Contrast Nephropathy Post Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: An Under-Recognized Complication with Important Morbidity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to define the incidence of contrast nephropathy in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). BACKGROUND: CRT is a promising new treatment for advanced heart failure. It is a technically demanding procedure with a recognized failure/complication rate. Contrast nephropathy is a well-recognized complication of coronary angiography/intervention, but has not been described following CRT. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who had undergone CRT at Mount Sinai Hospital, a tertiary referral center for heart failure management, to define the incidence of contrast nephropathy in patients undergoing CRT. Contrast nephropathy was defined as the occurrence of a 25% or greater increase in serum creatinine within 48 h after contrast administration. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients underwent a total of seventy-three procedures between October 1st 2000 and December 31st 2003. Ten patients (14%) developed contrast nephropathy. Three of these patients (4%) required hemofiltration and one died. Patients with creatinine > or = 200 micromol/l (2.26 mg/dl) were more likely to develop contrast nephropathy than those with creatinine < 200 micromol/l (6/14 patients [43%] v 4/59 patients [7%], p<0.01). The mean length of hospital stay post-procedure in patients developing contrast nephropathy was 19+/-18 (SD) days versus 4+/-5 days for those patients with stable renal function (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Contrast nephropathy is a frequent, but under-recognized complication of CRT with important morbidity/mortality. The extended hospital stay associated with contrast nephropathy has important clinical and health care implications. Patients and physicians need to be aware of this potential risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".