Acute kidney injury - A frequent and serious complication after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to investigate the incidence, risk factors and long-term prognosis of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (primary PCI).
METHOD: A large-scale, retrospective cohort study based on procedure-related variables, biochemical and mortality data collected between 2009 and 2014 at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. AKI was defined as an increase in serum creatinine of 25% during the first 72 hours after the index procedure.
RESULTS: A total of 4239 patients were treated with primary PCI of whom 4002 had available creatinine measurements allowing for assessment of AKI and inclusion in this study. The mean creatinine value upon presentation for all patients was 84 μmol/l (standard deviation (SD) ±40) and 97 μmol/l (SD ±53) at peak. AKI occurred in a total of 765 (19.1%) patients. Independent risk factors for the occurrence of AKI were age, time from symptom onset to procedure, peak value of troponin-T, female sex and the contrast volume to eGFR ratio. In a multivariable adjusted analysis AKI was independently associated with a higher mortality rate at 5 years follow-up (hazard ratio 1.39 [95%-confidence interval 1.03-1.88]).
CONCLUSION: In STEMI patients treated with primary PCI one in five experiences acute kidney injury, which was associated with a substantial increase in both short- and long-term mortality.

Introduction

Timely treatment with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (primary PCI) is the recommended treatment for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) [1]. The prognosis for patients with STEMI has improved during the last decades, and the 1-year mortality is now around 11% [2]. However, some patients may still have an unfavorable outcome. Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) following PCI is a common complication that is observed in >15% of STEMI patients treated with primary PCI [3,4]. The incidence of AKI is higher following a primary PCI than after elective PCI suggestively owing to the use of more contrast agent during the procedure [5,6]. AKI may occur in patients with both preexisting renal disease and in patients with normal baseline renal function [7]. In STEMI patients the development of AKI following primary PCI has previously been related to an increased in-hospital stay and 3-year mortality [8,9]. Most previous studies on the incidence, risk factors and prognostic importance of AKI in patients with STEMI treated with primary PCI have included patients from randomized studies with various in- and exclusion criteria. Thus, these studies do not represent the full spectrum of patients with STEMI and there are no data on the importance of AKI in an all-comer STEMI population and on the mortality beyond 3-years. Therefore, the aims of the present study were to:

Report the incidence of AKI among an all-comer STEMI population undergoing primary PCI

Identify the risk factors for the development of AKI after primary PCI in STEMI patients

Report the long-term effects of AKI on mortality in a non-selected all-comer STEMI population.

Methods

Study population

From the Eastern Danish Heart Registry, a clinical registry with prospective registration of all PCI procedures performed in Eastern Denmark, consecutive patients undergoing primary PCI due to STEMI from November 1, 2009 to December 31, 2014 at a large tertiary invasive center were identified. A diagnosis of suspected STEMI was made by the cardiologist on call and based upon symptoms and electrocardiogram (ECG) as specified in the current guidelines [1]. Patients were included in the present study only of symptoms onset to PCI was<12 hours from symptom onset. Only patients treated with primary PCI after the coronary angiography were included in the present study. The study was approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (case file no 30–1441) and the Danish National Board of Health (case file no 3-3013-1210/1).

Definition of AKI

AKI was defined according to the European Society of Urogenital Radiology guidelines as an increase of 25% in serum creatinine from baseline creatinine within 72 hours from contrast media administration [4].

Data collection

Creatinine values, procedure related variables and variables related to other risk factors related to kidney or coronary artery disease were obtained from hospital charts. Baseline blood samples were obtained at admission before primary PCI. Follow-up blood samples for creatinine were obtained between 24 and 72 hours after admission. If more than one creatinine value were present, the highest creatinine value was used for AKI analysis. Vital status was obtained from the Danish Centralized Civil Registry and the Cause of Death Registry using the CPR-number. Mortality has a very low risk of misclassification in the Danish registries and was used for this reason. Patients without a CPR-number (i.e. tourists) were excluded from this analysis due to missing follow-up data. Patients were followed from the first day of their primary admission until they either died or the follow-up period ended on the 15th of May 2015.

The assay for troponin changed in the study period, making high sensitivity measurement available, lowering the reference interval from 50ng/L to 14 ng/L.

Statistical analysis

Patients who developed AKI after the procedure were compared to patients without AKI. The comparison was done using χ2 –test or Fisher´s exact test for categorical variables and Student T-test or the Mann-Whitney for continuous variables. To identify independent predictors for the development of AKI variables with p<0.05 by univariate analysis were included in a multivariate logistic regression model. Finally, backward elimination was done by removing the variable with the highest p-value for each step. The mortality rates were assessed visually by a Kaplan-Meier plot and statistically using a log-rank test. The hazard ratio for mortality was calculated by Cox-regression. In order to identify predictors for mortality a multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed using all variables with significant association (p<0.05) to mortality in the univariate analysis. Backward elimination was done by removing the variable with the highest p-value for each step. The assumption of the Cox proportional hazards regression models was tested by plot of cumulative sum of martingale-based residuals and found valid. Both regression analyses were performed using backward elimination. No imputations were done regarding missing values. A two-sided p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant and the data were analyzed using the statistical software IBM SPSS Statistics version 22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

Baseline characteristics

A total of 4239 patients were treated with primary PCI between November 1, 2009 and December 31, 2014 of whom 4002 (94%) had available creatinine measurements allowing for assessment of AKI and thus inclusion in this study. A total of 765 patients (19.1%) developed AKI within 72 hours after primary PCI. Differences in the baseline characteristics between patients with and without AKI are summarized in Table 1. In brief, patients with AKI were older, more often female, and with lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), lower estimated glomerular filtration rate at admission (eGFR) as well as higher contrast volume/eGFR ratio. Patient with AKI also had a higher frequency of cardiogenic shock and pre-admission cardiac arrest. Both time from symptom onset to primary PCI and duration of the procedure were longer for patients that developed AKI.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of AKI vs. non-AKI.

Risk factor	AKI	No-AKI	P value
Age, (SD)	66 (13)	63 (12)	< 0.001
Female sex, (%)	222 (29%)	806 (25%)	0.019
BMI, kg/m2, (SD)	27 (7.3)	27 (8.6)	0.018
Diabetes, (%)	88 (12%)	385 (13%)	0.88
Hypertension, (%)	289 (41%)	1171 (39%)	0.26
Smoker, (%)	457 (72%)	2215 (76%)	0.016
Extra cardiac arteriopathy, (%)	30 (4.0%)	124 (3.9%)	0.85
Family history of ischemic heart disease, (%)	195 (32%)	976 (36%)	0.034
Hyperlipidemia, (%)	182 (28%)	813 (29%)	0.67
History of MI, (%)	72 (10%)	276 (8.9%)	0.32
Previous PCI, (%)	58 (7.6%)	303 (9.4%)	0.14
Previous CABG, (%)	20 (2.6%)	50 (1.6%)	0.039
History of stroke, (%)	47 (6.1%)	139 (4.3%)	0.022
History of heart failure, (%)	40 (5.5%)	81 (2.6%)	< 0.001
Cardiogenic shock pre-procedure, (%)	38 (5.4%)	74 (2.4%)	< 0.001
Cardiac Arrest pre-procedure, (%)	78 (11%)	204 (6.7%)	< 0.001
Contrast volume, mililiters, (SD)	114 (62)	111 (60)	0.15
Procedure length, minutes, (SD)	38 (24)	34 (20)	< 0.001
Creatinine on admission, μmol/l, (SD)	81 (43)	84 (39)	0.08
Creatinine peak, μmol/l, (SD)	125 (83)	91 (41)	<0.001
eGFR at admission, ml/min, (SD)	67 (28)	76 (18)	< 0.001
Contrast volume/eGFR ratio, (SD)	2.5 (3.0)	1.6 (1.3)	< 0.001
LVEF, %*, (IQR)	40 (30–50)	45 (35–50)	< 0.001
Peak Troponin T, mg/l*, (IQR)	5.7 (2.2–12)	3.0 (1.1–6,3)	< 0.001
Time to pPCI, hours*, (IQR)	3.4 (2.3–5.4)	2.8 (2.1–4.4)	< 0.001

AKI = Acute Kidney Injury; BMI = Body Mass Index; MI = Myocardial Infarction; pPCI = Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

CABG = Coronary Artery Bypass Graft; LVEF = Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction, eGFR = Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate

SD = ± Standard Deviation, IQR = Interquartile Range

*Median

(%) is percentage of total for each group

Creatinine peak is within 3 days after time of admission

Time to PCI is from symptom onset to balloon dilatation and is measured in hours

Cardiac arrest pre-procedure refers to patients who have been successfully resuscitated

LVEF: Values were only present for 993 out of 4002 patients.

Independent predictors of AKI

In the multivariate backward elimination logistic model, the independent predictors for the development of AKI were: Peak TnT, symptom-to-PCI time, female sex and contrast volume to eGFR ratio, whereas age and smoking were statistically insignificant in the last step of the analysis. The analysis of independent predictors is summarized in Table 2. Since, LVEF at admission was only available in 24.8% of the patients it was excluded from the multivariable analyses.

Table 2

Multivariate analysis of the significant risk factors for AKI.

Multivariate				Backward elimination
Risk factors for AKI	HR	95% CI	p value	HR	95% CI	p value
Age, per year	1.01	0.99–1.02	0.08	1.01	1.00–1.02	0.07
Female sex	1.28	1.01.-1.63	0.041	1.28	1.02–1.62	0.043
BMI, per unit	0.99	0.97–1.01	0.31	-	-	-
Smoker	0.80	0.63–1.02	0.06	0.82	0.65–1.03	0.09
Family history of ischemic heart disease	0.98	0.79–1.23	0.91	-	-	-
Previous CABG	1.14	0.46–2.82	0.78	-	-	-
History of stroke	1.24	0.76–2.04	0.39	-	-	-
History of heart failure	1.47	0.82–2.61	0.19	-	-	-
Cardiogenic shock pre-procedure	1.45	0.61–3.47	0.41	-	-	-
Cardiac Arrest pre-procedure	0.83	0.46–1.48	0.52	-	-	-
Procedure length, per minute	1.00	0.99–1.00	0.23	-	-	-
eGFR at admission, per ml/min	1.01	1.00–1.01	0.18	-	-	-
Contrast volume/eGFR ratio, (SD)	1.14	1.04–1.25	0.006	1.08	1.02–1.16	0.015
Peak Troponin T, mg/l	1.08	1.06–1.10	<0.001	1.08	1.06–1.10	<0.001
Time to PCI1, per hours	1.09	1.06–1.13	<0.001	1.09	1.05–1.13	<0.001

AKI = Acute Kidney Injury; BMI = Body Mass Index

CABG = Coronary Artery Bypass Graft; IHD = Ischemic Heart Disease; PCI = Percutaneus Coronary Intervention

eGFR = Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate

1Time to PCI is from symptom onset to balloon dilatation and is measured in hours.

LVEF: Due to missing values this variable have been left out in the analysis.

Mortality and AKI

Throughout the follow-up period of 3.4 years (range 0–5.52 years) a total of 527 (13.2%) patients died. The presence of AKI was statistically significant associated with higher mortality rates compared to patients without AKI during the entire follow-up period and at each landmark analysis, Table 3 and Fig 1. A landmark analysis did also show that the occurrence of AKI was related to mortality from 30 days to end of follow-up (HR 1.70 (95% 1.31–2.23)). Moreover, AKI remained independently associated with long-term mortality in multivariate Cox regression models adjusting for variables found to be associated with mortality, Table 4. Other important factors associated with long-term mortality were age, previous CABG, history of stroke, history of heart failure, cardiogenic shock at admission, resuscitated cardiac arrest, peak TnT and symptom-to-PCI.

Table 3

Mortality.

Period	AKI	No-AKI
30 days, (%)	103 (13.5%)	146 (4.5%)
1 year, (%)	142 (18.6%)	234 (7.2%)
End of follow up, (%)	178 (23.3%)	349 (10.8%)

Fig 1

Survival.

Table 4

Multivariate analysis of the significant risk factors affecting mortality.

Multivariate				Backward elimination
Risk factor	HR	95% CI	p value	HR	95% CI	P value
AKI	1.38	1.02–1.87	0.037	1.39	1.03–1.88	0.033
Age, per year	1.06	1.04–1.07	<0.001	1.06	1.05–1.07	<0.001
Female sex	1.02	0.75–1.37	0.92	-	-	-
BMI, per unit	0.99	0.97–1.02	0.63	-	-	-
Smoker	1.33	0.98–1.81	0.07	1.31	0.97–1.77	0.076
Family history of ischemic heart disease	0.85	0.63–1.16	0.32	-	-	-
Previous CABG	2.31	1.15–4.66	0.019	2.16	1.09–4.31	0.028
History of stroke	1.65	1.06–2.57	0.026	1.61	1.04–2.50	0.033
History of heart failure	2.49	1.52–4.07	<0.001	2.44	1.51–3.96	<0.001
Cardiogenic shock pre-procedure	2.87	1.53–5.40	0.001	2.66	1.45–4.90	0.002
Cardiac Arrest pre-procedure	3.13	1.93–5.09	<0.001	3.04	1.88–4.92	<0.001
Procedure length per minute	0.99	0.98–1.00	0.20	-	-	-
eGFR on admission per ml/min	0.99	0.98–0.99	<0.001	0.99	0.98–0.99	<0.001
Contrast volume/eGFR ratio	1.04	0.97–1.12	0.27	-	-	-
Peak Troponin T, per 1mg/ml	1.03	1.01–1.04	0.001	1.03	1.01–1.04	0.001
Time to PCI1, per hour	1.06	1.02–1.10	0.003	1.06	1.02–1.10	0.003

AKI = Acute Kidney Injury; BMI = Body Mass Index

CABG = Coronary Artery Bypass Graft, MI = Myocardial Infarction.

PCI = Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

1Time to PCI is from symptom onset to balloon dilation and is measured in hours.

LVEF: Due to missing values this variable have been left out in the multivariate analysis.

Discussion

In an unselected all-comer population AKI occurred in one in five patients within the first 72 hours after primary PCI and was strongly related to both short and long-term prognosis. In previous studies the incidence of AKI following primary PCI in STEMI varied between 15–30% depending on study population, design and definition of AKI [3,4,8]. In comparison the incidence of AKI in the general population after contrast media consuming procedures (not restricted to PCI) is estimated to be only 1–2% [10]. There is no global consensus on the definition of AKI and in the present study we used the definition recommended in the ESUR guidelines which is an increase of 25% in serum creatinine from baseline creatinine within 72 hours from contrast media administration [4].

In the “Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes” criteria (KDIGO) there are 3 stages of AKI, stage 1 using 1,5–1,9 increase from baseline creatinine and stage 3 using more 3 times increase from baseline creatinine, and we translate this as a severity score, therefore 25% increase could presumably be the first point in developing the AKI and gradually getting worse with increasing creatinine levels [11].

The higher mortality rates for AKI patients is a consistent finding across studies [12]. A sub-study from the HORIZONS-AMI study found a mortality rate of 8.0% at 30 days and 16.2% after 3 years of follow up, as compared to 0.9% and 4.5% respectively for patients with and without AKI [8]. In a similar study a sevenfold increase in mortality (23.3% vs. 3.2%) was seen at 1 year [9]. In the present study AKI was related to a 39% relative increase in all-cause mortality through a median observation time of 3.4 years.

Thus, our results confirm previous findings, but add important data regarding long-term mortality and demonstrate the clinical relevance of AKI in an all-comer STEMI population including patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock [13]. The reason for poorer outcome following AKI is still unknown. It may be due to preexisting illness, mainly of either renal or atherosclerotic character [14]. Another contributing factor may be damage to other organs during acute renal failure. Previous studies found severely diminished coronary vascular tone, reserve and reactivity after acute renal failure [11].

The present study is a true all-comer population including patients with an inherent risk of nephropathy such as patients with cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest. These patients are almost always excluded from randomized clinical trials. In the recently published CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, the need for renal replacement therapy were as high as 11.6–16.4% among the study participants, underlining that nephropathy is a common complication in patients with acute myocardial infarction and shock [15]. Cardiogenic shock at admission and cardiac arrest before the procedure were not independently associated with AKI in the present study, possibly explained by the low frequency of both cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock, and the fact that the most critically ill patients die before additional blood work-up can be performed.

Previously other risk factors for AKI have been reported such as old age, diabetic nephropathy, time from onset of symptoms to primary PCI, preexisting renal disease, congestive heart failure, contrast volume and length of the procedure [10,16][6,8,17],[18]. And in a recent study with 1656 STEMI patients both congestive heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction were identified as individual predictors of AKI [19].

In the present study age, female sex, time to treatment, peak TnT level and the contrast volume to eGFR ratio were all independent predictors for the development of AKI. Contrast volume, preexisting diabetes and procedure length were not independently associated with AKI in the present population may be explained by several factors. Earlier studies reported much higher average use of contrast media volume among patients developing AKI(153–378 ml) compared to the 111–114 ml used in the present study [6,8,17]. Although some studies have identified diabetes as an independent risk factor other studies have not [6,7,17,20]. One study indicates diabetes only being a risk factor combined with renal insufficiency but not per se [21]. Similar circumstances could explain the reason that the contrast to eGFR ratio is an independent predictor of the development of AKI while contrast volume is not.

That diabetes mellitus was not associated with AKI in the present study may also be due to the low prevalence of diabetes in the study population in combination with the relatively small amount of contrast used. A recent study found admission hyperglycemia to be an independent risk factor for AKI following primary PCI [22].

The association between time to treatment and AKI could be explained by the changes in renal hemodynamics that occurs during an acute myocardial infarction [18]. Also, longer ischemia times may lead to larger infarcts and subsequent heart failure, which also explains why infarct size determined by peak troponin T was associated with AKI.

Controversies still remain over the effectiveness of interventions to prevent AKI, e.g. hydrating with intravenous fluid (IV) and administering drugs like N-Acetylcysteine or Fenoldopam Mesylate [23,24,25,26]. Although most studies state no benefit from these interventions, a few randomized trials have found hydration with IV normal saline to be consistently effective. Mueller et al performed a large prospective randomized study comparing isotonic IV saline (0.9%) with half-isotonic IV saline (0.45%) and concluded that isotonic saline (0.9%) was superior in terms of reducing AKI. Unstable cardiac patients undergoing primary interventions were the most likely to benefit from isotonic hydration [27]. Starting the hydration earlier and continuing longer are considered best practice. However, no single regimen of IV saline has yet been established in practice [28]. A recent single-center retrospective study suggested that a micro axial percutaneous left ventricular assist device may protect against acquired kidney injury during high risk PCI. The majority of the patients in that study had acute coronary syndromes but only 13% were true STEMI[29]. Finally, lowering the patient's blood glucose levels before procedure have been suggested by some authors [22].

A recent review summarizes the pathophysiology and highlights preventative strategies for patients undergoing angiographic procedures. It also confirms that diabetes mellitus has not been shown to be an independent risk factor. It states that contrast volume > 350ml or repeated administration within 72 hours was shown to be associated with an increased risk. The review states that developing AKI is correlated with accelerated progression of an underlying chronic kidney disease. The review concludes that additional studies is needed to effectively determine the true toxic effect and to evaluate the survival benefit of preventing AKI [30].

Study limitations

This is a single-center observational study and although there is a quality in its all-comers design, treatments and patients may differ from other primary PCI centers. AKI could only be diagnosed if at least two blood samples for creatinine measurements were available. Thus, patients dying very early after admission were not included in the study. Only data on all-cause mortality were available.

Moreover, given the observational nature of this study no certainty in terms of causality between AKI and adverse outcome can be made. Creatinine values beyond 72 hours were not available and thus we do not have any information on the long-term renal function and its impact on mortality. Information regarding left ventricular function at admission was not available in a large proportion of the patients due to the emergency situation. Finally, retrospective studies are susceptible to the issue of missing data, so too in this study, which introduces the risk of selection bias.

Since the assay for TnT changed during the study period, there is a possibility that very low but elevated values could have be overseen.

Conclusion

In STEMI patients treated with primary PCI one in five experiences acute kidney injury, which was related to substantial increase in both short- and long-term mortality.

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

10 Aug 2019

PONE-D-19-18871

Contrast induced nephropathy – a frequent and serious complication after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr El-Ahmadi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Sep 24 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Corstiaan den Uil

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

1. In ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

3. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I have read with interest the manuscript regarding CIN STEMI patients with undergoing primary PCI. The topic of CIN in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI is of growing interest, as this entity is associated with adverse outcomes, and the findings may bear some clinical implications.

While interesting, several issues need to be further clarified and discussed :

1. The authors state in the introduction "…… Previous studies on the incidence, risk factors and prognostic importance of CIN in patients with STEMI treated with primary PCI have included patients from randomized studies with various in and exclusion criteria. Thus, these studies do not represent the full spectrum of patients with STEMI and there are no data on the importance of CIN in an all-comer STEMI population……" This is not accurate at all. The main finding in the manuscript is that CIN was associated with adverse short and long term outcomes. The findings are well known and have been extensively described in previous cohorts, including large retrospectives registries. For examples similar findings were described by a large registry of over 2000 STEMI patients by Margolis et al ( Journal of nephrology, 2018,31:423-428). Please discuss, and compare to the findings in that study.

2. The definition of CIN used ( 25% increase in serum creatinine within 72 hours of admission ) is somehow outdated. Recent data recommends the utilization of consensus criteria to define acute kidney injury , most updated is the KDIGO criteria. Please discuss this , and compare the limitations of CIN definition to KDIGO definition ( as mentioned by the cohort of Margolis et al, see above….) .

3. Quite surprisingly , the was no difference in contrast volume between patients with vs. without CIN. How can the authors explain this ? As such contrast volume itself was not independently associated with CIN…..

4. With regard to the above- Recent data suggest that contrast volume/eGFR ratio is a more accurate marker of CIN . Please calculate, add to table 1 (and regression model if significant ) and discuss.

5. It is known today that AKI in STEMI patients is in fact multifactorial and related to hemodynamic , inflammatory parameters in addition to the effect of contrast alone ( Shacham et al. Canadian j cardiology, 2015;31:1240-1244). Indeed patients with CIN had higher rate of cardiogenic shock, longer time from symptom onset and lower LVEF. Please cite and discuss.

6. Admission glucose levels were also demonstrated to be associated with CIN following primary PCI ( Shacham et al, cardiorenal medicine 2015;5:191-198) what were the admission glucose levels within the two groups?

Please cite and discuss

Reviewer #2: I have read carefully the manuscript entitled " Contrast induced nephropathy – a frequent and serious complication after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction" by Abdellatif El-Ahmadi and his colleagues. This is a well written manuscript that deals with an important topic of the prevalence and clinical significance of renal function deterioration of patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. The relative lack in data on this subject makes this manuscript's topic important and clinically relevant. Nevertheless I have serious concerns regarding its methodology and findings.

Major comment:

The increase in serum creatinine in patients with STEMI should be defined as AKI-acute kidney injury, rather than CIN. In this population, AKI may be related to many causes other than CIN including hemodynamic instability, cholesterol emboli, medications etc. indeed , presentation with cardiogenic shock and CPR were more frequent in patients with AKI.

Is there any data regarding fluid administration following PCI?

Is there any data regarding renal function after 72 hours? In the majority of patients with CIN renal function tends to recover and this may change the outcome

What was the percentage of patients who required renal replacement therapy?

There is no data regarding medical therapy at discharge-it may be suggested that patients with reduced renal function may be less frequently treated with guideline based medical therapy

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

4 Nov 2019

First of all we would like to thank you for your time and your wonderfull comments on our paper. We have included the answers directly after your questions. I hope you are satisfied with our answers.

Reviewer #1:

I have read with interest the manuscript regarding CIN STEMI patients with undergoing primary PCI. The topic of CIN in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI is of growing interest, as this entity is associated with adverse outcomes, and the findings may bear some clinical implications.

While interesting, several issues need to be further clarified and discussed:

1. The authors state in the introduction "…… Previous studies on the incidence, risk factors and prognostic importance of CIN in patients with STEMI treated with primary PCI have included patients from randomized studies with various in and exclusion criteria. Thus, these studies do not represent the full spectrum of patients with STEMI and there are no data on the importance of CIN in an all-comer STEMI population……" This is not accurate at all. The main finding in the manuscript is that CIN was associated with adverse short and long term outcomes. The findings are well known and have been extensively described in previous cohorts, including large retrospectives registries. For examples similar findings were described by a large registry of over 2000 STEMI patients by Margolis et al ( Journal of nephrology, 2018,31:423-428). Please discuss, and compare to the findings in that study.

Answer: The fact that Margolis study have chosen 48h as the inclusion time may explain the low incidence of AKI. Compared to both the present study and many earlier studies such as Tsai (ref 3), Marcos (ref 4) and Narula (ref 8). Our inclusion time was 72h since the creatinine levels are known to rise up to 3 days after procedure.

2. The definition of CIN used ( 25% increase in serum creatinine within 72 hours of admission ) is somehow outdated. Recent data recommends the utilization of consensus criteria to define acute kidney injury , most updated is the KDIGO criteria. Please discuss this , and compare the limitations of CIN definition to KDIGO definition ( as mentioned by the cohort of Margolis et al, see above….).

Answer: We would like to state that others also have used 25% increase as in the article by Matthew S. Davenport Contrast Material–induced Nephrotoxicity and Intravenous Low-Osmolality Iodinated Contrast Material.

It is not exactly defined that the increase in serum creatinine must be 25% or any higher percentages and we are aware of others using higher percentages. In the KDIGO criteria there are 3 stages of AKI, stage 1 using 1,5-1,9 increase from baseline creatinine and stage 3 using more 3 times increase from baseline creatinine, and we translate this as a severity score, therefore 25% increase could presumably be the first point in developing the AKI and gradually getting worse with increasing creatinine levels. The authors themselves state that the score should be considered as a severity scoring.

Furthermore the “Consensus Guidelines for the Prevention of Contrast Induced Nephropathy” from Canadian Association of Radiologist stated that “The commonest definitions in use are an increase in serum creatinine (SCr) of >25% of baseline value”. We therefore chose this value as it was the same initial value that were commonest in Denmark.

Whether to use 25% increase or higher does not change the fact that our two groups shows differences ie higher long term mortality. We have included a comment on this in our discussion.

3. Quite surprisingly , the was no difference in contrast volume between patients with vs. without CIN. How can the authors explain this ? As such contrast volume itself was not independently associated with CIN…..

Answer: That contrast volume, preexisting diabetes and procedure length were not independently associated with AKI in the present population may be explained by several factors. Earlier studies reported much higher average use of contrast media volume among patients developing AKI (153-378 ml) compared to the 111-114 ml used in the present study (see ref 6,8 and 17).

4. With regard to the above- Recent data suggest that contrast volume/eGFR ratio is a more accurate marker of CIN . Please calculate, add to table 1 (and regression model if significant ) and discuss.

Answer: We have calculated the contrast volume/eGFR ratio and as you stated we have also found it significant in our univariate analysis. Therefore we need to include it in our regression model, therefore doing the whole statistical analysis from start, to make sure that all other values are exact. We need aprox. 14 days more for this. This will be uploaded as a change in both the tables and new manuscript.

5. It is known today that AKI in STEMI patients is in fact multifactorial and related to hemodynamic , inflammatory parameters in addition to the effect of contrast alone ( Shacham et al. Canadian j cardiology, 2015;31:1240-1244). Indeed patients with CIN had higher rate of cardiogenic shock, longer time from symptom onset and lower LVEF. Please cite and discuss.

Answer: Cardiogenic shock at admission and cardiac arrest before the procedure were not independently associated with AKI in the present study, possibly explained by the low frequency of both cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock, and the fact that the most critically ill patients die before additional blood work-up can be performed. Data was also missing on LVEF why this had to be excluded from the multivariate analysis.

We have sited your reference.

6. Admission glucose levels were also demonstrated to be associated with CIN following primary PCI ( Shacham et al, cardiorenal medicine 2015;5:191-198) what were the admission glucose levels within the two groups?

Please cite and discuss

Answer: Unfortunately we do not have baseline glucose levels and are not able to comment on this.

We have sited your reference.

Reviewer #2:

I have read carefully the manuscript entitled " Contrast induced nephropathy – a frequent and serious complication after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction" by Abdellatif El-Ahmadi and his colleagues. This is a well written manuscript that deals with an important topic of the prevalence and clinical significance of renal function deterioration of patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. The relative lack in data on this subject makes this manuscript's topic important and clinically relevant. Nevertheless I have serious concerns regarding its methodology and findings.

Major comment:

The increase in serum creatinine in patients with STEMI should be defined as AKI-acute kidney injury, rather than CIN. In this population, AKI may be related to many causes other than CIN including hemodynamic instability, cholesterol emboli, medications etc. indeed , presentation with cardiogenic shock and CPR were more frequent in patients with AKI.

Answer: You are indeed right about this matter. We just had the initial idea about the contrast medium being the cause and therefore the title remained. We have now changed the title to be more appropriate and everywhere in the manuscript changed CIN with AKI.

Is there any data regarding fluid administration following PCI?

Answer: Unfortunately we do not have data on fluid administration.

Is there any data regarding renal function after 72 hours? In the majority of patients with CIN renal function tends to recover and this may change the outcome.

Answer: We had the same idea about the renal function recovery, but most of the patients did not have follow-up creatinine levels so that we could elaborate on this.

What was the percentage of patients who required renal replacement therapy?

There is no data regarding medical therapy at discharge-it may be suggested that patients with reduced renal function may be less frequently treated with guideline based medical therapy

Answer: Unfortunately we do not have data on how many patients who required renal replacement therapy.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

8 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-18871R1

Acute Kidney Injury – a frequent and serious complication after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr El-Ahmadi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

The authors stated the following.

"We have calculated the contrast volume/eGFR ratio and as you stated we have also

found it significant in our univariate analysis. Therefore we need to include it in our regression

model, therefore doing the whole statistical analysis from start, to make sure that all other values

are exact. We need aprox. 14 days more for this. This will be uploaded as a change in both the

tables and new manuscript."

Please upload a final version of this manuscript.

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 23 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Corstiaan den Uil

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

29 Nov 2019

Please see Response to Reviewers letter at the end of the PDF for review

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers-13.docx

Click here for additional data file.

4 Dec 2019

Acute Kidney Injury – a frequent and serious complication after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

PONE-D-19-18871R2

Dear Dr. El-Ahmadi,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Corstiaan den Uil

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

11 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-18871R2

Acute Kidney Injury – a frequent and serious complication after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Dear Dr. El-Ahmadi:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Corstiaan den Uil

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE