Background
Cardiovascular disease remained the most common cause of death in patients with non – dialysis dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD) or end-stage renal disease (ESRD) alike [
1‐
4]. Pre-existing renal impairment or as a consequence of myocardial infarction are both associated with poor clinical outcome [
5]. In fact, presence of any forms of renal insufficiency in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients is associated with higher cardiovascular mortality and morbidity [
6,
7]. Patients with CKD are often underrepresented in clinical trials resulting in lack of evidence concerning the best mode of STEMI treatment in this subgroup [
8]. However, among STEMI survivors, patients with CKD do not necessarily have poorer health status as compared to their non-CKD counterparts [
9].
Modes of revascularization in STEMI patients with CKD have always been a dilemma among cardiologist. CKD patients with STEMI tend to receive lower rates of evidence-based therapies [
10,
11]. In the setting of STEMI, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the cornerstone of treatment regardless the status of patient’s renal functions [
12,
13]. The poor outcome of CKD following acute myocardial infarction may be related to them having more severe coronary lesions or to the higher burden of pre-morbid conditions often associated with CKD. Also, PCI is in itself an invasive procedure with risks involved. CKD patients have higher tendency to develop PCI related complications both locally and systemically. The risk of major complications of PCI such as contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) and bleeding probably contributes further to the poor outcome. Therefore, the administration of invasive coronary revascularization and evidence-based pharmacotherapy may paradoxically have deleterious effect if not done with great care and timely manner.
For these reasons, there bound to be a spectrum of disparity and inconsistency in terms of hospital management and hence clinical outcome of these patients. Thus, this study focuses on STEMI patients with renal impairment treated with PCI by means of the Malaysian National Cardiovascular Disease Database-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (NCVD-PCI) registry involving 15 hospitals across the nation. We aim to assess the clinical characteristics, procedural details, mortality and other major cardiovascular events associated with this sub-set of patients.
Discussions
CKD and STEMI is a deadly combination that is not so uncommonly encountered. National Cardiovascular Data Registry-Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network (NCDR-ACTION) reported prevalence of 30.5% among patients presenting with STEMI and 42.9% among patients presenting with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in the United States [
10]. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients with CKD has been associated with higher rates of mortality and bleeding [
19‐
21]. This special group of patients is less likely to receive evidence-based therapy and often left out from randomized controlled trials. Hence, data from real-world registries like ours could contribute to the knowledge on how to best manage these high-risk patients.
The prevalence of CKD among our STEMI patients is 23.1% (only include patients with available eGFR data). The high number most likely contributed by the large percentage of diabetics in our country at 17.5% [
22]. According to the Malaysian Dialysis and Transplant Registry, 61% of new dialysis patients in 2014 had diabetes as the cause of primary renal disease [
23]. Diabetics also known to present with more diffuse and complex coronary lesions. This by itself could lead to adverse outcomes among STEMI patients. In our cohort of STEMI with CKD, more than half were diabetics. This number is significantly higher than reported in SWEDEHEART registry, which have diabetes rate between 25.8% in men and 28.2% in women [
24]. Glycemic control optimization especially in those patients with diabetic nephropathy is important, since CKD and cardiovascular diseases seem to have synergistic effects. Cardiovascular disease has consistently contributed to more than 30% of mortality among patients with CKD and ESRD in Malaysia over a decade [
23]. More stern action therefore has to be taken by the lawmakers to improve this alarming situation.
As documented before, our STEMI patients tend to be much younger than the Caucasian [
25]. In this particular cohort as well, although CKD with STEMI patients were numerically older than their non-CKD counterpart, they were significantly younger than the CKD cohort of GRACE registry by more than 10 years [
26]. The findings suggest that screening for cardiovascular disease and CKD should start much earlier in our population in order to be able to prevent CKD related cardiovascular outcomes and vice versa.
PCI facilities are not widely available throughout Malaysia. Although primary angioplasty is the recommended treatment for STEMI in Malaysia, in line with major international guidelines, we are still held up by the number of PCI capable centers in the public sector. Thrombolytic therapy remained an important mode of revascularization in patients presenting with STEMI in most hospitals. In this cohort, almost 70% received PCI as rescue procedure after failure to response to thrombolytic therapy. The need for rescue PCI signifies higher risk of bleeding and adverse events. The less use of DES in STEMI CKD patients could also contribute to the poorer outcome. However, this has to be determined in future sub-analysis study.
Not only that, patients with CKD did receive less of evidence-based treatments upon discharge from the hospital after an episode of STEMI. Prescription for aspirin was less in CKD patients most likely because they are generally deemed ‘high bleeding’ risk group, which could be predisposed by uraemic gastropathy, although not entirely true [
27]. In terms of statin, there are conflicting evidences exist whether statin therapy would change the progression of chronic kidney disease [
28,
29]. Prescribing statin solely for renal protective effects is currently not recommended. However, statin in high cardiovascular risk patients’ evidence is overwhelming [
30]. It is also interesting to note that the use of renal angiotensin system blocker was lower in the CKD patients despite the general recommendation for this particular group of drugs in CKD patients [
31‐
33]. We assume that this could be due to prescriber bias, worry of increasing serum creatinine level as well as hyperkalaemia.
Treatment and management in the early phase of STEMI is crucial in CKD patients. According to the Kaplan-Meier curve, the difference in outcome occurs earlier rather than later. This suggests that CKD patients do not tolerate the insult of STEMI and consequence PCI as well as the non-CKD patients. They were more likely to develop in-hospital complications peri-procedural and significantly more patients died during the same admission. The trends continued even after they are discharged. At 1 year after the index PCI, CKD patients with STEMI were 3.79 times more likely to die as compare to non-CKD patients. For future improvement, the treatment and monitoring of CKD in STEMI / PCI should be intensified in the early phase. Modifiable prognostic indicators have to be optimized in CKD patients.
As this is a registry-based study, there are limitations worth to note. First, this is a retrospective study of the data collected from a nation-wide registry. Various factors could contribute to the compliance of the data entry by respective sites. Missing data is the most important issue that needs to be dealt with using statistical analysis. We have opted to the list-wise deletion technique in dealing with missing data rather than the much-preferred multiple imputation technique, hence leading to possibility of unmeasured or residual confounding. Apart from that, the presence of missing values in the outcome data may lead to information bias.
Second, we did not divide further the different stages of CKD as the number in each sub-group deemed to be too small for meaningful analysis. However, analyzing them as just 2 major sub-groups could potentially introduce bias. For example, patients with ESRD may behave differently from patients in CKD stage 5. Unfortunately, the information on dialysis is lacking that we need to drop it out from the analysis.
Third, the estimated GFR formula adopted in this registry is MDRD. We know now that there is growing evidence to suggest that MDRD may not be as accurate as newer GFR estimates formula such as Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI). However, the comparison between these 2 GFR estimates formula has never been validated specifically in our multi-ethnic population. The serial readings of serum creatinine post PCI were also not available for interpretation. We will not be able to see presence of CIN in CKD patients who underwent PCI in this cohort.
Finally, PCI techniques may have undergone a significant change within the eight years of this registry data. The way that patients were treated, and their outcomes could have been different. There might also be inter-hospital variations that we are not able to take into account for when determining the outcomes. It is likely that patients treated at PCI capable hospitals expected to fare better as their counterpart treated at non-PCI capable hospitals.