Coronary artery disease · 2020
Efficacy of nicorandil on the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with coronary heart disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
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.
Zhang Xue, Yang Shicheng, Zhang Peng, Fu Naikuan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of nicorandil on the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with coronary heart disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
METHODS: This study randomized 300 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention to receive conventional treatment in the control group (hydration only; n = 150) vs. nicorandil therapy (nicorandil 10 mg three times daily plus hydration; n = 150). The primary endpoint was the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy, defined as rise in serum creatinine ≥44.2 μmol/L or >25% above baseline within 72 hours after exposure to contrast administered during percutaneous coronary intervention. Secondary endpoints included differences in post-percutaneous coronary intervention serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, creatinine clearance rate, cystatin-C, and occurrence of major adverse events.
RESULTS: Contrast-induced nephropathy incidence was 3.3% (5/150) in the nicorandil group vs. 10.7% (16/150) in the control group (P < 0.05). At 48 and 72 hours after contrast administration, cystatin-C levels were significantly lower and creatinine clearance rate were significantly higher with nicroandil therapy compared to conventional treatment (all P values <0.05). No statistical difference was observed in the incidence of major post-procedure side effect events in hospital and fourteen days of follow-up period between the nicorandil group and control group (3.3% vs. 4.0%, P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional treatment, oral nicorandil therapy was associated with less contrast-induced nephropathy and improved renal function following contrast administration during percutaneous coronary intervention.
METHODS: This study randomized 300 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention to receive conventional treatment in the control group (hydration only; n = 150) vs. nicorandil therapy (nicorandil 10 mg three times daily plus hydration; n = 150). The primary endpoint was the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy, defined as rise in serum creatinine ≥44.2 μmol/L or >25% above baseline within 72 hours after exposure to contrast administered during percutaneous coronary intervention. Secondary endpoints included differences in post-percutaneous coronary intervention serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, creatinine clearance rate, cystatin-C, and occurrence of major adverse events.
RESULTS: Contrast-induced nephropathy incidence was 3.3% (5/150) in the nicorandil group vs. 10.7% (16/150) in the control group (P < 0.05). At 48 and 72 hours after contrast administration, cystatin-C levels were significantly lower and creatinine clearance rate were significantly higher with nicroandil therapy compared to conventional treatment (all P values <0.05). No statistical difference was observed in the incidence of major post-procedure side effect events in hospital and fourteen days of follow-up period between the nicorandil group and control group (3.3% vs. 4.0%, P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional treatment, oral nicorandil therapy was associated with less contrast-induced nephropathy and improved renal function following contrast administration during percutaneous coronary intervention.