Development and Evaluation of an Audit and Feedback Process for Prevention of Acute Kidney Injury During Coronary Angiography and Intervention

Physician Variation and the Impact of Payment Model in Cardiac Imaging

BACKGROUND

The influence of fee-for-service reimbursement on cardiac imaging has not been compared with other payment models. Furthermore, variation in ordering practices is not well understood.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This retrospective, population-based cohort study using linked administrative data from Alberta, Canada included adults with chronic heart disease (atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, and heart failure) seen by cardiac specialists for a new outpatient consultation April 2012 to December 2018. Generalized linear mixed-effects models estimated the association of payment model (including the ability to bill to interpret imaging tests) and the use of cardiac imaging and quantified variation in cardiac imaging. Among 31 685 adults seen by 308 physicians at 136 sites, patients received an observed mean of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.67-0.68) imaging tests per consultation. After adjustment, patients seeing fee-for-service physicians had 2.07 (95% CI, 1.68-2.54) and fee-for-service physicians with ability to interpret had 2.87 (95% CI, 2.16-3.81) times the rate of receiving a test than those seeing salaried physicians. Measured patient, physician, and site effects accounted for 31% of imaging variation and, following adjustment, reduced unexplained site-level variation 40% and physician-level variation 29%.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified substantial variation in the use of outpatient cardiac imaging related to physician and site factors. Physician payment models have a significant association with imaging use. Our results raise concern that payment models may influence cardiac imaging practice. Similar methods could be applied to identify the source and magnitude of variation in other health care processes and outcomes.

Change Management Accompanying Implementation of Decision Support for Prevention of Acute Kidney Injury in Cardiac Catheterization Units: Program Report

Purpose of program

Different models exist to guide successful implementation of electronic health tools into clinical practice. The Contrast Reducing Injury Sustained by Kidneys (Contrast RISK) initiative introduced an electronic decision support tool with physician audit and feedback into all of the cardiac catheterization facilities in Alberta, Canada, with the goal of preventing contrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI) following coronary angiography and intervention. This report describes the change management approaches used by the initiative and end-user's feedback on these processes.

Sources of information and methods

The Canada Health Infoway Change Management model was used to address 6 activities relevant to project implementation: governance and leadership, stakeholder engagement, communications, workflow analysis and integration, training and education, and monitoring and evaluation. Health care providers and invasive cardiologists from all sites completed preimplementation, usability, and postimplementation surveys to assess integration and change success.

Key findings

Prior to implementation, 67% of health providers were less than satisfied with processes to determine appropriate contrast dye volumes, 47% were less than satisfied with processes for administering adequate intravenous fluids, and 68% were less than satisfied with processes to ensure follow-up of high-risk patients. 48% of invasive cardiologists were less than satisfied with preprocedural identification of patients at risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). Following implementation, there were significant increases among health providers in the odds of satisfaction with processes for identifying those at high risk of AKI (odds ratio [OR] 3.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36-6.66, P = .007), quantifying the appropriate level of contrast dye for each patient (OR 6.98, 95% CI 3.06-15.91, P < .001), determining the optimal amount of IV fluid for each patient (OR 1.86, 95% CI 0.88-3.91, P = .102), and following up of kidney function of high risk patients (OR 5.49, 95%CI 2.45-12.30, P < .001). There were also significant increases among physicians in the odds of satisfaction with processes for identifying those at high risk of AKI (OR 19.53, 95% CI 3.21-118.76, P = .001), quantifying the appropriate level of contrast dye for each patient (OR 26.35, 95% CI 4.28-162.27, P < .001), and for following-up kidney function of high-risk patients (OR 7.72, 95% CI 1.62-36.84.30, P = .010). Eighty-nine percent of staff perceived the initiative as being successful in changing clinical practices to reduce the risk of CA-AKI. Physicians uniformly agreed that the system was well-integrated into existing workflows, while 42% of health providers also agreed.

Implications

The Canada Health Infoway Change Management model was an effective framework for guiding implementation of an electronic decision support tool and audit and feedback intervention to improve processes for AKI prevention within cardiac catheterization units.

Key Considerations regarding the Renal Risks of Iodinated Contrast Media: The Nephrologist's Role

BACKGROUND

The administration of iodinated contrast medium during diagnostic and therapeutic procedures has always been associated with the fear of causing acute kidney injury (AKI) or an exacerbation of chronic kidney disease. This has led, on the one hand, to the deterrence, when possible, of the use of contrast medium (preferring other imaging methods with the risk of loss of diagnostic power), and on the other hand, to the trialling of multiple prophylaxis protocols in an attempt to reduce the risk of kidney injury.

SUMMARY

A literature review on contrast-induced (CI)-AKI risk mitigation strategies was performed, focussing on the recognition of individual risk factors and on the most recent evidence regarding prophylaxis.

KEY MESSAGES

Nephrologists can contribute significantly in the CI-AKI context, from the early stages of the decision-making process to stratifying patients by risk, individualising prophylaxis measures based on the risk profile, and ensuring appropriate evaluation of kidney function and damage post-procedure to improve care.

Effect of Clinical Decision Support With Audit and Feedback on Prevention of Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing Coronary Angiography: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Contrast-associated acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) that has been associated with high costs and adverse long-term outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a multifaceted intervention is effective for the prevention of AKI after coronary angiography or PCI.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A stepped-wedge, cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted in Alberta, Canada, that included all invasive cardiologists at 3 cardiac catheterization laboratories who were randomized to various start dates for the intervention between January 2018 and September 2019. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older who underwent nonemergency coronary angiography, PCI, or both; who were not undergoing dialysis; and who had a predicted AKI risk of greater than 5%. Thirty-four physicians performed 7820 procedures among 7106 patients who met the inclusion criteria. Participant follow-up ended in November 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

During the intervention period, cardiologists received educational outreach, computerized clinical decision support on contrast volume and hemodynamic-guided intravenous fluid targets, and audit and feedback. During the control (preintervention) period, cardiologists provided usual care and did not receive the intervention.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was AKI. There were 12 secondary outcomes, including contrast volume, intravenous fluid administration, and major adverse cardiovascular and kidney events. The analyses were conducted using time-adjusted models.

RESULTS

Of the 34 participating cardiologists who were divided into 8 clusters by practice group and center, the intervention group included 31 who performed 4327 procedures among 4032 patients (mean age, 70.3 [SD, 10.7] years; 1384 were women [32.0%]) and the control group included 34 who performed 3493 procedures among 3251 patients (mean age, 70.2 [SD, 10.8] years; 1151 were women [33.0%]). The incidence of AKI was 7.2% (310 events after 4327 procedures) during the intervention period and 8.6% (299 events after 3493 procedures) during the control period (between-group difference, -2.3% [95% CI, -0.6% to -4.1%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.72 [95% CI, 0.56 to 0.93]; P = .01). Of 12 prespecified secondary outcomes, 8 showed no significant difference. The proportion of procedures in which excessive contrast volumes were used was reduced to 38.1% during the intervention period from 51.7% during the control period (between-group difference, -12.0% [95% CI, -14.4% to -9.4%]; OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.90]; P = .002). The proportion of procedures in eligible patients in whom insufficient intravenous fluid was given was reduced to 60.8% during the intervention period from 75.1% during the control period (between-group difference, -15.8% [95% CI, -19.7% to -12.0%]; OR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.87]; P = .002). There were no significant between-group differences in major adverse cardiovascular events or major adverse kidney events.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among cardiologists randomized to an intervention including clinical decision support with audit and feedback, patients undergoing coronary procedures during the intervention period were less likely to develop AKI compared with those treated during the control period, with a time-adjusted absolute risk reduction of 2.3%. Whether this intervention would show efficacy outside this study setting requires further investigation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03453996.