4.5 Article

Valuable markers for contrast-induced nephropathy in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization

Journal

CIRCULATION JOURNAL
Volume 72, Issue 9, Pages 1499-1505

Publisher

JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOC
DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-07-1006

Keywords

contrast-induced nephropathy; coronary angiography; cystatin C; L-FABP; precutaneous coronary intervention

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) frequently complicates cardiac catheterization, so the objectives of present study were to investigate the usefulness of cystatin C before catheterization and establish a cut-off level for CIN, and to examine the changes in cystatin C and several other markers in patients with and without CIN. Methods and Results Prospective Study of consecutive 87 patients who underwent elective catheterization: moderate renal disease defined as glomerular filtration rate 30-59 ml.min(-1)1.73 mm(-2). cystatin C and creatinine (Cr), urinary liver-type fatty acid-binding protein (L-FABP), alpha 1, beta 2 microglobulins, N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase, and microalbumin were measured immediately before, and 1, 2, and 3 days after catheterization. CIN occurred in 18 patients and receiver-operating characteristic analysis showed a higher area-under-the-curve for cystatin C compared with serum Cr (0.933 vs 0.832 p=0.012). At a cut-off level of > 1.2 mg/L, cystatin C before catheterization exhibited 94.7% (95% confidence interval: 0.851-1.015) sensitivity and 84.8% specificity for detecting CIN. Cystatin C levels were higher in CIN patients than in those without CIN, even before catheterization (cystatin C: 1.08 +/- 0.22 vs 1.36 +/- 0.28 mg/L, p=0.007). Urinary L-FABP was increased on days 1 and 2 in patients with moderate renal disease. Conclusion Cystatin C was useful for predicting the occurrence of CIN. Urinary L-FABP was the only marker of transient renotubular damage.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available