ABSTRACT
Background Race is a social and not a biological construct. Major societies have recommended removing a race correction factor when estimating glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). eGFR is a strong predictor for acute kidney injury (AKI) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We assessed the effect of removal of the race correction factor in eGFR calculation on the predictive ability of contemporary models for AKI after PCI.
Methods We used data from the American College of Cardiology’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI registry to assess the effect of removing a race correction in eGFR calculation on two previously published AKI models developed using NCDR data – a logistic regression-based model and a gradient boosting machine learning (ML) model. We first assessed the calibration and discrimination of these models with and without race correction and subsequently included race as an independent predictor in a model without race-corrected eGFR. We assessed model performance overall, and stratified by Black and non-Black subgroups. The models were trained on the same cohort used to develop the NCDR models and validated with a contemporaneous validation data set.
Results We included 947,091 PCI procedures in 915,223 patients (mean age 64.8 years; 7.9% were Black and 32.8% women) with an AKI rate of 7.4%. In the NCDR model, inclusion of race correction in eGFR significantly underestimated AKI risk among Black patients (predicted 7.6% vs observed 10.2%) while slightly overestimating risk among non-Black patients (predicted 7.4% vs observed 7.1%). Removing the race correction partially corrected the underestimation among Black patients (predicted 8.2%). Including race as an independent predictor and introducing interaction terms further reduced the underestimation (predicted 10.1%). The receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC) was similar among these models, but was consistently lower in Black patients. Compared with the logistic model, the ML model had better calibration in Black patients (with race correction predicted 8.6% and without 8.7%) but still underestimated AKI risk. With race included as a predictor, the ML model achieved similarly good calibration in Black patients (predicted 10.1%). The AUCs of ML models were better than the logistic models but did not differ based on the inclusion of the race correction.
Conclusion Removing the race correction in eGFR calculation has a positive effect of reducing the underestimation of the risk of AKI following PCI for Black patients. However, despite the reduction in underestimation, Black patients remain at elevated risk for AKI compared to non-Black patients. There is a need to better capture the determinants of this higher AKI risk through richer data and advanced modeling techniques.
Competing Interest Statement
Dr. Masoudi had a contract with the American College of Cardiology for his role as Chief Scientific Advisor, NCDR. Dr Mortazavi reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, US Food and Drug Administration, the National Science Foundation, and the US Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency outside the submitted work; in addition, Dr Mortazavi has a pending patent (US20180315507A1). Dr. Mortazavi is a technical consultant for Hugo Health. In the past three years, Dr Krumholz received expenses and/or personal fees from UnitedHealth, Element Science, Aetna, Reality Labs, the Siegfried and Jensen Law Firm, Arnold and Porter Law Firm, Martin/Baughman Law Firm, and F-Prime. He is a co-founder of Refactor Health and HugoHealth, and is associated with contracts, through Yale New Haven Hospital, from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and through Yale University from Johnson & Johnson. Other authors have no competing interest to declare.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The analysis was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Yale University.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* co-first author
Data Availability
Data are owned and were provided by the American College of Cardiology (ACC)’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR), Washington, DC. Interested researchers can apply for data access by going to www.ncdr.com, clicking “Research”, and submitting a Research Proposal Application. Access to the CathPCI registry data will be granted when an agreement with ACC is reached.
