Invasive Management for Non–ST‐Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Chronic Kidney Disease: Does One Size Fit All?

Ayman Elbadawi,Islam Y. Elgendy,Paul Kumfa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.026390

2022-06-19

Abstract:During the past 2 decades, there has been considerable advancement in the pharmacological and invasive management of patients with non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). A number of pivotal randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the merits of an early invasive strategy in reducing the risk of mortality or reinfarction 1 , 2 Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is prevalent among patients with NSTEMI. 3 In fact, patients with CKD present with NSTEMI rather than ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction. 4 , 5 Such predilection for presentations with NSTEMI has been attributed to commonly existing supply–demand mismatch conditions, ischemic preconditioning, and collateralized circulation among patients with CKD. 3 Not only is CKD considered a risk enhancer for coronary artery disease, impaired estimated glomerular filtration rate correlates with worse outcomes. 6 , 7 Studies have consistently demonstrated that patients with CKD who experience acute myocardial infarction (MI) have worse short‐ and long‐term survival compared with patients without CKD. 3 , 8 In particular, patients with CKD are at higher risk for certain complications after an acute MI, including acute kidney injury (AKI), bleeding, stroke, and vascular complications. 3 , 9 Multiple studies have demonstrated that patients with CKD presenting with NSTEMI are less likely to receive an invasive approach compared with those without CKD. 10 This is partly because patients with CKD have been underrepresented or excluded in pivotal trials comparing early invasive versus selective invasive strategies for NSTEMI. There are also concerns regarding the risk of worsening renal function (ie, contrast‐induced nephropathy [CIN]) as well as bleeding complications. 7 An earlier meta‐analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials conducted between 1989 and 2003 showed that among patients with NSTEMI and CKD, an early invasive strategy was associated with a reduction in the risk of rehospitalization and a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of mortality or MI, compared with a selective invasive strategy. 11 Data from the SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web‐System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence‐Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) study including 23 362 patients demonstrated a survival benefit at 1 year after an invasive approach among patients with NSTEMI and mild–moderate renal insufficiency; however, such benefit declined with lower renal function and there was no survival benefit among patients with stage 5 CKD or those undergoing dialysis. 12 Indeed, the lack of strong evidence supporting an early invasive strategy among patients with NSTEMI and CKD has been acknowledged by the latest American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. 2 The technical and pharmacological advancements in the current percutaneous coronary intervention era have allowed further practices to mitigate procedural risks among patients with CKD, namely the risks of AKI and bleeding. The introduction of newer‐generation drug‐eluting stents allowed shorter duration of dual antiplatelet therapies among patients at higher risk of bleeding. 2 The use of radial access significantly reduces the risk of bleeding and AKI compared with femoral access, which could be related to lower atheroembolism into the renal arteries with radial access. 13 Also, reliance on intracoronary imaging could significantly reduce the volume of contrast used during percutaneous coronary intervention procedures. 14 Moreover, accumulating data have crystallized the principal role of adequate hydration and minimizing the volume of contrast media as the main measure to reduce the risk of contrast‐induced nephropathy. 2 In this context, the study by Majmundar et al 15 in this issue of the Journal of the American Heart Association ( JAHA ) should be viewed. The authors conducted an observational analysis of the National Readmission Database (NRD) from years 2016 to 2018 comparing an invasive strategy versus none among patients with NSTEMI and stages 3 to 5 CKD or end‐stage renal disease. 15 Their analysis included 141 052 admissions, of which 60.9% admissions underwent an invasive strategy (coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting). Patients who did not receive invasive management were older and more likely women. After propensity score matching, an invasive strategy was associated with lower in‐hospital mortality among all grades of CKD, despite higher rates of in‐hospital complications among those receiving invasive management, includ -Abstract Truncated-