Preventive Strategies for Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Procedures: Evidence From a Hierarchical Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of 124 Trials and 28 240 Patients.

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of currently available effective preventive strategies for contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CIAKI) is a matter of debate.

METHODS AND

RESULTS

We performed a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis of 124 trials (28 240 patients) comparing a total of 10 strategies: saline, statin, N-acetylcysteine (NAC), sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3), NAC+NaHCO3, ascorbic acid, xanthine, dopaminergic agent, peripheral ischemic preconditioning, and natriuretic peptide. Compared with saline, the risk of CIAKI was reduced by using statin (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.26-0.67), xanthine (OR, 0.32; 95% CrI, 0.17-0.57), ischemic preconditioning (OR, 0.48; 95% CrI, 0.26-0.87), NAC+NaHCO3 (OR, 0.50; 95% CrI, 0.33-0.76), NAC (OR, 0.68; 95% CrI, 0.55-0.84), and NaHCO3 (OR, 0.66; 95% CrI, 0.47-0.90). The benefit of statin therapy was consistent across multiple sensitivity analyses, whereas the efficacy of all the other strategies was questioned by restricting the analysis to high-quality trials. Overall, high heterogeneity was observed for comparisons involving xanthine and ischemic preconditioning, although the impact of NAC and xanthine was probably influenced by publication bias/small-study effect. Hydration alone was the least effective preventive strategy for CIAKI. Meta-regressions did not reveal significant associations with baseline creatinine and contrast volume. In patients with diabetes mellitus, no strategy was found to reduce the incidence of CIAKI.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary procedures, statin administration is associated with a marked and consistent reduction in the risk of CIAKI compared with saline. Although xanthine, NAC, NaHCO3, NAC+NaHCO3, ischemic preconditioning, and natriuretic peptide may have nephroprotective effects, these results were not consistent across multiple sensitivity analyses.