The Journal of invasive cardiology · 2023
Ioxaglate Versus IoDixanol for the Prevention of Contrast-Induced Nephropathy: The IDPC Trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Freitas Rafaela Andrade Penalva, Tanajura Luis Fernando, Mehran Roxana, Chamié Daniel, Chaves Aurea, Centemero Marinella, Braga Sergio, Costa Ricardo, Cao Davide, Sousa Amanda, Feres Fausto, Costa J Ribamar
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Despite the potential benefits of percutaneous procedures for the assessment and treatment of coronary artery disease, these interventions require the use of iodine contrast, which might lead to contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) and increased risk of dialysis and major adverse cardiac events (MACE).
AIMS: We sought to compare two different iodine contrasts (low vs. iso-osmolar) for the prevention of CIN among high-risk patients.
METHODS: This is a single-center, randomized (1:1) trial comparing consecutive patients at high risk for CIN referred to percutaneous coronary diagnostic and/or therapeutic procedures with low (ioxaglate) vs. iso-osmolarity (iodixanol) iodine contrast. High risk was defined by the presence of at least one of the following conditions: age >70 years, diabetes mellitus, non-dialytic chronic kidney disease, chronic heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of CIN, defined as a >25% relative increase and/or >0.5 mg/dL absolute increase in creatinine (Cr) levels compared with baseline between the 2nd and 5th day after contrast media administration.
RESULTS: A total of 2,268 patients were enrolled. Mean age was 67 years. Diabetes mellitus (53%), non-dialytic chronic kidney disease (31%), and ACS (39%) were highly prevalent. The mean volume of contrast media was 89 ml ± 48.6. CIN occurred in 15% of all patients, with no significant difference regarding the type of contrast used (iso = 15.2% vs. low = 15.1%, P>.99). Differences were not observed in specific subgroups such as diabetics, elderly, and ACS patients. At 30-day follow-up, 13 patients in the iso-osmolarity group and 11 in low-osmolarity group required dialysis (P =.8). There were 37 (3.3%) deaths in the iso-osmolarity cohort vs. 29 (2.6%) in the low-osmolarity group (P =.4).
CONCLUSION: Among patients at high risk for CIN, the incidence of this complication was 15%, and independent of the use of low- or iso-osmolar contrast.
AIMS: We sought to compare two different iodine contrasts (low vs. iso-osmolar) for the prevention of CIN among high-risk patients.
METHODS: This is a single-center, randomized (1:1) trial comparing consecutive patients at high risk for CIN referred to percutaneous coronary diagnostic and/or therapeutic procedures with low (ioxaglate) vs. iso-osmolarity (iodixanol) iodine contrast. High risk was defined by the presence of at least one of the following conditions: age >70 years, diabetes mellitus, non-dialytic chronic kidney disease, chronic heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of CIN, defined as a >25% relative increase and/or >0.5 mg/dL absolute increase in creatinine (Cr) levels compared with baseline between the 2nd and 5th day after contrast media administration.
RESULTS: A total of 2,268 patients were enrolled. Mean age was 67 years. Diabetes mellitus (53%), non-dialytic chronic kidney disease (31%), and ACS (39%) were highly prevalent. The mean volume of contrast media was 89 ml ± 48.6. CIN occurred in 15% of all patients, with no significant difference regarding the type of contrast used (iso = 15.2% vs. low = 15.1%, P>.99). Differences were not observed in specific subgroups such as diabetics, elderly, and ACS patients. At 30-day follow-up, 13 patients in the iso-osmolarity group and 11 in low-osmolarity group required dialysis (P =.8). There were 37 (3.3%) deaths in the iso-osmolarity cohort vs. 29 (2.6%) in the low-osmolarity group (P =.4).
CONCLUSION: Among patients at high risk for CIN, the incidence of this complication was 15%, and independent of the use of low- or iso-osmolar contrast.