4.2 Article

Comparison of Risks and Clinical Predictors of Contrast-Induced Nephropathy in Patients Undergoing Emergency versus Nonemergency Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

期刊

JOURNAL OF INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY
卷 23, 期 5, 页码 451-459

出版社

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8183.2010.00581.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Contrast nephropathy (CIN) increases adverse clinical outcomes. We examine risks and clinical predictors of CIN in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and effectiveness of prophylactic therapy. Methods: A cohort of 8,798 patients who underwent PCI from May 2000 to April 2008 was enrolled. We divided patients into 3 groups. A: STEMI patient undergoing primary PCI; B: UA/NSTEMI patients undergoing early PCI; C: Patients without MI undergoing elective PCI. Pre-PCI saline hydration was given to group B and C if baseline glomerular filtration rate (GFR) < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Results: Mean age was 57.4 years; 35.9% was diabetics. Incidence of CIN were 12.0%, 9.2%, and 4.5%, in group A, B and C (P = < 0.0005). CIN correlated with higher mortality (15.5% vs. 1.3%, P < 0.0005) at 1 month. The important predictors of CIN were age > 70, female gender, anemia, low systolic BP < 100 mmHg, high creatinine kinase level, abnormal LVEF, baseline renal impairment, MI and insulin dependent diabetes. Incidence of CIN in patients with GFR > 60 were 8.2%, 9.2%, and 4.3% in group A, B, and C respectively (p < 0.0005). Incidence of CIN in patients with GFR = 30-60 were 19.1%, 4.5%, and 2.4% (p < 0.0005) and in patients with GFR < 30 were 34.4%, 40.0%, and 25.9% (p = 0.510). Conclusions: Pre-hydration prophylaxis was effective in preventing CIN in mild renal impaired patients (GFR 30-60) but are less so in more severely renal impaired patients (GFR < 30). STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI regardless of baseline GFR were at high risk. Accelerated prophylactic regime can be considered in this cohort. (J Interven Cardiol 2010;23:451-459).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据