusted rates of the renal AE outcome and its components are reported in Table 3 by the following key variables: CKD stage, CT (with or without iodinated CM) and cancer type. The unadjusted baseline rate of the renal AEs was 0.5% for inpatient visits without cancer, CKD or CT and CM. The frequency of renal events increased with CKD severity (0.9% for patients with no record of CKD; 6.1% for a patient with CKD stage 1 to 12.7% among CKD patients stage 4 & 5). Among visits with primary cancer, the unadjusted rate of renal events was 3.0%, an increase from 1.4% in visits with no cancer diagnosis. The unadjusted rate of renal events varied by cancer type: leukemia (5.3%), liver (4.3%), urinary (4.1%), and colorectal (4.1%). When considering all AEs which make up the renal AE composite, AKI without dialysis contributed to the composite more than other components.
Table 3

Renal Adverse Events: Prior to Multivariable Modeling (Unadjusted)

Renal Adverse Event OutcomeComponents of the Renal Adverse Events Outcome
Acute Kidney Injury without dialysisAcute Kidney Injury with dialysisCI-AKIRenal Failure
Baseline0.5%0.5%0.0%0.0%0.0%
No CKD0.9%0.8%0.0%0.0%0.0%
CKD Stage 16.1%6.0%0.1%0.2%0.0%
CKD Stage 28.4%8.3%0.1%0.2%0.0%
CKD Stage 311.4%11.1%0.3%0.3%0.1%
CKD Stage 4&512.7%11.6%0.8%0.3%0.2%
CT2.8%2.6%0.1%0.1%0.0%
No CT1.3%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%
CT with Iodinated Contrast2.9%2.8%0.1%0.1%0.0%
CT without Iodinated Contrast2.7%2.6%0.1%0.1%0.0%
No-Cancer1.4%1.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Cancer3.0%2.9%0.1%0.0%0.0%
 Bone1.4%1.3%0.1%0.0%0.0%
 Breast0.6%0.6%0.0%0.0%0.0%
 Colorectal4.1%4.0%0.1%0.0%0.0%
 Endocrine1.5%1.5%0.1%0.0%0.0%
 Gastrointestinal3.3%3.2%0.1%0.1%0.0%
 Gynecological2.5%2.4%0.1%0.0%0.0%
 Hemolymph3.9%3.5%0.3%0.1%0.1%
 Leukemia5.3%4.9%0.3%0.1%0.1%
 Liver4.3%4.0%0.2%0.1%0.1%
 Lung2.8%2.7%0.1%0.1%0.0%
 Miscellaneous1.9%1.9%0.0%0.0%0.0%
 Neurological1.0%0.9%0.0%0.0%0.0%
 Respiratory2.2%2.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%
 Skin1.6%1.6%0.0%0.0%0.0%
 Urinary4.1%4.0%0.1%0.0%0.0%

AKI Acute Kidney Injury, CKD Chronic Kidney Disease, CI-AKI Contrast induced acute kidney injury

Renal Adverse Events: Prior to Multivariable Modeling (Unadjusted) AKI Acute Kidney Injury, CKD Chronic Kidney Disease, CI-AKI Contrast induced acute kidney injury The fixed effects multivariable models controlled for differences in patient demographics and comorbid conditions and decomposed the risk by the following variables: CT, iodinated CM, CKD stage and cancer type (Table 4 and Fig. 2). Estimates of absolute risk of the renal AEs are reported with confidence intervals for CT, iodinated CM, CKD stage and cancer (Table 4). Absolute risk of an acute renal event increased with non-contrast CT by 0.2%, iodinated CM increased the risk by an additional 0.8%. The increased risk varied by cancer type, overall, the risk of a renal event increased by 0.9%. The risk by individual cancer types range from 0.3% for endocrine cancer to 2.3% for urinary cancers. Absolute risk increased with CKD severity: stage 1 (2.5%), stage 2 (4.6%), stage 3 (7.2%), stage 4 & 5 (8.1%).
Table 4

Multivariable Estimates of Absolute risk of an Acute Renal Adverse Event

VariableAbsolute Risk Estimate (95% confidence interval)P-Value
CT0.19% (0.17, 0.21%)< 0.0001
Iodinated CM0.81% (0.80, 0.83%)< 0.0001
CKD Stage 12.55% (2.35, 2.74%)< 0.0001
CKD Stage 24.64% (4.56, 4.71%)< 0.0001
CKD Stage 37.24% (7.19, 7.28%)< 0.0001
CKD Stage 4/58.14% (8.08, 8.19%)< 0.0001
Cancer0.87% (0.85, 0.89%)< 0.0001
 Urinary2.33% (2.28, 2.39%)< 0.0001
 Leukemia2.20% (2.09, 2.31%)< 0.0001
 Colorectal1.69% (1.63, 1.75%)< 0.0001
 Hemolymph1.22% (1.12, 1.33%)< 0.0001
 Gynecological1.03% (0.95, 1.11%)< 0.0001
 Liver1.00% (0.84, 1.16%)< 0.0001
 Gastrointestinal0.59% (0.54, 0.65%)< 0.0001
 Lung0.33% (0.27, 0.39%)< 0.0001
 Endocrine0.29% (0.18, 0.39%)< 0.0001

CKD Chronic Kidney Disease, CM Contrast material

Fig. 2

Renal Event: Multivariable Risk Decomposition – CT, CM, CKD, and Cancer Type, The percentages shown in Table 4, and in this figure in the columns and at the top of each column differ slightly due to rounding. +CT = record of CT; +Iodinated = record of iodinated contrast material (CM); +CKD = chronic kidney disease, The absolute risk of a renal event can be calculated based on a patient’s comorbidities. For example, a patient hospitalized for cancer who had a CT scan with iodinated CM and CKD stage 1, had a 4.9% risk of a renal event. The risk was calculated as follows: (baseline [.5%] + CT [.2%] with iodinated CM [.8%] + CKD stage 1 [2.5%] + cancer [.9%])

Multivariable Estimates of Absolute risk of an Acute Renal Adverse Event CKD Chronic Kidney Disease, CM Contrast material Renal Event: Multivariable Risk Decomposition – CT, CM, CKD, and Cancer Type, The percentages shown in Table 4, and in this figure in the columns and at the top of each column differ slightly due to rounding. +CT = record of CT; +Iodinated = record of iodinated contrast material (CM); +CKD = chronic kidney disease, The absolute risk of a renal event can be calculated based on a patient’s comorbidities. For example, a patient hospitalized for cancer who had a CT scan with iodinated CM and CKD stage 1, had a 4.9% risk of a renal event. The risk was calculated as follows: (baseline [.5%] + CT [.2%] with iodinated CM [.8%] + CKD stage 1 [2.5%] + cancer [.9%]) Figure 2 provides a cumulative visual for the regression estimates reported in Table 4. The first bar in the figure is the absolute risk of the renal AEs at baseline, 0.5%. Baseline risk represents patient visits without CT, CM, CKD or cancer. From left to right, the absolute risk associated with each variable is reported as well as how the risk accumulates with each additional variable. For example, a patient hospitalized for cancer that had a CT scan with iodinated CM and CKD stage 1, had a 4.9% risk of a renal event. The absolute risk of a renal event increases substantially for patients with CKD. Inpatients who underwent a CT with iodinated CM who do not have cancer had the following risk based on CKD severity: stage 1 (4.1%), stage 2 (6.2%), stage 3 (8.8%), stage 4 & 5 (9.7%).

Discussion

After controlling for patient demographics, comorbid conditions and hospital fixed effects, the risk of an acute renal event for hospitalized patients ranges from 0.5% at baseline (patient visits without CT, CM use, CKD or cancer experiencing AKI) to as high as 10.6% (patient visits with a CT with iodinated CM with CKD stage 4 or 5 and cancer). The increasing risk with CKD stage reflects the previously reported impact of compromised renal function and adds to the literature by showing the risk of renal AEs by cancer type. The effect of a cancer diagnosis on the risk of renal AEs was 0.9%, with specific cancers having up to 2.3% (for urinary cancer) added risk. The incremental risk of a renal event associated with a CT without contrast was 0.2%, which clinically may be counterintuitive. This incremental risk was most likely due to the CT being a proxy for sicker patients or other procedures not controlled for in the regression analysis. Regardless of the reason, the effect is small compared to the other factors. Large retrospective single center studies have previously explored the risk of intravenous CM via propensity-matched cohort analyses [23, 24]. Such investigations differ from our current analysis in heterogeneity (or homogeneity) of population examined, this study specifically surveyed the inpatient setting while considering the impact of CKD stage and cancer diagnosis. It is not difficult to surmise why cancer patients may be particularly susceptible to renal events given their high prevalence of renal insufficiency, concomitant nephrotoxic chemotherapeutic regimens, and predisposition to dehydration secondary to advanced age, poor appetite, nausea, and vomiting [25]. It has additionally been suggested that patients with active cancer undergoing CM enhanced CT are particularly at risk of CI-AKI even in the absence of significant renal impairment as underlying renal insufficiency may be masked due to falsely low creatinine concentration resulting from diminished muscle mass [10]. This study did not explore the potential additive effects of different types of CM and chemotherapy; however, it has been suggested that CI-AKI may develop 4.5 times more frequently in cancer patients who undergo recent chemotherapy [9] and that exposure to CM within a week prior to nephrotoxic chemotherapeutic agents, for example cisplatin, significantly increases the risk of nephropathy [26]. Similar nephrotoxic effects of iodinated CM and chemotherapeutic agents upon the renal vasculature may rationalize the amplified risk. Not surprisingly, chemotherapy has been increasingly identified as an additional risk factor, evident by inclusion into CI-AKI consensus statements and guideline recommendations [27]. While the current analysis did not assess renal AEs by class of CM, a recent prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial suggested more favorable safety profile of iso-osmolar CM (iodixanol) versus low-osmolar CM (iopromide) in low risk cancer patients defined by eGFR> 60 mL/min [28]. Adequately sized and designed studies of prospective nature are warranted to elucidate findings further. Our findings quantify absolute risk of renal events and are noteworthy given the marked consequences that AKI may elicit within the oncology setting. Salahudeen et al. recently conducted cross-sectional analysis of prospectively collected data on 3558 patients admitted to the University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and found higher rates of AKI versus most non-cancer settings. In patients with AKI, length of stay (100%), cost (106%), and odds for mortality (4.7-fold) were significantly greater [29]. On account of these implications and due to the complex bidirectional relationship between cancer and kidney function, there is need for further investigation and periprocedural recommendations. The intra-arterial administration of CM within interventional cardiovascular procedures has been investigated at length, with subsequent guideline development central to patient risk assessment, hydration strategies, and emphasis on limiting volumes of CM administered. While it has been suggested that overall risk is lower with intravenous administration of CM, susceptible oncologic settings and vulnerable patients should be identified (particularly a patient’s state of kidney health and timing of treatment or imaging) and integrated strategies should be employed to minimize the risk of renal events among inpatient cancer patients undergoing CT with CM. The intricate association and increasing prevalence of cancer and AKI/CKD has led to mounting interest in this complex environment and prompted evolution of the novel onco-nephrology subspecialty. Yet the relationship between cancer therapy and kidney disease remains underexplored. The burgeoning area of onco-nephrology suffers from lack of guidance for clinicians who encounter difficult and often complex problems in this complicated group of patients, and development of integrated guidelines is needed [30]. The 2016 American Society of Nephrology (ASN) Onco-Nephrology Curriculum may strengthen and expand understanding of this field by underscoring risk factors of CI-AKI and suggesting preventive measures be taken in patients with GFR < 60 mL/min including limiting contrast volume, using iso-osmolar contrast, prehydration with normal saline, and discontinuation of concurrent nephrotoxic agents [31]. To our understanding, this is the first study to quantify absolute risk of renal events in a robust multicenter cohort of patients undergoing CM enhanced CT with decomposed analysis of contributing factors to include CM, renal function, and cancer diagnosis. Our analysis suggests that patients who receive CM are at higher risk versus those who do not. Additionally, risk is heightened with progressively advanced stages of CKD. Further, our results substantiate multiple prior reports that cancer patients may be more uniquely susceptible to renal events undergoing CM enhanced CT versus non-cancer patients. Vulnerability of the oncologic cohort is likely multifactorial in nature and due, in part, to a high prevalence of renal insufficiency, dehydration, cachectic condition, and serial/additive renal insults induced by multiple exposures to CM, nephrotoxic medications and chemotherapeutic regimens. Results derived from our analysis may enable significant comparison of future analyses across procedures and selected high-risk populations, ultimately driving investigative research efforts and steering quality improvement endeavors.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths of this study include the use of a comprehensive data source and use of the hospital fixed-effect specification methodology that allowed for control of time-invariant within hospital variation that is otherwise unobservable, such as physician preferences and internal protocols. The limitations of this study are those that are inherent in retrospective database analyses, which include the unit of inference (which is the visit not the patient) and potential under coding of non-billable events. The data source for this study was the Premier Healthcare Database that represents 20% of all inpatient discharges in the US; however, given its reliance on ICD-9 Codes, there is a potential risk of coding errors. A second limitation of this data source is that it does not track patients longitudinally. Thus, it was not possible to determine if events occurred after the patient was discharged. Due to the administrative nature of the database, laboratory values (sCr and GFR) were not available, we could not define CI-AKI by sCr, and rather, the outcome was defined by the ICD-9 code for CI-AKI which may underestimate the occurrence of this event. Finally, due to limitations of the dataset, we were unable to ascertain total volumes of CM administered, use of hydration strategies, or concomitant use of nephrotoxic medications or chemotherapeutic regimens.

Conclusions

This large retrospective multicenter study decomposed the risk of acute renal events among hospitalized cancer patients having CT either with or without iodinated CM. The baseline risk for an acute renal event in patients without cancer or CKD and no CT or CM was 0.5%. When a CT procedure was performed with iodinated CM the risk increased to 1.5%. Patients with CKD having a CT with CM had an increased risk of an acute renal event from 2.5 to 8.1% depending on the stage of CKD. Among cancer patients, the overall risk increased from baseline by 0.9%. Risk increase from baseline by type of cancer ranged from 0.3 for endocrine and lung cancer to over 2% for leukemia and urinary cancer. Therefore, cancer patients having CT with iodinated CM without CKD have a risk increase of 2.4% and when CKD is present the risk ranges from 4.9 to 10.5% depending on CKD stage. In the changing healthcare landscape, with complex inpatient admissions, understanding the underlying risks of acute renal events will be an important consideration in treatment choices for oncology patients.
Table 5

Cancer Coding

ICD-9 Diagnosis Code 3 Digit GroupICD-9 Diagnosis Code Group DescriptionCancer Category
140MALIGNANT NEOPLASM LIPGastrointestinal
141MALIG NEO TONGUEGastrointestinal
142MAL NEO MAJOR SALIVARYGastrointestinal
143MALIGNANT NEOPLASM GUMGastrointestinal
144MALIG NEO MOUTH FLOORGastrointestinal
145MALIG NEO MOUTH NEC/NOSGastrointestinal
146MALIG NEO OROPHARYNXGastrointestinal
147MALIG NEO NASOPHARYNXRespiratory
148MALIG NEOPL HYPOPHARYNXRespiratory
149OTH MALIG NEO OROPHARYNXGastrointestinal
150MALIGNANT NEO ESOPHAGUSGastrointestinal
151MALIGNANT NEO STOMACHGastrointestinal
152MALIG NEO SMALL BOWELGastrointestinal
153MALIGNANT NEOPLASM COLONColorectal
154MALIG NEO RECTUM/ANUSColorectal
155MALIGNANT NEOPLASM LIVERLiver
156MAL NEO GB/EXTRAHEPATICGastrointestinal
157MALIGNANT NEO PANCREASGastrointestinal
158MALIG NEO PERITONEUMGastrointestinal
159OTH MALIG NEO GI/PERITONGastrointestinal
160MAL NEO NASAL CAV/SINUSRespiratory
161MALIGNANT NEO LARYNXRespiratory
162MAL NEO TRACHEA/LUNGLung
163MALIGNANT NEOPL PLEURALung
164MAL NEO THYMUS/MEDIASTINLung
165OTH/ILL-DEF MAL NEO RESPMiscellaneous
170MAL NEO BONE/ARTIC CARTBone
171MAL NEO SOFT TISSUEMiscellaneous
172MALIGNANT MELANOMA SKINSkin
173OTHER MALIG NEOPL SKINSkin
174MALIG NEO FEMALE BREASTBreast
175MALIG NEO MALE BREASTBreast
176KAPOSI’S SARCOMAMiscellaneous
179NEOPLASM, MALIGNANT, UTERUS NECGynecological
180MALIG NEOPL CERVIX UTERIGynecological
181NEOPLASM, MALIGNANT, PLACENTAGynecological
182MALIG NEOPL UTERUS BODYGynecological
183MAL NEO UTERINE ADNEXAGynecological
184MAL NEO FEM GEN NEC/NOSGynecological
185NEOPLASM, MALIGNANT, PROSTATEUrinary
186MALIGN NEOPL TESTISUrinary
187MAL NEO MALE GENITAL NECUrinary
188MALIGN NEOPL BLADDERUrinary
189MAL NEO URINARY NEC/NOSUrinary
190MALIGNANT NEOPLASM EYENeurological
191MALIGNANT NEOPLASM BRAINNeurological
192MAL NEO NERVE NEC/NOSNeurological
193NEOPLASM, MALIGNANT, THYROID GLANDEndocrine
194MAL NEO OTHER ENDOCRINEEndocrine
195MAL NEO OTH/ILL-DEF SITEMiscellaneous
196MALIG NEO LYMPH NODESHemolymph
197SECONDRY MAL NEO GI/RESPGastrointestinal
198SEC MALIG NEO OTH SITESMiscellaneous
199MALIGNANT NEOPLASM NOSMiscellaneous
200LYMPHOSARC/RETICULOSARCHemolymph
201HODGKIN’S DISEASEHemolymph
202OTH MAL NEO LYMPH/HISTIOHemolymph
203MULTIPLE MYELOMA ET ALLeukemia
204LYMPHOID LEUKEMIALeukemia
205MYELOID LEUKEMIALeukemia
206MONOCYTIC LEUKEMIALeukemia
207OTHER SPECIFIED LEUKEMIALeukemia
208LEUKEMIA-UNSPECIF CELLLeukemia
209.0×-209.3×NEUROENDOCRINE TUMORSEndocrine
230CA IN SITU DIGESTIVE ORGGastrointestinal
231CA IN SITU RESPIRATORYRespiratory
232CARCINOMA IN SITU SKINSkin
233CA IN SITU BREAST/GUBreast
234CA IN SITU NEC/NOSMiscellaneous
235UNC BEHAV NEO GI/RESPGastrointestinal
236UNC BEHAV NEO GUUrinary
237UNCER NEO ENDOCRINE/NERVEndocrine
238UNC BEHAV NEO NEC/NOSMiscellaneous
239UNSPECIFIED NEOPLASMMiscellaneous
Table 6

Safety Events

Adverse Event CategoryICD-9 Diagnosis Code(s)
Acute Kidney Injury584.9
 Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIAKI)584.9 + E947.8
 Acute Kidney Injury requiring dialysis584.9 + 39.95
Renal Failure586.x
Table 7

Radiologic Imaging

CodeDescriptionSub-CategoryCategory
ICD-9
87.03C.A.T. SCAN OF HEADCT - DiagnosticCT
87.41C.A.T. SCAN OF THORAXCT - DiagnosticCT
87.71C.A.T. SCAN OF KIDNEYCT - DiagnosticCT
88.01C.A.T. SCAN OF ABDOMENCT - DiagnosticCT
88.38OTHER C.A.T. SCANCT - DiagnosticCT
CPT
70,450CT HEAD/BRAIN W/O DYECT - DiagnosticCT
70,460CT HEAD/BRAIN W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
70,470CT HEAD/BRAIN W/O & W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
70,480CT ORBIT/EAR/FOSSA W/O DYECT - DiagnosticCT
70,481CT ORBIT/EAR/FOSSA W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
70,482CT ORBIT/EAR/FOSSA W/O&W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
70,486CT MAXILLOFACIAL W/O DYECT - DiagnosticCT
70,487CT MAXILLOFACIAL W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
70,488CT MAXILLOFACIAL W/O & W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
70,490CT SOFT TISSUE NECK W/O DYECT - DiagnosticCT
70,491CT SOFT TISSUE NECK W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
70,492CT SFT TSUE NCK W/O & W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
70,496CT ANGIOGRAPHY HEADCT Angiography - DiagnosticCTA
70,498CT ANGIOGRAPHY NECKCT Angiography - DiagnosticCTA
71,250CT THORAX W/O DYECT - DiagnosticCT
71,260CT THORAX W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
71,270CT THORAX W/O & W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
71,275CT ANGIOGRAPHY CHESTCT Angiography - DiagnosticCTA
72,125CT NECK SPINE W/O DYECT - DiagnosticCT
72,126CT NECK SPINE W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
72,127CT NECK SPINE W/O & W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
72,128CT CHEST SPINE W/O DYECT - DiagnosticCT
72,129CT CHEST SPINE W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
72,130CT CHEST SPINE W/O & W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
72,131CT LUMBAR SPINE W/O DYECT - DiagnosticCT
72,132CT LUMBAR SPINE W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
72,133CT LUMBAR SPINE W/O & W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
72,191CT ANGIOGRAPH PELV W/O&W/DYECT Angiography - DiagnosticCTA
72,192CT PELVIS W/O DYECT - DiagnosticCT
72,193CT PELVIS W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
72,194CT PELVIS W/O & W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
73,200CT UPPER EXTREMITY W/O DYECT - DiagnosticCT
73,201CT UPPER EXTREMITY W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
73,202CT UPPR EXTREMITY W/O&W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
73,206CT ANGIO UPR EXTRM W/O&W/DYECT Angiography - DiagnosticCTA
73,700CT LOWER EXTREMITY W/O DYECT - DiagnosticCT
73,701CT LOWER EXTREMITY W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
73,702CT LWR EXTREMITY W/O&W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
73,706CT ANGIO LWR EXTR W/O&W/DYECT Angiography - DiagnosticCTA
74,150CT ABDOMEN W/O DYECT - DiagnosticCT
74,160CT ABDOMEN W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
74,170CT ABDOMEN W/O & W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
74,175CT ANGIO ABDOM W/O & W/DYECT Angiography - DiagnosticCTA
74,261CT COLONOGRAPHY DXCT - DiagnosticCT
74,262CT COLONOGRAPHY DX W/DYECT - DiagnosticCT
74,263CT COLONOGRAPHY SCREENINGCT - DiagnosticCT
75,571CT HRT W/O DYE W/CA TESTCT - DiagnosticCT
75,572CT HRT W/3D IMAGECT - DiagnosticCT
75,573CT HRT W/3D IMAGE CONGENCT - DiagnosticCT
75,574CT ANGIO HRT W/3D IMAGECT Angiography - DiagnosticCTA
75,635CT ANGIO ABDOMINAL ARTERIESCT Angiography - DiagnosticCTA
76,380CAT SCAN FOLLOW-UP STUDYCT - DiagnosticCT
76,497CT PROCEDURECT - DiagnosticCT
77,011CT SCAN FOR LOCALIZATIONCT - GuidanceCT
77,012CT SCAN FOR NEEDLE BIOPSYCT - GuidanceCT
77,013CT GUIDE FOR TISSUE ABLATIONCT - GuidanceCT
77,014CT SCAN FOR THERAPY GUIDECT - GuidanceCT
77,078CT BONE DENSITY AXIALCT - DiagnosticCT
77,079CT BONE DENSITY, PERIPHERALCT - DiagnosticCT
0042 TCT PERFUSION W/CONTRAST, CBFCT - DiagnosticCT & CTA
S8092ELECTRON BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGCT - DiagnosticCT
Table 8

Chronic Kidney Disease

Chronic Kidney Disease StageICD-9 Diagnosis Code(s)
Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 1585.1
Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 2585.2
Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 3585.3
Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 4585.4
Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 5585.5
Chronic Kidney Disease, unspecified585.9
Table 9

Elixhauser Comorbidity Index*

ComorbidityCodes
Congestive Heart Failure398.91, 402.01, 402.11, 402.91, 404.01, 404.03, 404.11, 404.13, 404.91, 404.93, 425.4–425.9, 428.x
Cardiac Arrhythmia426.0, 426.13, 426.7, 426.9, 426.10, 426.12, 427.0–427.4, 427.6–427.9, 785.0, 996.01, 996.04, V45.0, V53.3
Valvular Disease093.2, 394.x–397.x, 424.x, 746.3–746.6, V42.2, V43.3
Pulmonary Circulation Disorders415.0, 415.1, 416.x, 417.0, 417.8, 417.9
Peripheral Vascular Disorders093.0, 437.3, 440.x, 441.x, 093.0, 437.3, 440.x, 441.x, 443.1–443.9, 447.1, 557.1, 557.9, V43.4
Hypertension (Uncomplicated)401.x
Hypertension (Complicated)402.x–405.x
Paralysis334.1, 342.x, 343.x, 344.0–344.6, 344.9
Other Neurological Disorders331.9, 332.0, 332.1, 333.4, 333.5, 333.92, 334.x–335.x, 336.2, 340.x, 341.x, 345.x, 348.1, 348.3, 780.3, 784.3
Chronic Pulmonary Disease416.8, 416.9, 490.x − 505.x, 506.4, 508.1, 508.8
Diabetes (Uncomplicated)250.0–250.3
Diabetes (Complicated)250.4–250.9
Hypothyroidism240.9, 243.x, 244.x, 246.1, 246.8
Renal Failure403.01, 403.11, 403.91, 404.02, 404.03, 404.12, 404.13, 404.92, 404.93, 585.x, 586.x, except 585.6, 588.0, V42.0, V45.1, V56.x
End-stage renal disease585.6
Liver Disease070.22, 070.23, 070.32, 070.33, 070.44, 070.54, 070.6, 070.9, 456.0–456.2, 570.x, 571.x, 572.2–572.8, 573.3, 573.4, 573.8, 573.9, V42.7
Peptic Ulcer Disease (excluding bleeding)531.7, 531.9, 532.7, 532.9, 533.7, 533.9, 534.7, 534.9
AIDS/HIV042.x–044.x
Lymphoma200.x–202.x, 203.0, 238.6
Metastatic Cancer196.x–199.x
Solid Tumor without Metastasis140.x–172.x, 174.x–195.x
Rheumatoid Arthritis Collagen446.x, 701.0, 710.0–710.4, 710.8, 710.9, 711.2, 714.x, 719.3, 720.x, 725.x, 728.5, 728.89, 729.30
Coagulopathy286.x, 287.1, 287.3–287.5
Obesity278.0
Weight Loss260.x–263.x, 783.2, 799.4
Fluid and Electrolyte Disorders253.6, 276.x
Blood Loss Anemia280.0
Deficiency Anemia280.1–280.9, 281.x
Alcohol Abuse265.2, 291.1–291.3, 291.5–291.9, 303.0, 303.9, 305.0, 357.5, 425.5, 535.3, 571.0–571.3, 980.x, V11.3
Drug Abuse292.x, 304.x, 305.2–305.9, V65.42
Psychoses293.8, 295.x, 296.04, 296.14, 296.44, 296.54, 297.x, 298.x
Depression296.2, 296.3, 296.5, 300.4, 309.x, 311

*The ECI Score includes 31 categories (Table 9 in Appendix) of comorbidities, which are associated with mortality. Each category counts as 1 point for a potential ECI score range of 0–31. These comorbidities were identified using diagnosis codes that appear during the visit

  28 in total

Review 1.  Adverse reactions to iodinated contrast media.

Authors:  S K Morcos; H S Thomsen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Current therapy of myeloma induced renal failure.

Authors:  Morie A Gertz
Journal:  Leuk Lymphoma       Date:  2008-05

3.  When to Order a Contrast-Enhanced CT.

Authors:  James V Rawson; Allen L Pelletier
Journal:  Am Fam Physician       Date:  2013-09-01       Impact factor: 3.292

4.  Canadian Association of Radiologists consensus guidelines for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: update 2012.

Authors:  Richard J Owen; Swapnil Hiremath; Andy Myers; Margaret Fraser-Hill; Brendan J Barrett
Journal:  Can Assoc Radiol J       Date:  2014-02-20       Impact factor: 2.248

5.  Administration of contrast media just before cisplatin-based chemotherapy increases cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity.

Authors:  M A N Sendur; S Aksoy; S Yaman; Z Arik; F Tugba Kos; M B Akinci; B Civelek; N Yildirim Ozdemir; D Uncu; N Zengin
Journal:  J BUON       Date:  2013 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.533

6.  Intravenous contrast material exposure is not an independent risk factor for dialysis or mortality.

Authors:  Robert J McDonald; Jennifer S McDonald; Rickey E Carter; Robert P Hartman; Richard W Katzberg; David F Kallmes; Eric E Williamson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-09-09       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 7.  Onco-nephrology: a decalogue.

Authors:  Laura Cosmai; Camillo Porta; Maurizio Gallieni; Mark A Perazella
Journal:  Nephrol Dial Transplant       Date:  2015-09-03       Impact factor: 5.992

8.  Contrast material-induced nephrotoxicity and intravenous low-osmolality iodinated contrast material: risk stratification by using estimated glomerular filtration rate.

Authors:  Matthew S Davenport; Shokoufeh Khalatbari; Richard H Cohan; Jonathan R Dillman; James D Myles; James H Ellis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  Comparative Effect of Contrast Media Type on the Incidence of Contrast-Induced Nephropathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  John Eng; Renee F Wilson; Rathan M Subramaniam; Allen Zhang; Catalina Suarez-Cuervo; Sharon Turban; Michael J Choi; Cheryl Sherrod; Susan Hutfless; Emmanuel E Iyoha; Eric B Bass
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-02-02       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Does the time between CT scan and chemotherapy increase the risk of acute adverse reactions to iodinated contrast media in cancer patients?

Authors:  Alberto Farolfi; Elisa Carretta; Corradina Della Luna; Angela Ragazzini; Nicola Gentili; Carla Casadei; Domenico Barone; Martina Minguzzi; Dino Amadori; Oriana Nanni; Giampaolo Gavelli
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 4.430

View more
  2 in total

1.  Incidence of contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) in high-risk oncology patients undergoing contrast-enhanced CT with a reduced dose of the iso-osmolar iodinated contrast medium iodixanol.

Authors:  Sebastian Werner; Christian Bez; Clemens Hinterleitner; Marius Horger
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Optimization of contrast medium volume for abdominal CT in oncologic patients: prospective comparison between fixed and lean body weight-adapted dosing protocols.

Authors:  Damiano Caruso; Elisa Rosati; Nicola Panvini; Marco Rengo; Davide Bellini; Giulia Moltoni; Benedetta Bracci; Elena Lucertini; Marta Zerunian; Michela Polici; Domenico De Santis; Elsa Iannicelli; Paolo Anibaldi; Iacopo Carbone; Andrea Laghi
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2021-03-20
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.