Why the study?
Early hemodynamic changes in STEMI may cause AKI prior to primary PCI, but the association between pain-to-balloon time and AKI had not been evaluated.
Does longer pain-to-balloon time increase the risk of acute kidney injury in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI?
Does longer pain-to-balloon time increase the risk of acute kidney injury in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI?
Longer pain-to-balloon time in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI is independently associated with an increased risk of developing acute kidney injury.
May support expedited reperfusion in STEMI to mitigate AKI risk; leaves open whether the association is causal.
BACKGROUND: Among ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), early hemodynamic changes may result in acute kidney injury (AKI) even prior to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); however, no information to date is present regarding the association between pain-to-balloon time (PBT) and AKI. We evaluated whether PBT predicts the risk of AKI among STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI. METHODS: Medical records of 2,343 STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI were reviewed. Patients were stratified by PBT into 3 groups: ≤120, 121-360, and >360 min. Patients' records were assessed for the occurrence of AKI (defined by the KDIGO criteria as serum creatinine (sCr) elevation ≥0.3 mg/dL within 72 h after admission). RESULTS: Mean age was 61 ± 13 years, and 1,919 (82%) were male. Patients having longer PBT had more AKI complicating the course of STEMI (7% vs. 8% vs. 13%, p < 0.001) and had significantly higher sCr changes throughout hospitalization (0.08 mg/dL vs. 0.11 mg/dL vs. 0.17 mg/dL p < 0.001). In a multivariable logistic regression model, each 1-h increase in PBT was independently associated with a 2.2% increase in risk for AKI (odds ratio 1.022, 95% confidence interval: 1.01-1.04, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Longer PBT may be an independent marker for the development of AKI in STEMI patients undergoing primary.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zahler et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: